Quote :

"Apple Deposes Microsoft to Become World's Biggest Tech Company"

more like biggest markup company




http://www.dailytech.com/Apple+Deposes+Microsoft+to+Become+Worlds+Biggest+Tech+Company/article18532.htm

Quote :

"Apple has gone from rebel outsider to corporate shark in no time at all Apple has at least brief briefly become the world's largest tech company in terms of market cap. That spot has been held for over a decade by Microsoft, makers of the Windows operating system. In trading Monday, Apple Inc.'s shares slipped $1.11 to close at $244.11, making its market cap about $222 billion. Microsoft's shares dipped even more, falling to $1.06, or 4.1 percent, to close at $25.01, for market cap of about $219 billion. Market cap is the dollar value of a company's outstanding shares, and is commonly used to compare companies in terms of size. While yesterday's figures may not indicate that Apple has truly passed Microsoft to become the world's largest tech firm, they do indicate that it is on the verge of doing so. And that revelation alone is somewhat amazing, considering the veteran brand was on the verge of bankruptcy when Steven P. Jobs returned to the company in 1997 to serve as CEO. Apple has long thrived on a rebel-outsider image, but when it comes to business it has long shown itself to be as cold and calculating as Microsoft, if not a bit more ruthless. Under Jobs guidance, Apple released several tremendously successful flagship products -- the iPod, the iTunes Music Store, the iTunes App Store, the iPhone, and the iPad. All of these products, with the exception of the iPhone, have gained a dominant position in the market. Many companies could never dream of having a monopoly in one market, let alone four, but that is what Apple has achieved through a mix of brilliance and ruthlessness. Make no mistake, Apple is not the tech world outsider; rather it's an elitist of the highest order. A major part of Apple's climb has been its large profit margins. While Microsoft makes a small profit on each copy of Windows sold, Apple often pockets from $50 to $500 (at least) per iDevice sold. No tech company has been able to convince customers to swallow massive profit margins quite like Apple. A major reason why Apple has been able to do so boils down to two factors. The first is psychological -- brand image. Even as the elderly Apple was beginning to become one of the world's most powerful companies, it portrayed itself as the cool young rebel firm in ads such as the "Get a Mac" series that ran from 2006 to 2009. In doing so, it won over a lot of young customers who are less concerned with price than getting what is considered the "cool" product at any given time. A second key factor is packaging. While Apple products have held no key advantage over competitors, and often lack features their competitors had (for example, iPods long had no FM tuner -- until very recently), they had unparalleled packaging. The ability to pack hardware into a slick slender package has led to overheating issues at times, but it was undeniably one of the two factors that made Apple's sales even hotter. Apple will likely reign at the top for some time thank to its dominant position in several markets. However, threats to its empire loom. Android is beating up on the iPhone in U.S. market share and recently passed it in sales. Apple's decision to stick with just one U.S. carrier and one phone model threatens to cause it to fall quickly into Google's rear view mirror, much as PC sales left Macs behind in the 90s. And its growing size has prompted increased scrutiny from antitrust regulators in the EU and U.S. While Apple has yet to be formerly investigated for any wrongdoing, there are at least four antitrust inquiries into Apple in the U.S. (inquiries are the precursor to a full-fledged investigation). Also, there's the problem of Apple's thirst for control. Apple has long insisted that it knows what its customers want better than they do. Apple's recent decisions with the iPhone and iPad -- such as banning Flash -- have upset both developers and consumers alike. Finally, there's the problem of Apple's polarizing, yet brilliant CEO Steve Jobs. Some analysts believe that Apple will survive and thrive after Jobs, but that's much more questionable than say in the case of Microsoft and Bill Gates. Perhaps no company in modern history has been more driven by one man than Apple. Jobs' focus and demand for absolute obedience borders on tyranny and has driven many engineers away; yet at the same time, it has allowed his company to launch products like the iPad that critics said would never happen. Without Jobs, Apple seems unlikely to be able to grow its business the same way. And without truly new products Apple will still remain powerful -- but it won't expand as fast. For now Apple can enjoy the news of its achievement, though. Its future may be uncertain, but in the present it's making a whole lot of money."

So by charging god awful prices and receiving huge profits makes you a market leader? Rather than a hugely inflated Market cap why not look at percentage of tech industry products.

Take this example, Banana Republic has a larger market cap than Old Navy; however Old Navy has a higher percentage of people actually wearing the clothes.


Since when did charging outlandish prices receive praise?

5/27/2010 10:58:51 AM

Apple is massively overpriced but their stock price wont correct until jobs dies. Until then aint nothing wrong with makin a profit.

5/27/2010 11:00:11 AM

also:



Apple, Inc.
Revenue - $42.91 billion
Operating income - $11.74 billion
Total assets - $47.50 billion
Total equity - $31.64 billion

Microsoft
Revenue - $58.437 billion
Operating income - $20.363 billion
Total assets - $77.888 billion
Total equity - $39.558 billion

HP:
Revenue US$ 114.552 billion (2009)
Operating income US$ 10.136 billion (2009)
Total assets US$ 52.539 billion (2009)
Total equity US$ 38.942 billion (2009)

IBM:
Revenue US$ 95.757 billion (2009)
Operating income US$ 17.012 billion (2009)
Total assets US$ 109.023 billion (2009)
Total equity US$ 22.637 billion (2009)

Google:
Revenue US$23.651 billion (2009)
Operating income US$8.312 billion (2009)
Total assets US$40.497 billion (2009)
Total equity US$36.004 billion (2009)




http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/22/chart-where-apple-gets-its-revenue/

Quote :

"Apple's iPhone business, which didn't exist three years ago, now represents a whopping 40% of the company's revenue, and has been the company's biggest revenue generator for three quarters in a row. During the March quarter, iPhone revenue grew 124% year-over-year to $5.4 billion, or 40% of Apple's $13.5 billion in total revenue. Because of high profit margins on the iPhone, it's likely Apple's biggest profit contributor, too. (But that's another chart.) Apple's second-biggest business is its Mac computer division, which grew 27% year-over-year in the March quarter to $3.8 billion, or 28% of Apple's overall sales. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-in-case-you-had-any-doubts-about-where-apples-revenue-comes-from-2010-4#ixzz0p8tg51rX "

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:04 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 11:00:57 AM

Quote :

"receiving huge profits makes you a market leader?"

as long as those profits are higher than anyone else's, sure

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:05 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 11:03:36 AM

Quote :

"So by charging god awful prices and receiving huge profits makes you a market leader? Rather than a hugely inflated Market cap why not look at percentage of tech industry products. Take this example, Banana Republic has a larger market cap than Old Navy; however Old Navy has a higher percentage of people actually wearing the clothes. Since when did charging outlandish prices receive praise?"

What are you smoking, retard? What is so 'outlandish' about apple pricing other than say...their computers?


And last I checked their computers aren't their flagship product that makes them so profitable.

Also, are you saying capitalism sucks, is that the point you are trying to make?

5/27/2010 11:06:13 AM

Can we just make an official BlackDog dailytech.com news thread already

5/27/2010 11:06:54 AM

uh no, it's about percentage of tech industry sold

5/27/2010 11:06:55 AM

You're an idiot

5/27/2010 11:12:13 AM

oh man

5/27/2010 11:13:18 AM

I have to say that was a very well written article, I agree 100%

Quote :

"What is so 'outlandish' about apple pricing other than say...their computers?"

Srsly? Dude, it's WELL publicized the profit margins Apple makes on these things, particularly the iPad and iPhone

iPhone is near 60% profit (next highest is 43%)
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/02/what-doth-it-profit-an-iphone/

iPad is near 42-54% profit (and it just came out)
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9150045/Apple_makes_208_on_each_499_iPad

iPod Touch near 92% profit
http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2007/12/ipod-touch-breakdown-reveals-sky-high-margins-once-again.ars

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:21 AM. Reason : /]

5/27/2010 11:13:49 AM

I have never read a more biased one sided article before...

Also...

Quote :

"considering the veteran brand was on the verge of bankruptcy when Steven P. Jobs returned to the company in 1997 to serve as CEO."

How is one on the verge of bankruptcy with $1.2 billion in the bank? The author just sounds like an Anti-Apple fanboy who doesn't do much fact checking. lol


^Spending 99-299 on an iPhone is expensive now? So I guess there are no non-expensive smart phones out there. *shrug*

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 11:17:10 AM

because you drink the kool-aid

5/27/2010 11:21:41 AM

golovko doesnt drink the koolaid, he is the koolaid man

5/27/2010 11:24:29 AM

^^Of all people, you are the last to say someone drinks the kool-aid, which I don't. I do, however, appreciate a good product when I see one.


^If its not Microsoft, IE, or silverlight its not worth discussing.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:24 AM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 11:24:31 AM

Not to troll

but have you ever not responded to a post about Apple, and do any of those responses not contain 'lol'

?

5/27/2010 11:29:31 AM

dble

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:31 AM. Reason : post]

5/27/2010 11:30:42 AM

Not to troll back

But yes, I do in fact not respond to every Apple post.

lol

5/27/2010 11:31:06 AM

why am i the last person? you're so full of it, in every discussion we've had i've been the objective one bringing facts to the table while you continue to troll with insults and assumptions.

perfect example:

Quote :

"How is one on the verge of bankruptcy with $1.2 billion in the bank? The author just sounds like an Anti-Apple fanboy who doesn't do much fact checking. lol"

fact-checking, lol. obviously you didn't do yours, with the stock price at a low and Microsoft investing 150 million dollars into Apple, i can't see how you think that it wasn't severely financially crippled, the board members are even on record saying it was near bankruptcy. disputing this well-known event is ludicrous and just makes you look plane foolish.

$1.2B in the bank you say? They LOST $1B in net profits in 1997.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Apple_Inc.#Financial_history

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:52 AM. Reason : ,]

5/27/2010 11:49:36 AM

Sony/PS3
Anti-Apple
Google

Quote :

"fact-checking, lol. obviously you didn't do yours, with the stock price at a low and Microsoft investing 150 million dollars into Apple, i can't see how you think that it wasn't severely financially crippled, the board members are even on record saying it was near bankruptcy. disputing this well-known event is ludicrous and just makes you look plane foolish. $1.2B in the bank you say? They LOST $1B in net profits in 1997."

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/RD/RDM.Tech.Q1.07/592FE887-5CA1-4F30-BD62-407362B533B9.html

read. I know you can.

Quote :

"Others have suggested Apple was just out of money and desperately needed Microsoft's help, ignoring the fact that Apple had just reported holding $1.2 billion in cash. Another $0.15 billion wasn't going to make any significant difference in the survival of the company."

Ignoring: Something you do quite well with the facts.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:59 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 12:00 PM. Reason : forgot the lol.]

5/27/2010 11:58:22 AM

Quote :

"golovko doesnt drink the koolaid, he is the koolaid man"

haha

5/27/2010 12:11:55 PM

Microsoft didn't save Apple from bankruptcy, Jobs did.

That said, 1997 was disasterous for Apple to the point where 1.2 billion in the bank or not, if they didn't get things turned around fast, they were on the fast track to bankruptcy. According to Prospero's link, they'd lost 1.8B in 1996 and 1997 combined. 1.2B wasn't saving them.

5/27/2010 12:20:54 PM

Oh I'm not saying they weren't in trouble or headed to bankruptcy. But to say they were in fact bankrupt with 1.2 billion in cash is silly. Even for an apple hater like prosper it's a stretch. Or even to say that 150 million saved them.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 12:31 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 12:30:16 PM

Quote :

"A major reason why Apple has been able to do so boils down to two factors. The first is psychological -- brand image. .... A second key factor is packaging. While Apple products have held no key advantage over competitors, and often lack features their competitors had"

Leaving aside the composition fail (don't people have editors these days?), is it really so hard for people to imagine that the reason Apple is successful is because they make easy (easier) to use products that do what they're supposed to do with as little fuss as possible? The tech industry has fucked themselves over by listening to years of geeks shrieking about how "easy to use" means "toy".

I mean, here we are in the year 2010 and my fucking linux laptop can't figure out that it isn't in the same place it was when I put it to sleep and that it needs to connect to a different wireless network without either a) Me manually telling it to switch networks or b) it sitting and trying to connect to the old network for 5 minutes before giving up and telling me it lost the network connection and then searching for new networks in the area. Meanwhile, my mac has been able to do that since at least 2002, and the iPhone has since it first came out.

Or how about the fact that you still can't uninstall an application on a windows PC by just dragging the damn thing to the trash?

Yes, these are all little things, but these little things add up over time, and the end result is that people are discovering it might just be worth paying a little bit more to not have to spend a hour on the phone with a guy in India who doesn't understand what your problem it.

5/27/2010 1:53:02 PM

Well, you said it yourself:

Quote :

"linux"

Also the whole "oh, just drag it to the trash bin" might be great in your eyes, but it really sucks when you try to downgrade a piece of software and you can't because somewhere in a Receipts folder that no one tells you about is a record saying that you installed a newer version and blocks the installation (I'm looking at you, VLC).

Also, I'll never understand how just dragging a program to the trash can makes more sense than using a function called "Add/Remove Programs", but that's a whole other story.

5/27/2010 2:02:27 PM

^^ ding ding ding

Read The Complexity Avalanche, which talks about this very issue, and how it's killing technology adoption.

Apple may be the only tech company who's consistently able to execute on wrapping technology in a package that anyone can use.

Most of y'all who hate apple do so because

"wah it's trendy and therefore I must hate it"

or

"I want more nerd knobs"

but realistically people posting in here are a shitty representative of the overall consumer base.


Is their market cap overvalued? Hell yes. But most of the anti-apple arguments in here are based on some sort of emotional distaste for a company that has nothing to do with anything that matters.



[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 2:06 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 2:05:16 PM

Quote :

"Also, I'll never understand how just dragging a program to the trash can makes more sense than using a function called "Add/Remove Programs", but that's a whole other story."

Add/Remove Programs is slow as hell. The dragging to the trash bin is easy and quick but I use AppCleaner to make sure and get any Application Support files that belong to it. Which is leaps and bounds easier, faster, and better than Add/Remove Programs in windows.

It doesn't have to sit there for 10 minutes thinking about uninstalling a program. But the root of that problem is with the installation process. With a mac, download an App, unzip it, drag it to your applications folder (or wherever) and you're done. With the exception of some more complex apps (like Adobe CS) you have to go through the whole 'next->next->next' questionnaire to install it.

^spot on.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 2:14 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 2:14:37 PM

Quote :

"a shitty representative of the overall consumer base."

pretty much anyone discussing the topic in the first place falls into this category.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 2:16 PM. Reason : *]

5/27/2010 2:16:09 PM

Quote :

"Add/Remove Programs is slow as hell."

It did get a lot faster in Win7, fwiw.

I think they should just use an installer hook of some sort: when an installer places an item in the start menu, give us a context menu entry to uninstall it.

5/27/2010 2:24:43 PM

Purchasing an Apple product involves swallow swallowing? WHO KNEW?

5/27/2010 2:30:41 PM

the problem is microsoft let whoever wanted to write their own installers. Long term they should restrict installation to the windows installer and have it handle registry and file security.

All settings belong in the registry, all documents belong in documents, and the only thing that goes in program files is the binaries. Then when you want to move shit around its easy as hell to port it from machine to machine cause everythings in the same place. Its also easy to manage in the enterprise because everyone stores settings and documents the same way.

It will probably eventually get there but alot of old shit will break when it happens.

5/27/2010 2:31:44 PM

^I am for this on windows.

5/27/2010 2:39:28 PM

^ditto

I'm not anti-Apple, I just don't ignore the facts, whichever side they fall on. Apple is widely successful and for many reasons mentioned here, it's in part why they CAN get away with higher profit margins, this is no different than any other industry. In my industry it's the same way, the higher quality, higher design, holistic approach, aka "thought leadership" in whichever industry your in can typically charge more than the competition because they are the best at what they do, which is Apple, in this case. Whether they're worth the extra money is subjective, but to ignore that they do have the highest profit margin (objective) is asinine.

Face it, everyone is different and have different levels of understanding when it comes to technology. It's safe to say a majority of people aren't tech-savvy. Sure they can use a computer but prefer something that's easy to use. And then there are some people prefer the exact opposite, they have a higher level of understanding and prefer choice and options, even if it's not as simple or easy to use. It doesn't have to be either/or, unfortunately fanboi's on both sides just encourage the either/or mentality. I think more and more people are understanding that you can have the best of both worlds. I own Apple products & PC products and am quite pleased because I know I've got the products that fit my needs best.

And Golovko, no one said Apple was bankrupt. "Near" and "are" are two different words. And yes, Steve Jobs turned it all around. I actually prefer Samsung over Sony, no I don't own a PS3, and I'm not anti-Apple (although I may question some of their actions, I do not hate), and yes I use Google products.

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:36 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:30:16 PM

^You seem to think so. But nice back track there. At least we're on the same page finally.

Also, with the exception of their computers. Their products aren't insanely expensive. Sure they have high margins (good for the company and in the long run the consumer) but that doesn't mean their products aren't priced right. Something is over priced if its more than what the majority of people are willing to pay for it. Which the iPod/iPhone/iPad market has shown that its not priced too high as some of you like to think. Sure any product I buy i'd like it to be cheaper, who wouldn't? But to say its retarded that its priced at what it is, is just silly and goes against capitalism.

Also, the more profitable Apple (or any tech company) the more spending money they have to sink back into R&D of future products.

The only time I care that I'm paying X when it only costs Y to make is cables.

Quote :

"I'm not anti-Apple"

Hilarious! Are you here all week?


[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 3:42 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 3:40:57 PM

would you say you're laughing out loud?

5/27/2010 3:49:54 PM

Not to troll

?

5/27/2010 3:53:52 PM

forgive me, yes

5/27/2010 4:00:05 PM

Quote :

"Their products aren't insanely expensive."

When their products cost twice* what a comparable product costs, then yes, they are. But, that doesn't mean people don't buy them, and it doesn't mean they are wrong to charge more.

Expensive cars are expensive, they sell less of them, and have higher margins. They make money. Just don't deny that Apple is expensive



*Note: Apple products used to even be twice what they cost now, so they have come down in price and maybe the "insanely" moniker doesn't apply anymore.

5/27/2010 4:18:16 PM

Quote :

"Just don't deny that Apple is expensive"

Yes, it is expensive. But most luxuries are which is what I consider iDevices and competitor devices. Even computers are really a luxury to a certain degree.

When you say competitor devices are much cheaper, which devices do you speak of? Because I already stated that their computers ARE a lot more expensive than their competitors.

As for iPods...the Zune is similarly priced which is the closest thing to a competing device that I can think of.
iPad? None really exist atm.
iPhone? Android/Blackberry/Windows Mobile phones are all priced similarly as they are all subsidized products. Purchasing an iPhone without the discount is still priced similar to competitor products. Have you ever tried purchasing a some what decent Sony Ericsson phone without the subsidized discount?


Your car analogy works with Apple Computers but not so much with their iDevices.


*I'm sure you can find a $20 mp3 player or phone but now we're not talking comparable device*

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:25 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 4:24:48 PM

Quote :

"*Note: Apple products used to even be twice what they cost now, so they have come down in price and maybe the "insanely" moniker doesn't apply anymore."

It's partly because they finally came to their senses are started putting Intel processors into their computers rather than whatever PowerPC processor that IBM was cooking up. Back during the PPC days, people would back up cost talking about how great they were compared to the Intel/AMD chips of the same generation and you can always scam people into paying more for unique hardware (regardless of how inferior it was).

Now that their computers are advertising the same video cards and processors as their PC competitors, they really had no choice but to drop prices down to "overpriced, but not in their own world".

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 4:31 PM. Reason : As opposed to "time to get a second mortgage" expensive.]

5/27/2010 4:30:35 PM

Quote :

"Also the whole "oh, just drag it to the trash bin" might be great in your eyes, but it really sucks when you try to downgrade a piece of software and you can't because somewhere in a Receipts folder that no one tells you about is a record saying that you installed a newer version and blocks the installation (I'm looking at you, VLC). "

Well, that problem comes from the other hell of software which is installation. Drag and drop installation is the way to go, and the fact that some mac programs still insist on using a damn installer is something I really wish would change.

Quote :

"Also, I'll never understand how just dragging a program to the trash can makes more sense than using a function called "Add/Remove Programs", but that's a whole other story."

Simple. Ever have "Add/Remove Programs" ask your if you're sure you want to delete a program of file because other programs may or may not be using it but the computer doesn't know if they are? Most users don't know either, but they still have to decide. Or even worse if you're using linux, you go to remove a program or package and it wants to uninstall 30 other programs because they're listed as dependencies (why do I need open-jdk-docs for netbeans when I already have sun-java? And why can't I uninstall open-jdk-docs without uninstalling netbeans?)

Also, "Add/Remove Programs" violates the mechanic for adding anything else to your computer from disk or the internet. Everything else to add or remove from the computer goes through drag and drop, but for some reason we need a magical Add/Remove program to handle programs. And I do realize that there are reasons to have shared libraries and resources and installers handle putting them in those places, but there has to be a better way of dealing with that, and since disk space is cheap these days, I'd rather the program bundle its dependencies than worry that I might fuck some other program up by uninstalling the first program.

5/27/2010 6:51:51 PM

I remember when they were beleaguered, Dell told them to close up shop and return money to the shareholders, MS supposedly owned them, all they could do was make colored plastic, etc.

Gotta be one of the greatest comebacks in business.

If you think their products are expensive, you can get in on the gravy train by buying stock. Any company that is flourishing with high margins is one you want to get in on. The fact that a large portion of the US can afford their products says that they are not overpriced. They are only over priced if you assign no value to design, customer service, aesthetics, user experience, etc. Cheapskate nerds tend to do this. The vast majority of normal people don't

P.S. Get rid of the registry. It's a security and usability nightmare

[Edited on May 27, 2010 at 11:05 PM. Reason : .]

5/27/2010 10:52:38 PM

I guess you missed this post:

Quote :

" Apple, Inc. Revenue - $42.91 billion Operating income - $11.74 billion Total assets - $47.50 billion Total equity - $31.64 billion Microsoft Revenue - $58.437 billion Operating income - $20.363 billion Total assets - $77.888 billion Total equity - $39.558 billion HP: Revenue US$ 114.552 billion (2009) Operating income US$ 10.136 billion (2009) Total assets US$ 52.539 billion (2009) Total equity US$ 38.942 billion (2009) IBM: Revenue US$ 95.757 billion (2009) Operating income US$ 17.012 billion (2009) Total assets US$ 109.023 billion (2009) Total equity US$ 22.637 billion (2009) Google: Revenue US$23.651 billion (2009) Operating income US$8.312 billion (2009) Total assets US$40.497 billion (2009) Total equity US$36.004 billion (2009) http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/04/22/chart-where-apple-gets-its-revenue/ [quote]Apple's iPhone business, which didn't exist three years ago, now represents a whopping 40% of the company's revenue, and has been the company's biggest revenue generator for three quarters in a row. During the March quarter, iPhone revenue grew 124% year-over-year to $5.4 billion, or 40% of Apple's $13.5 billion in total revenue. Because of high profit margins on the iPhone, it's likely Apple's biggest profit contributor, too. (But that's another chart.) Apple's second-biggest business is its Mac computer division, which grew 27% year-over-year in the March quarter to $3.8 billion, or 28% of Apple's overall sales. Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/chart-of-the-day-in-case-you-had-any-doubts-about-where-apples-revenue-comes-from-2010-4#ixzz0p8tg51rX "

[/quote]

5/27/2010 11:06:26 PM

Quote :

"Take this example, Banana Republic has a larger market cap than Old Navy; however Old Navy has a higher percentage of people actually wearing the clothes."

p.s. banana republic and old navy are owned by the gap

5/28/2010 1:55:43 AM

1337 b4k4, Prospero and Stein, nice to see some level headed perspectives in here. I think tech oriented people are oblivious to some design flaws to the average end user of a product. That is fine for personal taste or opinions of an entity, however an investor has to look at things from a detached and objective perspective.

Of all the companies I've invested in, Apple's continually made me the most nervous but they've also had very high returns.

I think stock price tends to be biased towards the short term future growth potential of a company so arguing if the market cap of a company is "worth it" seems an odd exercise.
Carry on.

5/28/2010 3:59:22 AM

off topic but I think

Quote :

"the problem is microsoft let whoever wanted to write their own installers. Long term they should restrict installation to the windows installer and have it handle registry and file security. All settings belong in the registry, all documents belong in documents, and the only thing that goes in program files is the binaries. Then when you want to move shit around its easy as hell to port it from machine to machine cause everythings in the same place. Its also easy to manage in the enterprise because everyone stores settings and documents the same way. It will probably eventually get there but alot of old shit will break when it happens."

is pretty short sighted.

the real key is to remove the install process altogether, save shortcut placement. applications should be able to run in a stand alone fashion, directly on top of a hypervisor, not a particular OS. wrap the current gen OS libraries/binaries that your particular app needs around your personal binary and package your app as a JeOS VM. Then it's secure and has no way to hose up your host OS.

5/28/2010 7:55:10 AM

^massive application distributions ftl

5/28/2010 8:39:15 AM

Quote :

"If you think their products are expensive, you can get in on the gravy train by buying stock. Any company that is flourishing with high margins is one you want to get in on. The fact that a large portion of the US can afford their products says that they are not overpriced. They are only over priced if you assign no value to design, customer service, aesthetics, user experience, etc. Cheapskate nerds tend to do this. The vast majority of normal people don't"

I don't think anyone was arguing that expensive meant overpriced. We all recognize the eye-pleasing design of Apple hardware.

5/28/2010 8:40:15 AM

yea every girl on the planet likes them, guys however have more broaden views.

I would puke if I had to look at an Apple design every day. I'd much rather see this:

5/28/2010 1:24:38 PM

^yep, that's the type of post that highlights the emotional distaste I was referring to.

It's like you don't even try to make any intelligent points.

5/28/2010 1:42:47 PM

Quote :

"the real key is to remove the install process altogether, save shortcut placement. applications should be able to run in a stand alone fashion, directly on top of a hypervisor, not a particular OS. wrap the current gen OS libraries/binaries that your particular app needs around your personal binary and package your app as a JeOS VM. Then it's secure and has no way to hose up your host OS."

the demand for virtualized applications is a direct result of the annoyance of doing installs for arcane and poorly written software. Anything that properly uses the windows installer and the registry for configuration can be pushed out and managed entirely by AD. Something that requires a custom installer, shits retarded config files everywhere, stores libraries all over the place, and generally makes a mess is much easier to virtualize than to mass install. Fix that problem by forcing everyone to comply to your application spec and theres no longer a need for virtualization.

The cheapest thin clients are just as expensive as a much more powerful desktop and the desktops dont require a massive server farm for virtualization.

5/28/2010 2:19:06 PM