Apple's market cap dips below Exxon as stock selloff continues - Page 3

 

Right, that's because you ignored all the others, just like you ignored my post where I said that.

 

Knock yourself out. You know exactly where they were.

 

 

All good points, but gosh I hope AAPL is not a broken company.

Why wouldn't they?  Tablets won't replace laptops anymore than motorcycles will replace cars, or cell cameras replace DSLRs, or synthesizers replace pianos, or e-readers replace books.  They will co-exist, neither will replace the other.  I agree there is still growth left to tablets and it will lower the percentage that depend on traditional computers, but not to a small percentage.  There will be a significant percentage that use a desktop/laptop and many that use a tablet.  That's the way it will be next year and 10 years from now.  

 

This isn't the same as floppy disks, CRTs, PS/2 connectors, and things like horse+buggy.  Those have been replaced because they were replaced by new technologies that were better in every way, to the point where the old technology was completely unnecessary.  Tablets are not better in every way, and do not do everything a laptop/desktop does and better, just as the other examples I mentioned in my previous paragraph don't.  

 

Both of our viewpoints are opinions, but I see no evidence that laptops and desktops will be replaced by tablets to the point where tablets take over as what most people use as the home computer.

Edited by techguy911 - 1/25/13 at 1:44pm

Most likely.

Folks hear things like Apple only sold 1 million whatever due to supply issues and all they care about is the issues. Because they have been trained that issues means defects etc. could just be the thing came out late. Cook was up front that supplies would be touch and go with the new iMacs and that was likely due to not being able to train folks way in advance on the assembly because it would generate major leaks so they were a bit slower with things. Better that than making them rush and half the first groups are crappy and have to be returned. Or at least users would feel that way. And so on

Ok, I saw the reason. They are revolutionary because they have Intel processors. I see that makes complete sense. How did I miss that?

Because its Apple. They are also required to end the national debt, destroy unemployment, end world hunger, cure all cancers etc

 

These aren't even correct comparisons! You want to say H&B to internal combustion (or internal combustion to fully electric) and SLR to DSLR! Your current choices aren't meant to be replacements! Cellphone size cameras are on the same scale as DSLRs, and they will inherently always be worse because the physics is easier to handle in larger scale than smaller when first starting. One isn't meant to be a replacement for the other; it's like how the 11" MacBook Air won't ever replace the 13". It's like how the Mac Mini won't ever replace the Mac Pro. Yes, these all WILL become more powerful/capable/accurate/whatever than their professional companions… but by the time that happens, the professional side will be that much more of the same as well!

 

Ah. HERE you go. And I disagree with both of these, as well. Know why? Because eventually the former will get better than the latter. They're not now (well…), but they can be. Which means they will be.

 

Don't get me wrong; I was raised on a real piano and sax. I appreciate real music far more than the wholly created stuff. But that's because the real stuff still sounds better. It'll sound better for years to come. But it's getting close. 

 

Not saxophones, though. Synth ones of those are pretty bad. 

 

Ten years, eh? Well, if I'm still alive we'll revisit that. 

 

Did anyone see evidence that the mouse+keyboard would replace the keyboard? Or the keyboard+screen would replace the blinkenlight? 

 

What about phones. I wonder if anyone believed that we'd ditch physical keyboards and D-pads for fully touch solutions, particularly so quickly.

 

I'm willing to be the anti-Dvorak here. Touchscreen solutions are the future as much as the Apple ][ and Macintosh were.

 

Right, this is done now. Don't keep chiseling away at this.

I am not asking for them to do all that. I was just wondering if it would be too much to ask for them to put out a new desktop once a decade?

I disagree to a point on this. Yes tablets will replace computers for many users simply because those users don't really need a computer. They email, web shop, Facebook and listen to a little music. But that's it. A tablet is fine for that.

At some point in the future we might reach a kind of singularity moment when a tablet has the same or at least 80% or higher the power and storage of a computer and bandwidth etc issues are much less. And at that point the number of folks that don't need a computer will be even less, perhaps as high as 90%. We'll swing back around to the notion of computers as tools for research and advanced creative endeavor and not really for he 'common man'. But that time is likely several years away.

No. You expect them to totally redesign every time. Desktop, laptop, etc.

New doesn't have to mean total redesign. Updated parts is a new computer.

Well not to you but that's your issue to deal with, not Apple. Because they have released new desktops several times in the last decade.

Let's remember that he called the iMac, a machine configurable to 3.4GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (Turbo Boost up to 3.9GHz), 32GB RAM, with an SSD+HDD@7200RPM 3.1TB Fusion Drive, low-end which is why he's still holding onto his mid-range PPC G4 PowerMac.

 

Ok, I'll give you the e-reader one.  I think traditional books will stick around forever, but it will be by a small minority of people who just can't give them up no matter what.

My trash talk about Apple? 

 

There are few stronger defenders of Apple on this forum than me. Why would I want to talk down the price? The price is already crazy down, and it's not like I have shorted the stock.

 

That's certainly possible.  In my opinion, unlikely.  I would be very sad if that day came.

They have released tiny evolutionary updates. They need to balance evolutionary updates with more revolutionary ones. Going too far with evolutions or revolutions will be a problem. Both types of updates are necessary.

 

Since 2003, there have been 11 Mac Mini updates, 14 iMac updates, and 10 Mac Pro updates.

 

 

And they have given us both types of updates 6 times in the last decade.

 

 

Right! As will traditional instruments, but those for a lot longer.

http://www.macworld.com.au/news/survey-apples-mac-line-up-still-tops-consumer-satisfaction-and-reliability-80440/

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-20108336-17/apple-tops-in-customer-satisfaction-for-8th-year/

 

Macs aren't the problem. The problem is supplier issues on one end, and the rise of the iPad on the other. 

Edited by Quadra 610 - 1/25/13 at 2:24pm

LOL!
The stock can drop all it wants but Apple is still making cash for days. But for those in the know, this BS!
In reality all the stock on Wall street doesn't have a one to one dollar backing it anyway.So who gives a flying f***!

deleted

Edited by MacRulez - 5/16/13 at 12:31pm

100% agree.

Yep, there are always hold outs, I have friends that swear by Papyrus.

If Apple has the attitude that there is nothing wrong with the Mac line then I suspect the market share will stay at 2%.

So it's lightweight and portable but it doesn't have durability and security of large stone tablets. Moses didn't come down from the mountain with sheets of paper or lambskin and the Kaaba isn't a stack of Post-It® notes.

Do you think people argued over paper, skin or stone back in the day? They all gathered in a forum and discussed the pros and cons of each?

Their PC unit share is at 2%? Since when? And why ignore their PC profit share of the market which is over 35%?

Can you guess which is more important to for profit companies? I'll give you a hint: The exact opposite of everything you want to make Apple into to suit your myopic and entitled desires.

Did I say Apple should not make a profit? I don't remember saying that. People aren't just buying Windows machines because they are cheap. It's because they provide several options that Macs don't offer. As long as Apple has this cocky attitude that they always know what is best for every user their market share will continue to stay a complete joke.

 

They do not claim, nor do they expect to provide, anything remotely like this.

1) Your stated desire is that Apple address your specific needs regardless of the size of the addressable market or their desire because you feel, and I quote, "entitled" because you paid $3,000 for software 8 years ago for a PPC Mac.

2) Apple does what it thinks it can do to make the most sustainable profit just like all other for profit companies. You're just upset that Apple's method for achieving this goal no longer line up with your very specific desires for what Apple should offer you. Boo-fucking-hoo!

3) Funny how you call Apple cocky but the ones that desired to fill their machines with crapware and create new models and SKUs for different premium retailers so those retailers could legally say they'll match any price and have it be true are now struggling to turn a profit with their high-volume, unoptimized systems. Apple's the cocky one, alright¡

 

You might have met your match

Yes, it is a cocky attitude. When Steve was asked about the Mac market share he said that people were choosing PCs over Macs only because they were confused. Many people know what they are getting with the Mac and choose not to buy one they are not confused. When Steve first returned to Apple he said that if anything was wrong it is our fault and that we should not place the blame on other people when things go wrong. What happened to that attitude? Later on he would always give that annoying Henry Ford quote about people not knowing that they wanted cars if you were to ask them about it. There is one problem with that analogy Steve, everyone has switched from horses to cars but hardly anyone has switched from PCs to Macs.

 

Source?

 

Regardless of what Jobs said, you can't say this without verifiable proof.

 

I'm not surprised you're "annoyed" by that quote, since it pertains to innovation: a concept to which you're oblivious.

 

I don't suppose you know where the modern PC idea originated.

 

I kind of doubt that.

 

Though I do find it kind of funny when from time to time, certain people who don't always get sarcasm and others who do not know me, accuse me of being some kind of Fandroid troll. That is probably the worst thing that anybody could ever accuse me of being.

You know, the great thing about Apple massive cash hoard is that more than any other company, the plummeting of stock price can only damage them to a certain extent. Their $140 Billion cash reserve is a buffer, in which even if their stock reaches $10 they have more than enough saved up to weather anything and continue operations for a very long time. I'm not saying this has any chance of happening, or that such a drop wouldn't be pretty disastrous- but not as disastrous as it would be if Apple didn't have a such a ridiculous amount of cash, which prevents their fate from being solely dictated by stock price, which in turn is dictated by nothing approaching rationality. 

People are choosing PC's over Macs because

 

1) they are used to the PC

2) software lockin

3) price

 

Apple cant change that overnight, its a generational change. In any case tablets will be 2-3 times the sales of PCs eventually.

Why does AppleInsider allow pik80 to continue posting trollish lies?

Stolen? WTF?

 

I notice that ignorant people often spout out the myth about Apple having "stolen" from Xerox. Apple didn't steal shit from Xerox. Xerox was granted pre-IPO stock from Apple, in exchange for their visits. Being able to purchase pre-IPO shares of AAPL sounds like a pretty damn good deal, especially in retrospect. 

Isn't this where you're also supposed to mention the lawsuit that Xerox lost...

 

[just trying to help  ]

 

So the only time anyone can be given credit for creativity or innovation is if they come up with something while sitting in a cave, having had absolutely no influence from the outside world or anything that currently exists? Jobs/Apple shouldn't be given a shred of credit for taking whatever basic concepts Xerox had and improving it in useability and scope in a way that not even Xerox would have envisioned or imagined? Good luck finding a single original idea anywhere then. Oh, and jobs is right The average consumer ISN'T insightful, creative, intelligent, or knowledgeable enough to come up with the next step in technology- and the next step has never been dictated by consumer demands, but by a small amount of people like Steve Jobs taking huge risks on new ideas and implementations. The fact that you attack SJ over this and make him out to be some sort of monster or condascending asshole because of this basic fact is pretty despicable and telling. Almost everything Apple has ever done had been initially panned by consumers, the media, competitors, etc- right until it became the defacto standard. People are used to what already exist and are generally reluctant to any change. The iPad was met with an inital barrage of negativity- so was the iPod, and so was pretty much every single small and large step forward in the computer space initiated by Apple, such as removing optical disk drives, integrating the battery having all flash memory, etc etc. 

 

You're a troll, and subtelty is not one of your smart suits. Yes, whether something was licensed or stolen matters. Alot. 

Thanks! 

 

From Wiki:

 

Much later, in the midst of the 1988–1994 Apple v. Microsoft lawsuit, in which Apple accused Microsoft of violating its copyright by appropriating the use of the "look and feel" of the Apple Macintosh GUI, Xerox also sued Apple on similar grounds. The Xerox lawsuit was dismissed because the presiding judge dismissed most of Xerox's complaints as being inappropriate for a variety of legal reasons.^[7]

"Oh, and jobs is right The average consumer ISN'T insightful, creative, intelligent, or knowledgeable enough to come up with the next step in technology- and the next step has never been dictated by consumer demands, but by a small amount of people like Steve Jobs taking huge risks on new ideas and implementations."

 

I am insightful enough to know that for an example the Finder is one of the worst examples of file navigation I have ever seen and yet all through out Jobs reign we still rely on that crappy program still to this very day. This is an example of a area where Apple's ideas have terribly failed. I have seen many people provide much better file navigation solutions then Apple has been able to come up with.

Back to the original topic:

I just came across an article discussing the last quarter. I usually look at cash flow and didn't do so this time, but they did. It turns out that in this "horrible" quarter, Apple's cash flow increased by 33% over the previous year. And that's with one fewer week.
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1133281-mr-market-should-be-looking-at-apple-s-cash-flow-rather-than-its-profits