Those margins you're looking at are mostly hardware markup.
What's interesting is that MS made around 2.7bn last quarter off of windows. So given that HP is around 20% of the market that implies that they made about as much off of HPs sales as HP did.
Or to put it another way, Apple made 3.5x per unit what HP&MS made combined.
That story is absurd and 5 years old. Bill gates was very private about his own charity until Ted Turner started calling him out. We eventually learned that gates had already donated more then Turners net worth.
We have no idea how much Jobs does or does not I've to charity. I would guess it is more then 1000x the total giving of everyone who has posted on this thread, but it could just as easily be nothing. Maybe he gives 25% of his salary ( a quarter).
I know some people care. They like to make make investment and purchasing decisions that include personal charity of the CEOs. Most peole don't care.
What any of this has to do with the relationship between MAC and PC profits is beyond me. Bill Gates net worth is still increasing, yes his philanthropy is likely unmatched, but it is silly to say he is giving all his money away. He is still worth roughly 7 times what Jobs is. He still lives in his 30 million dollar house. Some of you make it sound like he handed all his money over to the foundation, packed up his shopping cart and found a comfy freeway overpass...
This only shows how Apple makes their products too expensive.
What price can you put on being able to call support in the US and get through to someone who actually speaks English as a first language. Or to get something expeditiosly repaired or replaced if something does go wrong. Or to have a place where you can take your equipment to have it looked at. Or just to have a place where you can go and talk to an actual person in person about a problem.
Yeah, their equipment is way to expensive. I am sure that is why their sales growth keeps going up even in the middle of a downturn. I could go out and buy that $650 HP but sometimes the old adage "you get what you pay for" actually means something
In the end, it is all about perceived value. We bought these Apple Products because we thought it was a good deal.
Exactly. Love what it's doing for the stock price. I really like the Apple products I have so far (iPod, iPad, iPhone). I need a new PC, and am strongly considering an iMac, but dang I just don't want to spend that much. Have to decide if the premium is worth it...
What any of this has to do with the relationship between MAC and PC profits is beyond me. Bill Gates net worth is still increasing, yes his philanthropy is likely unmatched, but it is silly to say he is giving all his money away. He is still worth roughly 7 times what Jobs is. He still lives in his 30 million dollar house. Some of you make it sound like he handed all his money over to the foundation, packed up his shopping cart and found a comfy freeway overpass...[/QUOTE]
In a recent interview, Bill stated that once he and Melinda passes, he is giving most of his money away. A portion will go to his children in order to get educated but they are basically on their own after that! The rest is going to his foundation or charities!
HP is giving away computers so it can get its profit from selling services, accessories, software, and inks and toners.
Erm, no it's not.
HP have to sell at the price they sell at because otherwise they would get undercut by everyone else. HP are/were in a race to the bottom. They are now at the bottom.
Apple have a very unique selling point in OSX. It is OSX that makes a Mac what it is.
(The excellent designs of cases etc is just a bonus.)
Corporate philanthropy is a contradiction in terms. It is management giving somebody else's money away. If Apple's owners want to donate they can easily do so themselves.
Well, there's this. But, I guess if you want to find reasons to believe that people are evil and greedy, you can prolly find plenty of evidence to support your belief. In general, people tend to find what they're looking for.
Well, there's this. But, I guess if you want to find reasons to believe that people are evil and greedy, you can prolly find plenty of evidence to support your belief. In general, people tend to find what they're looking for.
I never said that people were evil and greedy, I said that corporations cannot be philanthropic. Corporations are not people. People who work for corporations can be philanthropes, and people who own corporations or large stakes can be philanthropes. But corporations cannot be. Clearly you found in my post exactly what you were looking for.
Apple is well known to have very deep pockets and short arms...as is most of Silicon Valley and with very few exceptions.....
So what's your point, that Apple's greedy? That Apple's evil?
As I said to another poster, it's easy to point fingers and criticize another person's behavior?even (or especially!) if you don't really know or understand their behavior. It's much more noble to actually try and practice the kind of behavior you'd like to see in others. I.e., I don't know you, so I don't know if your a generous, ethical person, or if you're a greedy bastard or if you like to torture kittens, so I'm not gonna judge you. But I know myself pretty well, so I try to be the best person I can be. Some days I'm a better person than other days?but I never presume that I'm a better person than anyone else.
Well, there's this. But, I guess if you want to find reasons to believe that people are evil and greedy, you can prolly find plenty of evidence to support your belief. In general, people tend to find what they're looking for.
For all I know all of those donations could have gone to the Church of Scientology which still qualifies for 501c! I wish there were more details.
Actually it means exactly that. The only judgement of whether something is priced fairly is whether a buyer and a seller agree on the transaction. Macs are too expensive for much of the market, but fairly priced for another part of the market.
BMWs are fairly priced, Hondas are fairly priced, scooters are fairly priced. They are all means of conveyance, priced very differently, but all fair.
+1
Nobody held a gun to my head to buy Macs ( currently 8 in the two households). It was a fair price for the quality. Time is money to me -- so no Windows plastic cheepo for me.
You've basically copy-pasted or slightly re-worded the original article in its entirety, strongly encouraging AI readers to land on this site, read the re-blog, hopefully click and ad or two, then done.
Some would say that linking to his site at all is throwing him a bone, but obviously, I don't concur.
I never said that people were evil and greedy, I said that corporations cannot be philanthropic. Corporations are not people. People who work for corporations can be philanthropes, and people who own corporations or large stakes can be philanthropes. But corporations cannot be.
Actually, that's not quite true. But I admit we're kinda talking past each other here, and I also admit that I'm kinda splitting hairs (just for fun though!!)
I think I was responding more to the tone of your comment than anything else. I'm not a fan of cynicism*. By which, I mean, I don't think it's appropriate to make negative assumptions about a company or individual. You said, "If Apple's owners want to donate they can easily do so themselves." To which, I provided a link showing them doing just that.
* Though I do believe that it's very important to call a company to task for bad/harmful behavior.
Also, apparently, if you're a charity in Australia or New Zealand (I couldn't find a similar page for other countries, though I didn't do an exhaustive search?because I'm lazy. ), and you want support from Apple, you can ask for it!
So what's your point, that Apple's greedy? That Apple's evil?
As I said to another poster, it's easy to point fingers and criticize another person's behavior—even (or especially!) if you don't really know or understand their behavior. It's much more noble to actually try and practice the kind of behavior you'd like to see in others. I.e., I don't know you, so I don't know if your a generous, ethical person, or if you're a greedy bastard or if you like to torture kittens, so I'm not gonna judge you. But I know myself pretty well, so I try to be the best person I can be. Some days I'm a better person than other days—but I never presume that I'm a better person than anyone else.
I think I was responding more to the tone of your comment than anything else. I'm not a fan of cynicism*. By which, I mean, I don't think it's appropriate to make negative assumptions about a company or individual. You said, "If Apple's owners want to donate they can easily do so themselves." To which, I provided a link showing them doing just that.
You completely misinterpreted me then. I wasn't seeking to imply that Apple's investors weren't philanthropic, or that its employees weren't - I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to criticize the concept of 'corporate philanthropy' where a corporation does good by giving money.
My point here is that it's equivalent to the two of us walking down the street together and seeing a homeless man. I feel sorry for him, so I pick your pocket, take 20 from your wallet, and give it to the homeless guy.
Giving away money that isn't mine isn't philanthropy, and corporations hold their money in trust for their shareholders, so by definition it isn't theirs to give away.
Comments
Those margins you're looking at are mostly hardware markup.
What's interesting is that MS made around 2.7bn last quarter off of windows. So given that HP is around 20% of the market that implies that they made about as much off of HPs sales as HP did.
Or to put it another way, Apple made 3.5x per unit what HP&MS made combined.
That assumes that the buyer runs Windows. About 30 million of us run Linux on our HP and Dell boxes.
I haven't bought a PC in years, don't they still charge you for windows regardless?
Indeed they can, or not, as they choose:
http://www.wired.com/gadgets/mac/com.../2006/01/70072
That story is absurd and 5 years old. Bill gates was very private about his own charity until Ted Turner started calling him out. We eventually learned that gates had already donated more then Turners net worth.
We have no idea how much Jobs does or does not I've to charity. I would guess it is more then 1000x the total giving of everyone who has posted on this thread, but it could just as easily be nothing. Maybe he gives 25% of his salary ( a quarter).
I know some people care. They like to make make investment and purchasing decisions that include personal charity of the CEOs. Most peole don't care.
What any of this has to do with the relationship between MAC and PC profits is beyond me. Bill Gates net worth is still increasing, yes his philanthropy is likely unmatched, but it is silly to say he is giving all his money away. He is still worth roughly 7 times what Jobs is. He still lives in his 30 million dollar house. Some of you make it sound like he handed all his money over to the foundation, packed up his shopping cart and found a comfy freeway overpass...
This only shows how Apple makes their products too expensive.
What price can you put on being able to call support in the US and get through to someone who actually speaks English as a first language. Or to get something expeditiosly repaired or replaced if something does go wrong. Or to have a place where you can take your equipment to have it looked at. Or just to have a place where you can go and talk to an actual person in person about a problem.
Yeah, their equipment is way to expensive. I am sure that is why their sales growth keeps going up even in the middle of a downturn. I could go out and buy that $650 HP but sometimes the old adage "you get what you pay for" actually means something
As a Stockholder, I am happy.
As a customer, I feel ripped off.
In the end, it is all about perceived value. We bought these Apple Products because we thought it was a good deal.
Exactly. Love what it's doing for the stock price. I really like the Apple products I have so far (iPod, iPad, iPhone). I need a new PC, and am strongly considering an iMac, but dang I just don't want to spend that much. Have to decide if the premium is worth it...
In a recent interview, Bill stated that once he and Melinda passes, he is giving most of his money away. A portion will go to his children in order to get educated but they are basically on their own after that! The rest is going to his foundation or charities!
HP is giving away computers so it can get its profit from selling services, accessories, software, and inks and toners.
Erm, no it's not.
HP have to sell at the price they sell at because otherwise they would get undercut by everyone else. HP are/were in a race to the bottom. They are now at the bottom.
Apple have a very unique selling point in OSX. It is OSX that makes a Mac what it is.
(The excellent designs of cases etc is just a bonus.)
Corporate philanthropy is a contradiction in terms. It is management giving somebody else's money away. If Apple's owners want to donate they can easily do so themselves.
Well, there's this. But, I guess if you want to find reasons to believe that people are evil and greedy, you can prolly find plenty of evidence to support your belief. In general, people tend to find what they're looking for.
Well, there's this. But, I guess if you want to find reasons to believe that people are evil and greedy, you can prolly find plenty of evidence to support your belief. In general, people tend to find what they're looking for.
I never said that people were evil and greedy, I said that corporations cannot be philanthropic. Corporations are not people. People who work for corporations can be philanthropes, and people who own corporations or large stakes can be philanthropes. But corporations cannot be. Clearly you found in my post exactly what you were looking for.
Apple is well known to have very deep pockets and short arms...as is most of Silicon Valley and with very few exceptions.....
So what's your point, that Apple's greedy? That Apple's evil?
As I said to another poster, it's easy to point fingers and criticize another person's behavior?even (or especially!) if you don't really know or understand their behavior. It's much more noble to actually try and practice the kind of behavior you'd like to see in others. I.e., I don't know you, so I don't know if your a generous, ethical person, or if you're a greedy bastard or if you like to torture kittens, so I'm not gonna judge you. But I know myself pretty well, so I try to be the best person I can be. Some days I'm a better person than other days?but I never presume that I'm a better person than anyone else.
Well, there's this. But, I guess if you want to find reasons to believe that people are evil and greedy, you can prolly find plenty of evidence to support your belief. In general, people tend to find what they're looking for.
For all I know all of those donations could have gone to the Church of Scientology which still qualifies for 501c! I wish there were more details.
Actually it means exactly that. The only judgement of whether something is priced fairly is whether a buyer and a seller agree on the transaction. Macs are too expensive for much of the market, but fairly priced for another part of the market.
BMWs are fairly priced, Hondas are fairly priced, scooters are fairly priced. They are all means of conveyance, priced very differently, but all fair.
+1
Nobody held a gun to my head to buy Macs ( currently 8 in the two households). It was a fair price for the quality. Time is money to me -- so no Windows plastic cheepo for me.
Republishing online work without consent and wrapping it in ads is often called "feed scraping."...
http://twitter.com/#!/hotdogsladies/status/1465570303
I quote Mr. Mann because I think this post crossed a line.
Gruber got it right: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/06/24/richman. The brevity of his quote intends to pique a reader's interest enough to read the original story at Richman's site.
You've basically copy-pasted or slightly re-worded the original article in its entirety, strongly encouraging AI readers to land on this site, read the re-blog, hopefully click and ad or two, then done.
Some would say that linking to his site at all is throwing him a bone, but obviously, I don't concur.
I never said that people were evil and greedy, I said that corporations cannot be philanthropic. Corporations are not people. People who work for corporations can be philanthropes, and people who own corporations or large stakes can be philanthropes. But corporations cannot be.
Actually, that's not quite true. But I admit we're kinda talking past each other here, and I also admit that I'm kinda splitting hairs (just for fun though!!)
I think I was responding more to the tone of your comment than anything else. I'm not a fan of cynicism*. By which, I mean, I don't think it's appropriate to make negative assumptions about a company or individual. You said, "If Apple's owners want to donate they can easily do so themselves." To which, I provided a link showing them doing just that.
* Though I do believe that it's very important to call a company to task for bad/harmful behavior.
Also, apparently, if you're a charity in Australia or New Zealand (I couldn't find a similar page for other countries, though I didn't do an exhaustive search?because I'm lazy.
So what's your point, that Apple's greedy? That Apple's evil?
As I said to another poster, it's easy to point fingers and criticize another person's behavior—even (or especially!) if you don't really know or understand their behavior. It's much more noble to actually try and practice the kind of behavior you'd like to see in others. I.e., I don't know you, so I don't know if your a generous, ethical person, or if you're a greedy bastard or if you like to torture kittens, so I'm not gonna judge you. But I know myself pretty well, so I try to be the best person I can be. Some days I'm a better person than other days—but I never presume that I'm a better person than anyone else.
http://www.businessinsider.com/10-un...ve-jobs-2011-2
No judgements!!
I think I was responding more to the tone of your comment than anything else. I'm not a fan of cynicism*. By which, I mean, I don't think it's appropriate to make negative assumptions about a company or individual. You said, "If Apple's owners want to donate they can easily do so themselves." To which, I provided a link showing them doing just that.
You completely misinterpreted me then. I wasn't seeking to imply that Apple's investors weren't philanthropic, or that its employees weren't - I was trying, apparently unsuccessfully, to criticize the concept of 'corporate philanthropy' where a corporation does good by giving money.
My point here is that it's equivalent to the two of us walking down the street together and seeing a homeless man. I feel sorry for him, so I pick your pocket, take 20 from your wallet, and give it to the homeless guy.
Giving away money that isn't mine isn't philanthropy, and corporations hold their money in trust for their shareholders, so by definition it isn't theirs to give away.