A 4 billion revenue company should have an valuation between 4 billion to 16 depending on growth and profit.
Facebook wants 8 times as much.
Just like Pandora, NetFlix and Amazon.
All companies that have huge market share/grows fast and make no money.
Somehow WallStreet forgets the .com bubble. Growth that cost profit is stupid,still they reward Amazon with a 10 times higher valuation then Apple since Amazon releases a tablet that looses money for them.
I think many of you are underestimating the value of Facebook just because they don't release shiny products...
There are literary millions upon millions of people around the globe that use facebook for countless hours everyday of the week.
No, they don't check out apple forums, tech news websites, reddit, gmail, use project management software, the cloud etc... no... these people use a huge percentage of their internet time on Facebook. This alone is worth vast sums of money, but there is more to it than that.
The greatest things of value on earth (and ready to exploit) are not gadgets or tech, but the basic fundamentals of life - food, sex and communication. And here we have this single company that pretty much dominate the third point.
So you're wanting to know what an article has to do with Apple if you remove everything about Apple from the article. What I want to know is why you think your question makes any sense.
His question makes perfect sense. This not Apple news in any way whatsoever.
Facebook is very popular with teens, pre-teens and degenerates. I'm certain their news sites will cover this adequately.
Maybe Apple should spend the $100 billion to buy FB for the next leg of growth LOL.
Though sarcastic, this maybe closer to the truth then you think. Though more about integration then growth. I would absolutely expect Apple to be (at least) a major FB shareholder if this IPO goes through.
His question makes perfect sense. This not Apple news in any way whatsoever.
Facebook is very popular with teens, pre-teens and degenerates. I'm certain their news sites will cover this adequately.
1) Is your misplaced bias only against Facebook or are you against AI also reporting on other partners an competitors of Apple?
2) "...teens, pre-teens, and degenerates...", eh?! you're worse than the people in AnandTech that bitch about that site reporting on Apple products because Apple only makes "toys" not real smartphones or PCs.
3) If the subject of the article doesn't interest you you shouldn't read past the title. Taking the time to bitch n the article's forum thread about the article not appealing to you just makes you sound like an ass.
A 4 billion revenue company should have an valuation between 4 billion to 16 depending on growth and profit.
Facebook wants 8 times as much.
Just like Pandora, NetFlix and Amazon.
All companies that have huge market share/grows fast and make no money.
Somehow WallStreet forgets the .com bubble. Growth that cost profit is stupid,still they reward Amazon with a 10 times higher valuation then Apple since Amazon releases a tablet that looses money for them.
Keep away from Facebook at that valuation.
Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.
There is absolutely no simple formula that allows you to reach the bolded conclusion.
For example, Kodak's revenues last year were around $7,000 million. Their market cap is under $100 M. OTOH, a company earning enormous profits with strong share growth could easily be worth 10 times revenues - or more.
I agree that AMZN is grossly overvalued, but not because of your formula. In fact, AMZN is trading for about 2.5 to 3 times revenues - so it's well within the range that you consider to be OK. The problem with AMZN's share price is that it's 100 times earnings (earnings tend to be low on distribution businesses). Using your simple formula, AMZN is priced just about right.
Just like anything else, a company is worth what someone will pay for it. That decision is based on profitability, growth, revenues, assets, market position, and many, many other factors. And each of those factors is considered both historically and for the future. Using a simple "1 to 4 times revenues" ratio is extremely bad advice.
So you're wanting to know what an article has to do with Apple if you remove everything about Apple from the article. What I want to know is why you think your question makes any sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Maybe we can use those same guidelines and remove Apple's name from any unpleasant Apple news... Poof! No longer applies to Apple.
So, I guess by your superior and smart-as* logic... AppleInsider should post all news from every company who has any relation to Apple. All Google news, every company who makes 3rd party iPhone - iPad - Mac accessories (every case and speaker maker, etc.), when Samsung or someone launches a new product or has some new stock news, all Twitter news, every company CEO who liked or knew Steve Jobs should have their company news posted here, all Dell, MS and HP news even if it has no relation to Apple. Microsoft, EA Sports and numerous others have news every day, they should put all that here too, they have a connection to Apple. I got it now... any slight connection to Apple validates their story going here, got'cha.
If not, then tell me how this belong here... Zucker liked Jobs and Apple used Ping in place of Facebook... got'cha, that's certainly enough. Oh and forgive me for having an opinion outside of yours, goodness forbid.
That's it. The product they produce is, well, you.
That's what most people don't see. The users of Facebook, Google, etc. aren't the customers, they're the product. Our interests, searches, or favorites are all sold to companies that pay Facebook or Google for that information. Click that you like Amazon on Facebook, suddenly you see a lot of Amazon ads on your Facebook page. Search for car parts on Google, Napa ads appear in your Google search results.
Facebook's IPO is selling stock in something you already own: you.
That's it. The product they produce is, well, you.
Facebook has 800 million members. Let's round up to 1 billion to make the math simple and account for growth. Let's also ignore the growth ceiling that would be every man, women and child on this planet minus the ones the too young, too old, too sick, or too poor to be a Facebook customer. That's still each customer being worth $100 to Facebook. I just don't see that kind of per capita valuation for a company that collects info.
Then there is the uniqueness of Facebook. There really isn't any. There is nothing keeping Facebook from falling out of favour like MySpace. That's not to say it will fall but there is no permeance in the way there is with companies where we're the customer not the product. There is something tangible holding me to other products. The other unique thing about Facebook and other social networking sites is that they are based on the product choosing to sell itself instead of the customer choosing to buy the product. Think about that. To me that makes Facebook a very risky endeavor for its investors. I think the bubble analogy works well here.
So, I guess by your superior and smart-as* logic... AppleInsider should post all news from every company who has any relation to Apple.
AppleInsider is a for-profit company who should report on all news that they think their readers will be interested in which in turn produce page hits and ad-clicks that generation profit. You wanting this all or nothing reporting sounds more than a little crazy but it could just be some odd projection of your OCD onto AI's business model. Again, if the subject in the title of the article doesn't interest you then don't read the fucking article. <= Superior logic.
So, I guess by your superior and smart-as* logic... AppleInsider should post all news from every company who has any relation to Apple. All Google news, every company who makes 3rd party iPhone - iPad - Mac accessories (every case and speaker maker, etc.), when Samsung or someone launches a new product or has some new stock news, all Twitter news, every company CEO who liked or knew Steve Jobs should have their company news posted here, all Dell, MS and HP news even if it has no relation to Apple. Microsoft, EA Sports and numerous others have news every day, they should put all that here too, they have a connection to Apple. I got it now... any slight connection to Apple validates their story going here, got'cha.
If not, then tell me how this belong here... Zucker liked Jobs and Apple used Ping in place of Facebook... got'cha, that's certainly enough. Oh and forgive me for having an opinion outside of yours, goodness forbid.
Well, I have to give that much to you... at least you got it.
3) If the subject of the article doesn't interest you you shouldn't read past the title. Taking the time to bitch n the article's forum thread about the article not appealing to you just makes you sound like an ass.
Who's the ass... the person taking time to "bitch" about the article or the person who takes time to "bitch" about the person who gave their opinion? It's my time to decide how I want to use it, but you took time from your life also to complain about how I spend my time, so to me that makes you the ass... you got sucked into my thought process. No one made you comment on my thought. Maybe you should follow your own advice and "read past" the comments that don't appeal to you. Or will you take more time from your life to comment further about my use of free speech rights... inquiring minds want to know? To quote O'shea Jackson - "Who's The Mack?"
Who's the ass... the person taking time to "bitch" about the article or the person who takes time to "bitch" about the person who gave their opinion? It's my time to decide how I want to use it, but you took time from your life also to complain about how I spend my time, so to me that makes you the ass... you got sucked into my thought process. No one made you comment on my thought. Maybe you should follow your own advice and "read past" the comments that don't appeal to you. Or will you take more time from your life to comment further about my use of free speech rights... inquiring minds want to know? To quote O'shea Jackson - "Who's The Mack?"
Yes, I did choose to comment on your post but not once did I say that your post shouldn't be allowed. I didn't bitch about you choosing to post, I merely pointed out the idiocy of your comment. Personally I would prefer you to post more stupid comments so I can continue to hone my debating skills by decimating your arguments but I do ask that you make it a little more challenging in the future.
Your comment is hypocritical because you choose to post about a topic that you feel isn't worth commenting on. I've made no such claim. Also, by commenting you are reinforcing AI's decision to generate more articles that indirectly refer to or concern Apple. If you really want to make a point you need to simply not read nor reply to AI articles that you feel aren't worth of being on this site. It's that simple. <= Superior logic.
That's what most people don't see. The users of Facebook, Google, etc. aren't the customers, they're the product. Our interests, searches, or favorites are all sold to companies that pay Facebook or Google for that information. Click that you like Amazon on Facebook, suddenly you see a lot of Amazon ads on your Facebook page. Search for car parts on Google, Napa ads appear in your Google search results.
Facebook's IPO is selling stock in something you already own: you.
What is worse about those targeted ads is that when you surf the regular web while still logged in to Facebook, they seem to be able to track that as well. I rarely make any posts or comments on Facebook but somehow the ads that are presented seem to be directly targeted to my recent browsing activity.
Comments
I know people on FB that have three, four accounts, even more.......
I agree, watch the stock drop like a rock after a few weeks.
This is what causes bubbles, people investing in companies that don't actually do anything.
How do you buy into an IPO? I have an Ameritrade account - will I be able to buy through that?
A 4 billion revenue company should have an valuation between 4 billion to 16 depending on growth and profit.
Facebook wants 8 times as much.
Just like Pandora, NetFlix and Amazon.
All companies that have huge market share/grows fast and make no money.
Somehow WallStreet forgets the .com bubble. Growth that cost profit is stupid,still they reward Amazon with a 10 times higher valuation then Apple since Amazon releases a tablet that looses money for them.
Keep away from Facebook at that valuation.
There are literary millions upon millions of people around the globe that use facebook for countless hours everyday of the week.
No, they don't check out apple forums, tech news websites, reddit, gmail, use project management software, the cloud etc... no... these people use a huge percentage of their internet time on Facebook. This alone is worth vast sums of money, but there is more to it than that.
The greatest things of value on earth (and ready to exploit) are not gadgets or tech, but the basic fundamentals of life - food, sex and communication. And here we have this single company that pretty much dominate the third point.
How do you buy into an IPO? I have an Ameritrade account - will I be able to buy through that?
It's an IPO not a DPO so it's not something you can just buy like that ... Here is some info:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Initial_public_offering
So you're wanting to know what an article has to do with Apple if you remove everything about Apple from the article. What I want to know is why you think your question makes any sense.
His question makes perfect sense. This not Apple news in any way whatsoever.
Facebook is very popular with teens, pre-teens and degenerates. I'm certain their news sites will cover this adequately.
How can I profit from this?
Buy low, sell high.
Maybe Apple should spend the $100 billion to buy FB for the next leg of growth LOL.
Though sarcastic, this maybe closer to the truth then you think. Though more about integration then growth. I would absolutely expect Apple to be (at least) a major FB shareholder if this IPO goes through.
His question makes perfect sense. This not Apple news in any way whatsoever.
Facebook is very popular with teens, pre-teens and degenerates. I'm certain their news sites will cover this adequately.
1) Is your misplaced bias only against Facebook or are you against AI also reporting on other partners an competitors of Apple?
2) "...teens, pre-teens, and degenerates...", eh?! you're worse than the people in AnandTech that bitch about that site reporting on Apple products because Apple only makes "toys" not real smartphones or PCs.
3) If the subject of the article doesn't interest you you shouldn't read past the title. Taking the time to bitch n the article's forum thread about the article not appealing to you just makes you sound like an ass.
I'm with you. I don't see how some of these companies get their valuation when they don't produce anything except more ways to sell our information.
That's it. The product they produce is, well, you.
Another over valued .com bubble company.
A 4 billion revenue company should have an valuation between 4 billion to 16 depending on growth and profit.
Facebook wants 8 times as much.
Just like Pandora, NetFlix and Amazon.
All companies that have huge market share/grows fast and make no money.
Somehow WallStreet forgets the .com bubble. Growth that cost profit is stupid,still they reward Amazon with a 10 times higher valuation then Apple since Amazon releases a tablet that looses money for them.
Keep away from Facebook at that valuation.
Please stop commenting on things you don't understand.
There is absolutely no simple formula that allows you to reach the bolded conclusion.
For example, Kodak's revenues last year were around $7,000 million. Their market cap is under $100 M. OTOH, a company earning enormous profits with strong share growth could easily be worth 10 times revenues - or more.
I agree that AMZN is grossly overvalued, but not because of your formula. In fact, AMZN is trading for about 2.5 to 3 times revenues - so it's well within the range that you consider to be OK. The problem with AMZN's share price is that it's 100 times earnings (earnings tend to be low on distribution businesses). Using your simple formula, AMZN is priced just about right.
Just like anything else, a company is worth what someone will pay for it. That decision is based on profitability, growth, revenues, assets, market position, and many, many other factors. And each of those factors is considered both historically and for the future. Using a simple "1 to 4 times revenues" ratio is extremely bad advice.
So you're wanting to know what an article has to do with Apple if you remove everything about Apple from the article. What I want to know is why you think your question makes any sense.
Maybe we can use those same guidelines and remove Apple's name from any unpleasant Apple news... Poof! No longer applies to Apple.
So, I guess by your superior and smart-as* logic... AppleInsider should post all news from every company who has any relation to Apple. All Google news, every company who makes 3rd party iPhone - iPad - Mac accessories (every case and speaker maker, etc.), when Samsung or someone launches a new product or has some new stock news, all Twitter news, every company CEO who liked or knew Steve Jobs should have their company news posted here, all Dell, MS and HP news even if it has no relation to Apple. Microsoft, EA Sports and numerous others have news every day, they should put all that here too, they have a connection to Apple. I got it now... any slight connection to Apple validates their story going here, got'cha.
If not, then tell me how this belong here... Zucker liked Jobs and Apple used Ping in place of Facebook... got'cha, that's certainly enough. Oh and forgive me for having an opinion outside of yours, goodness forbid.
That's it. The product they produce is, well, you.
That's what most people don't see. The users of Facebook, Google, etc. aren't the customers, they're the product. Our interests, searches, or favorites are all sold to companies that pay Facebook or Google for that information. Click that you like Amazon on Facebook, suddenly you see a lot of Amazon ads on your Facebook page. Search for car parts on Google, Napa ads appear in your Google search results.
Facebook's IPO is selling stock in something you already own: you.
That's it. The product they produce is, well, you.
Facebook has 800 million members. Let's round up to 1 billion to make the math simple and account for growth. Let's also ignore the growth ceiling that would be every man, women and child on this planet minus the ones the too young, too old, too sick, or too poor to be a Facebook customer. That's still each customer being worth $100 to Facebook. I just don't see that kind of per capita valuation for a company that collects info.
Then there is the uniqueness of Facebook. There really isn't any. There is nothing keeping Facebook from falling out of favour like MySpace. That's not to say it will fall but there is no permeance in the way there is with companies where we're the customer not the product. There is something tangible holding me to other products. The other unique thing about Facebook and other social networking sites is that they are based on the product choosing to sell itself instead of the customer choosing to buy the product. Think about that. To me that makes Facebook a very risky endeavor for its investors. I think the bubble analogy works well here.
So, I guess by your superior and smart-as* logic... AppleInsider should post all news from every company who has any relation to Apple.
AppleInsider is a for-profit company who should report on all news that they think their readers will be interested in which in turn produce page hits and ad-clicks that generation profit. You wanting this all or nothing reporting sounds more than a little crazy but it could just be some odd projection of your OCD onto AI's business model. Again, if the subject in the title of the article doesn't interest you then don't read the fucking article. <= Superior logic.
So, I guess by your superior and smart-as* logic... AppleInsider should post all news from every company who has any relation to Apple. All Google news, every company who makes 3rd party iPhone - iPad - Mac accessories (every case and speaker maker, etc.), when Samsung or someone launches a new product or has some new stock news, all Twitter news, every company CEO who liked or knew Steve Jobs should have their company news posted here, all Dell, MS and HP news even if it has no relation to Apple. Microsoft, EA Sports and numerous others have news every day, they should put all that here too, they have a connection to Apple. I got it now... any slight connection to Apple validates their story going here, got'cha.
If not, then tell me how this belong here... Zucker liked Jobs and Apple used Ping in place of Facebook... got'cha, that's certainly enough. Oh and forgive me for having an opinion outside of yours, goodness forbid.
Well, I have to give that much to you... at least you got it.
1)
3) If the subject of the article doesn't interest you you shouldn't read past the title. Taking the time to bitch n the article's forum thread about the article not appealing to you just makes you sound like an ass.
Who's the ass... the person taking time to "bitch" about the article or the person who takes time to "bitch" about the person who gave their opinion? It's my time to decide how I want to use it, but you took time from your life also to complain about how I spend my time, so to me that makes you the ass... you got sucked into my thought process. No one made you comment on my thought. Maybe you should follow your own advice and "read past" the comments that don't appeal to you. Or will you take more time from your life to comment further about my use of free speech rights... inquiring minds want to know? To quote O'shea Jackson - "Who's The Mack?"
Who's the ass... the person taking time to "bitch" about the article or the person who takes time to "bitch" about the person who gave their opinion? It's my time to decide how I want to use it, but you took time from your life also to complain about how I spend my time, so to me that makes you the ass... you got sucked into my thought process. No one made you comment on my thought. Maybe you should follow your own advice and "read past" the comments that don't appeal to you. Or will you take more time from your life to comment further about my use of free speech rights... inquiring minds want to know? To quote O'shea Jackson - "Who's The Mack?"
Yes, I did choose to comment on your post but not once did I say that your post shouldn't be allowed. I didn't bitch about you choosing to post, I merely pointed out the idiocy of your comment. Personally I would prefer you to post more stupid comments so I can continue to hone my debating skills by decimating your arguments but I do ask that you make it a little more challenging in the future.
Your comment is hypocritical because you choose to post about a topic that you feel isn't worth commenting on. I've made no such claim. Also, by commenting you are reinforcing AI's decision to generate more articles that indirectly refer to or concern Apple. If you really want to make a point you need to simply not read nor reply to AI articles that you feel aren't worth of being on this site. It's that simple. <= Superior logic.
PS: It's asses all the way down.
That's what most people don't see. The users of Facebook, Google, etc. aren't the customers, they're the product. Our interests, searches, or favorites are all sold to companies that pay Facebook or Google for that information. Click that you like Amazon on Facebook, suddenly you see a lot of Amazon ads on your Facebook page. Search for car parts on Google, Napa ads appear in your Google search results.
Facebook's IPO is selling stock in something you already own: you.
What is worse about those targeted ads is that when you surf the regular web while still logged in to Facebook, they seem to be able to track that as well. I rarely make any posts or comments on Facebook but somehow the ads that are presented seem to be directly targeted to my recent browsing activity.