What numbers for inflation? That's not making much sense!
Why doesn't it make sense?
They're talking about which company is larger. If GE had $500 B of market cap 20 years ago and Apple has $540 B today, you adjust GE's market cap for inflation - $500 B 20 years ago would be equivalent to over $1 trillion today. You can look up the actual numbers and use the following calculator: http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp
It's like all those reports that says "movie xyz is the largest grossing movie of all time". Well, obviously, when the ticket costs $8 it's easier to get a record than when it was $0.25. When correcting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is by far the leader, but when you don't adjust for inflation, it's far, far behind: http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
They're talking about which company is larger. If GE had $500 B of market cap 20 years ago and Apple has $540 B today, you adjust GE's market cap for inflation - $500 B 20 years ago would be equivalent to over $1 trillion today. You can look up the actual numbers and use the following calculator:
It's like all those reports that says "movie xyz is the largest grossing movie of all time". Well, obviously, when the ticket costs $8 it's easier to get a record than when it was $0.25. When correcting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is by far the leader, but when you don't adjust for inflation, it's far, far behind:
Sony's an interesting counter-example. Technically, they produce solid, useful products. I have one of their (many) "Sleep Machine" clock radios. My wife can't work it, and she's both well-educated and smart. I can, but I'm a techie of many years' standing. While I have had to demonstrate how to use some of the functions on her iPhone, one lesson (per function) has done it. Sony puts out multiple products to solve the same problem; they keep putting new stuff--none user-tested (apparently). Compare to Apple: no line improved more often that once a year; all user-tested to the nth degree. And finally, compare the aesthetics of Apple's products to those of Sony's. Any questions? QED.
The reason I ask is because I thought that such integration was obvious. Apple appears to be able to convince companies to partner with them in ways that are often manifest only in retrospect. In this instance; however, the integration seemed apparent due to companies desiring to benefit from the "reality distortion field." Considering the massive capital and effort Apple has expended on Siri and iCloud expansion of the Apple ecosystem to non-traditional (for Apple) markets.
I am not excited about seeing a Siri button in cars, though. When it comes to third-party integration I much prefer to see open standards used. Why should Ford, BMW, etc. let Apple use their cars as a profit center? I'd much rather see some kind of voice control protocol defined and see other providers compete.
No particular reason the "Eyes Free" feature can't be universal plug-n-play. "Eyes Free" is the likely reasoning (along with the European common External Power Supply (EPS) rule) behind the supposed new dock connector for the new iPhone (assuming the rumors are true).
Courtesy of Car and Driver posted June 18, 2012 at 12:47pm by Austin Lindberg
"... Apple’s new Eyes Free Siri integration, which will be a part of the iOS 6 software update, has generated quite a buzz since its announcement last week. Part of this is due to the limited amount of information that Apple and its partner manufacturers have provided. Basically, the new feature will allow users to access the iPhone’s personal assistant, Siri, via a voice-command button, and pass your voice from the car’s built-in microphone to the phone. Although Apple mentioned a list of nine automakers it’s working with to implement Eyes Free, few have had much to say about the announcement past generic enthusiasm. Fewer still have been forthcoming with details about how Eyes Free will be utilized or when compatible vehicles will be available. We spoke with engineers from Chevrolet and Mercedes-Benz to find out how Eyes Free will work in their vehicles.
It’s important to first point out that Siri is a software change, both for the car and the phone, and not one that affects hardware—existing voice-command buttons will be used to access the system through a Bluetooth connection. According to an engineer we spoke to, Apple’s software development includes a refinement in how Siri deals with high amounts of background noise—the in-car’s single mic can pick up road, wind, and engine noise that makes it difficult for Siri to comprehend commands. (In normal use, iPhones have a pair of built-in microphones with noise cancellation that are bypassed by the in-car mic during hands-free operation.) Apple has somehow solved the problem with the iOS6 changes that go along with Eyes Free.
Once the car and phone are running the correct software and paired over Bluetooth, the actual hardware interaction is fairly simple: The driver presses the voice-command button—usually located on the steering wheel to allow for “eyes-free” operation—and receives the normal Siri prompt over the car’s stereo speakers. The button press will have to be different from the normal momentary tap that brings up control of built-in systems such as navigation. To differentiate between the two types of requests, Chevy will use a press-and-hold (about a second or two) to access Siri; Mercedes has yet to determine the key combo its system will require. Other options we can foresee include a double tap, or maybe spelling Siri’s name with Morse code..."
With the agreement with at least 9 major auto makers to put a Siri button on the steering wheel (a major, and shocking development according to friends in the auto business), Apple is getting in front of that business. How far it will go is anyone's guess right now, but we can be sure that Apple has plans for this that go further than it may now seem.
I don't believe for one moment that any car company will put a "Siri Button" on their steering wheels. Why would they limit themselves like that. A number of them have already come out and questioned Apples' statement.
It will be a generic button that you can pair with your iPhone or any other compatible smart phone.
The car companies make a lot of money from optional extras such as SatNav, etc - they are no going to give that money away to Apple.
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
The 'proof' is everywhere. Articles galore. Even here on Appleinsider.
What rock you been hiding under?
Apple is one of the greediest companies ever. Deal with it.
Your cynicism regarding charity is positively disgusting.
The analysts really are desperate to talk up Apple shares which just makes me suspicious of their motives.
If Apple was so clearly going to hot $1000 or $2000 or whatever the latest estimate is then why do they need all this pumping by the analysts? The stock would rise steadily week by week as it's obviously such a good investment.
The reason that isn't happening is because the investment fund managers are clever people. They have been burned by tech stock bubbles bursting in the past and are obviously cautious about it happening again. The higher the Apple stock price goes the greater their exposure to big losses if it all comes crashing back to earth like it did with the other stocks.
The simple reason the other stocks didn't keep going up and up is because sales eventually flattened out. That could easily happen to Apple as well. Yes there is huge potential sales in the smartphone and tablet markets but it's by no means guaranteed that Apple will reap those rewards long term. The tablet market could end up like the MP3 player market with the iPod dominating until eventually sales leveled off and start to fall. The smatphone market has white hot competition. All the big players are in there. It's hard to see one company dominating for too long.
The analysts really are desperate to talk up Apple shares which just makes me suspicious of their motives.
If Apple was so clearly going to hot $1000 or $2000 or whatever the latest estimate is then why do they need all this pumping by the analysts? The stock would rise steadily week by week as it's obviously such a good investment.
The reason that isn't happening is because the investment fund managers are clever people. They have been burned by tech stock bubbles bursting in the past and are obviously cautious about it happening again. The higher the Apple stock price goes the greater their exposure to big losses if it all comes crashing back to earth like it did with the other stocks.
The simple reason the other stocks didn't keep going up and up is because sales eventually flattened out. That could easily happen to Apple as well. Yes there is huge potential sales in the smartphone and tablet markets but it's by no means guaranteed that Apple will reap those rewards long term. The tablet market could end up like the MP3 player market with the iPod dominating until eventually sales leveled off and start to fall. The smatphone market has white hot competition. All the big players are in there. It's hard to see one company dominating for too long.
Since when is making an estimate 'pumping'? Part of an analyst's job is to make predictions of where share price is going to be in the future. Doing so is not 'pumping' (which has a very different connotation.
They're talking about which company is larger. If GE had $500 B of market cap 20 years ago and Apple has $540 B today, you adjust GE's market cap for inflation - $500 B 20 years ago would be equivalent to over $1 trillion today. You can look up the actual numbers and use the following calculator:
It's like all those reports that says "movie xyz is the largest grossing movie of all time". Well, obviously, when the ticket costs $8 it's easier to get a record than when it was $0.25. When correcting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is by far the leader, but when you don't adjust for inflation, it's far, far behind:
I guess you (and the original poster) don't understand that: (i) Nominal cash flows discounted at the nominal discount rate produces the same value as real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) cash flows discounted at the real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) discount rate. (ii) The P/E ratio is an inflation-independent metric, i.e., there is no need to adjust P/E ratios for inflation in order to be able to compare it across time; in other words, it is perfectly valid to say that "MSFT in 20XX had a P/E ratio of 80x which implies a substantially higher valuation than Apple's 11x in 2012."
You're confusing two very different things, as was the original poster: market value is simply market value; what you can consume with it may be less than before, but then you're measuring something else altogether.
Just curious. Are there private companies who make more profit than Apple?
Quite possible that there are private enterprises that make more profit than AAPL. Insofar as they are "private" then we will never know.
Consider that the Roman Catholic Church holds vast numbers of works of art and the value of one work is, arguably, more valuable than all of AAPL: Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco.
Certain private hedge funds may have paper assets greater than AAPL. I could go on. The one certain example is the Roman Catholic Church, with art, architecture and world-wide real property holdings vastly greater than any public enterprise.
The 'proof' is everywhere. Articles galore. Even here on Appleinsider.
What rock you been hiding under?
Apple is one of the greediest companies ever. Deal with it.
Your cynicism regarding charity is positively disgusting.
I would say that Apple is one of the least greedy companies ever—but one of the most competent companies ever. Their profits and cash pile reflect that.
They just built a $1 billion data center, which they're going to double in size, and they're planning another in Oregon. They're going to need another 10 or so around the world to carry out their long-range plans of doing things like reforming all the planet's information, knowledge and media systems, in order to change the world for the better—the original goal of their founders, one in particular. Stewart Brand and the other early Silicon Valley idealists know what we're talking about here.
Charity is a short-sighted short circuit compared to modernizing the world's education system.
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
Considering how small Computers have become, as a percentage of Apple's Revenue and Profits, it is indeed strange that Apple still insists on high margins in this space. In Apple's own reckoning, the PC market is a dying market, and the future is in tablets. Then why don't they lower their margins and make a play for increased marketshare?
Today, the barrier to developing iPhone and iPad software is significantly higher than the barrier to develop Android Software. You absolutely need a Mac to build iOS software. And with Apple's prices, this is a stiff entry barrier indeed.
Even if Apple lowers margins on Macs to 10%, it will not hurt their bottom line in a significant way. And in all likelihood, the resulting increase in sales will more than make up for the lower margins.
You can write to Tim Cook and tell him that. But I think the pricing argument is hand-waving FUD. I don't think Macs are priced out of reach, compared to PCs, which you seem to argue costs nothing extra, but in fact, it isn't free either. In other words, you can't argue that Mac costs "extra" whereas a PC doesn't because you already own one and can use for Android development. The PC still cost money in the first place.
A Mac Mini, including all software and Xcode IDE costs as low as $599. You can run Mac OSX and Windows 7 on it. With it, you can develop for 6 major platforms: Mac, iOS, Windows, WP7, Android, and web.
The analysts really are desperate to talk up Apple shares which just makes me suspicious of their motives.
If Apple was so clearly going to hot $1000 or $2000 or whatever the latest estimate is then why do they need all this pumping by the analysts? The stock would rise steadily week by week as it's obviously such a good investment.
The reason that isn't happening is because the investment fund managers are clever people. They have been burned by tech stock bubbles bursting in the past and are obviously cautious about it happening again. The higher the Apple stock price goes the greater their exposure to big losses if it all comes crashing back to earth like it did with the other stocks.
The simple reason the other stocks didn't keep going up and up is because sales eventually flattened out. That could easily happen to Apple as well. Yes there is huge potential sales in the smartphone and tablet markets but it's by no means guaranteed that Apple will reap those rewards long term. The tablet market could end up like the MP3 player market with the iPod dominating until eventually sales leveled off and start to fall. The smatphone market has white hot competition. All the big players are in there. It's hard to see one company dominating for too long.
The wild card in the deck, unseen in this negative view, is the next phase of the portable computer revolution, which is just getting started. I'm not going to say what it is because you don't deserve to know. Even if you were told, you wouldn't understand.
The main point is that there is no bubble this time. We are seeing a new industry establishing right before our eyes—if they're open, that is.
Quite possible that there are private enterprises that make more profit than AAPL. Insofar as they are "private" then we will never know.
Consider that the Roman Catholic Church holds vast numbers of works of art and the value of one work is, arguably, more valuable than all of AAPL: Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco.
Certain private hedge funds may have paper assets greater than AAPL. I could go on. The one certain example is the Roman Catholic Church, with art, architecture and world-wide real property holdings vastly greater than any public enterprise.
But, you're getting into the area of priceless possessions. They cannot be bought sold or traded. They have no value in the traditional sense.
The wild card in the deck, unseen in this negative view, is the next phase of the portable computer revolution, which is just getting started. I'm not going to say what it is because you don't deserve to know. Even if you were told, you wouldn't understand.
Shhhh... The first rule of Future Club is you do not talk about Future Club. You have been warned...
Comments
deleted
Why doesn't it make sense?
They're talking about which company is larger. If GE had $500 B of market cap 20 years ago and Apple has $540 B today, you adjust GE's market cap for inflation - $500 B 20 years ago would be equivalent to over $1 trillion today. You can look up the actual numbers and use the following calculator:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp
It's like all those reports that says "movie xyz is the largest grossing movie of all time". Well, obviously, when the ticket costs $8 it's easier to get a record than when it was $0.25. When correcting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is by far the leader, but when you don't adjust for inflation, it's far, far behind:
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
What numbers for inflation? That's not making much sense!
Profit (or sales or market capitalization). $1B today is not the same as $1B in 1900 for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why doesn't it make sense?
They're talking about which company is larger. If GE had $500 B of market cap 20 years ago and Apple has $540 B today, you adjust GE's market cap for inflation - $500 B 20 years ago would be equivalent to over $1 trillion today. You can look up the actual numbers and use the following calculator:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp
It's like all those reports that says "movie xyz is the largest grossing movie of all time". Well, obviously, when the ticket costs $8 it's easier to get a record than when it was $0.25. When correcting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is by far the leader, but when you don't adjust for inflation, it's far, far behind:
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
Exactly.
Sony's an interesting counter-example. Technically, they produce solid, useful products. I have one of their (many) "Sleep Machine" clock radios. My wife can't work it, and she's both well-educated and smart. I can, but I'm a techie of many years' standing. While I have had to demonstrate how to use some of the functions on her iPhone, one lesson (per function) has done it. Sony puts out multiple products to solve the same problem; they keep putting new stuff--none user-tested (apparently). Compare to Apple: no line improved more often that once a year; all user-tested to the nth degree. And finally, compare the aesthetics of Apple's products to those of Sony's. Any questions? QED.
Courtesy of Car and Driver posted June 18, 2012 at 12:47pm by Austin Lindberg
"... Apple’s new Eyes Free Siri integration, which will be a part of the iOS 6 software update, has generated quite a buzz since its announcement last week. Part of this is due to the limited amount of information that Apple and its partner manufacturers have provided. Basically, the new feature will allow users to access the iPhone’s personal assistant, Siri, via a voice-command button, and pass your voice from the car’s built-in microphone to the phone. Although Apple mentioned a list of nine automakers it’s working with to implement Eyes Free, few have had much to say about the announcement past generic enthusiasm. Fewer still have been forthcoming with details about how Eyes Free will be utilized or when compatible vehicles will be available. We spoke with engineers from Chevrolet and Mercedes-Benz to find out how Eyes Free will work in their vehicles.
It’s important to first point out that Siri is a software change, both for the car and the phone, and not one that affects hardware—existing voice-command buttons will be used to access the system through a Bluetooth connection. According to an engineer we spoke to, Apple’s software development includes a refinement in how Siri deals with high amounts of background noise—the in-car’s single mic can pick up road, wind, and engine noise that makes it difficult for Siri to comprehend commands. (In normal use, iPhones have a pair of built-in microphones with noise cancellation that are bypassed by the in-car mic during hands-free operation.) Apple has somehow solved the problem with the iOS6 changes that go along with Eyes Free.
Once the car and phone are running the correct software and paired over Bluetooth, the actual hardware interaction is fairly simple: The driver presses the voice-command button—usually located on the steering wheel to allow for “eyes-free” operation—and receives the normal Siri prompt over the car’s stereo speakers. The button press will have to be different from the normal momentary tap that brings up control of built-in systems such as navigation. To differentiate between the two types of requests, Chevy will use a press-and-hold (about a second or two) to access Siri; Mercedes has yet to determine the key combo its system will require. Other options we can foresee include a double tap, or maybe spelling Siri’s name with Morse code..."
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
With the agreement with at least 9 major auto makers to put a Siri button on the steering wheel (a major, and shocking development according to friends in the auto business), Apple is getting in front of that business. How far it will go is anyone's guess right now, but we can be sure that Apple has plans for this that go further than it may now seem.
I don't believe for one moment that any car company will put a "Siri Button" on their steering wheels. Why would they limit themselves like that. A number of them have already come out and questioned Apples' statement.
It will be a generic button that you can pair with your iPhone or any other compatible smart phone.
The car companies make a lot of money from optional extras such as SatNav, etc - they are no going to give that money away to Apple.
I agree with you, it's a shame Wall Street doesn't!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jnjnjn
Giving away losts of money to charity is mostly a sign that the money isn't earned in an honest way; a way to buy back your soul so to say.
Now if it is done anonymously it could be another matter entirely.
It is indicated several times in the recent past that Apple does donate a lot of money, they just don't brag about it. But you seem to have proof that Apple doesn't do that?
J.
The 'proof' is everywhere. Articles galore. Even here on Appleinsider.
What rock you been hiding under?
Apple is one of the greediest companies ever. Deal with it.
Your cynicism regarding charity is positively disgusting.
The analysts really are desperate to talk up Apple shares which just makes me suspicious of their motives.
If Apple was so clearly going to hot $1000 or $2000 or whatever the latest estimate is then why do they need all this pumping by the analysts? The stock would rise steadily week by week as it's obviously such a good investment.
The reason that isn't happening is because the investment fund managers are clever people. They have been burned by tech stock bubbles bursting in the past and are obviously cautious about it happening again. The higher the Apple stock price goes the greater their exposure to big losses if it all comes crashing back to earth like it did with the other stocks.
The simple reason the other stocks didn't keep going up and up is because sales eventually flattened out. That could easily happen to Apple as well. Yes there is huge potential sales in the smartphone and tablet markets but it's by no means guaranteed that Apple will reap those rewards long term. The tablet market could end up like the MP3 player market with the iPod dominating until eventually sales leveled off and start to fall. The smatphone market has white hot competition. All the big players are in there. It's hard to see one company dominating for too long.
Since when is making an estimate 'pumping'? Part of an analyst's job is to make predictions of where share price is going to be in the future. Doing so is not 'pumping' (which has a very different connotation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why doesn't it make sense?
They're talking about which company is larger. If GE had $500 B of market cap 20 years ago and Apple has $540 B today, you adjust GE's market cap for inflation - $500 B 20 years ago would be equivalent to over $1 trillion today. You can look up the actual numbers and use the following calculator:
http://inflationdata.com/Inflation/Inflation_Calculators/Inflation_Rate_Calculator.asp
It's like all those reports that says "movie xyz is the largest grossing movie of all time". Well, obviously, when the ticket costs $8 it's easier to get a record than when it was $0.25. When correcting for inflation, Gone with the Wind is by far the leader, but when you don't adjust for inflation, it's far, far behind:
http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm
I guess you (and the original poster) don't understand that: (i) Nominal cash flows discounted at the nominal discount rate produces the same value as real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) cash flows discounted at the real (i.e., inflation-adjusted) discount rate. (ii) The P/E ratio is an inflation-independent metric, i.e., there is no need to adjust P/E ratios for inflation in order to be able to compare it across time; in other words, it is perfectly valid to say that "MSFT in 20XX had a P/E ratio of 80x which implies a substantially higher valuation than Apple's 11x in 2012."
You're confusing two very different things, as was the original poster: market value is simply market value; what you can consume with it may be less than before, but then you're measuring something else altogether.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Profit (or sales or market capitalization). $1B today is not the same as $1B in 1900 for example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Exactly.
See above.
Quite possible that there are private enterprises that make more profit than AAPL. Insofar as they are "private" then we will never know.
Consider that the Roman Catholic Church holds vast numbers of works of art and the value of one work is, arguably, more valuable than all of AAPL: Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel fresco.
Certain private hedge funds may have paper assets greater than AAPL. I could go on. The one certain example is the Roman Catholic Church, with art, architecture and world-wide real property holdings vastly greater than any public enterprise.
I would say that Apple is one of the least greedy companies ever—but one of the most competent companies ever. Their profits and cash pile reflect that.
They just built a $1 billion data center, which they're going to double in size, and they're planning another in Oregon. They're going to need another 10 or so around the world to carry out their long-range plans of doing things like reforming all the planet's information, knowledge and media systems, in order to change the world for the better—the original goal of their founders, one in particular. Stewart Brand and the other early Silicon Valley idealists know what we're talking about here.
Charity is a short-sighted short circuit compared to modernizing the world's education system.
The proof is everywhere. For example;
The $50 million Apple donated to help Stanford Medical Center build its new $2 billion hospital.
Apple's leading participation in Project RED, to which they have contributed $50 million to help women and children affected by HIV/AIDS in Africa.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/02/02/tim_cook_exposes_the_lie_that_steve_jobs_ignored_philanthropy_.html
Apple executives and officers donated more than $3 million worth of company shares to charitable causes during the holiday season of 2010.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/31/apple_execs_officers_donate_over_3_million_the_charity_for_the_holidays.html
Apple matches personal charitable contributions of employees up to $10,000 per year which could amount to several hundred million dollars annually.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/09/08/charitable_matching_of_up_to_10k_now_available_for_apple_employees.html
You can write to Tim Cook and tell him that. But I think the pricing argument is hand-waving FUD. I don't think Macs are priced out of reach, compared to PCs, which you seem to argue costs nothing extra, but in fact, it isn't free either. In other words, you can't argue that Mac costs "extra" whereas a PC doesn't because you already own one and can use for Android development. The PC still cost money in the first place.
A Mac Mini, including all software and Xcode IDE costs as low as $599. You can run Mac OSX and Windows 7 on it. With it, you can develop for 6 major platforms: Mac, iOS, Windows, WP7, Android, and web.
I think it's a good deal.
The wild card in the deck, unseen in this negative view, is the next phase of the portable computer revolution, which is just getting started. I'm not going to say what it is because you don't deserve to know. Even if you were told, you wouldn't understand.
The main point is that there is no bubble this time. We are seeing a new industry establishing right before our eyes—if they're open, that is.
But, you're getting into the area of priceless possessions. They cannot be bought sold or traded. They have no value in the traditional sense.
Shhhh... The first rule of Future Club is you do not talk about Future Club. You have been warned...