Apple now No. 2 online retailer behind Amazon, report says

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 51
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post



    Yes, but all the software and services amounts to one-seventh or less, I am guessing.





    Apple is fundamentally a hardware company revenue-wise.




    Apple's iTunes + App Store + iCloud revenue was $23.5 billion last year, with 34% y/y growth.

    If that were an independent company, it would be # 130 in the Fortune 500 ranking.

    All content and services revenue.  No hardware revenue.

    Just FYI.



    http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/




    Apple had aggregate revenues of ~$175 billion in the last four quarters. iTunes + App Store + etc revenue is <15% of that, as I said.



    I honestly don't want to come through as sounding rude, but I am not getting your point.

    gents, I think you are  both in violent agreement? no? 

    15% of 175B = ~26B

  • Reply 22 of 51
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post



    Yeah, number 2 is meaningless when you're winning.




    'Winning' is meaningless when there's no end game.

    end game is meaningless if you never get there.

  • Reply 23 of 51
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Cletus View Post



    Still, with the exception of the AppStore, Amazon sells everything Apple sells, plus EVERYTHING THAT IS FOR SELL BY ANYBODY. Somehow this just doesn't add up.

    OTOH, Apple has a retail branch.   Why wait 2 days an Amazon Prime when you can pick up a $2000 MBPrd while your S.O. is shopping at the Mall, and be tethered to your iPhone by the time your in the food court.

     

    Being 2nd in online sales isn't bad when your 1st in revenue per retail square foot...

     

    Apple is diversified in a couple different dimensions....

    Retail

    Online

    Direct Sales (education, corporate)

  • Reply 24 of 51
    sockrolidsockrolid Posts: 2,788member

    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post





    Apple had aggregate revenues of ~$175 billion in the last four quarters. iTunes + App Store + etc revenue is <15% of that, as I said.



    I honestly don't want to come through as sounding rude, but I am not getting your point.

     

    I'm perfectly OK with that.

  • Reply 25 of 51
    "Okay let me rephrase that. This report might be slightly bogus. eBay with sales of $14 B is not even shown on the chart and neither is Alibaba which handled 1.1 trillion yuan ($170 billion) in sales, more than competitors eBay and Amazon.com combined."

    The difference is that neither eBay nor Alibaba own most of the inventory that is sold on their sites. In fact Alibaba only had a net income of $3.56 billion on revenue of $7.95 billion in calendar 2013 (http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/alibaba-files-to-go-public-in-the-u-s/?_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0).
  • Reply 26 of 51
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    Okay let me rephrase that. This report might be slightly bogus. eBay with sales of $14 B is not even shown on the chart and neither is Alibaba which handled 1.1 trillion yuan ($170 billion) in sales, more than competitors eBay and Amazon.com combined.

     

    Something is not right with these figures.




    The difference is neither eBay nor Alibaba owns most of the inventory that is sold on their sites. In fact, Alibaba only had net income of $3.56 billion on revenue of $7.95 billion in 2013 - http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/alibaba-files-to-go-public-in-the-u-s/?_php=true&_type=blogs&partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0

  • Reply 27 of 51
    lawrencelawrence Posts: 5member

    If iTunes Store had $23.5 billion in online commerce last year all by itself, so how could THAT number + Online hardware sales only amount to 18 something billion?

     

    Anyway as comparisons to AMZN retail and AAPL retail go, you need to add Apple's retail stores.  Those guys did more than $18 billion all by themselves last year. So that's $41 billion (plus whatever the Apple Online Store pulled in) for Apple retail as a whole which is 60% of AMZN over the same period.

  • Reply 28 of 51
    warudinwarudin Posts: 1member
    @mstone I guess this report only investigates retailers from the United States.
  • Reply 29 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    snova wrote: »
    end game is meaningless if you never get there.

    There's nowhere to get to.
  • Reply 30 of 51
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,683member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    Okay let me rephrase that. This report might be slightly bogus. eBay with sales of $14 B is not even shown on the chart and neither is Alibaba which handled 1.1 trillion yuan ($170 billion) in sales, more than competitors eBay and Amazon.com combined.

     

    Something is not right with these figures.


    Not to disagree, I think they are looking at B2C transaction not B2B which is Alibaba and C2C which is Ebay. Neither of which is really considered a retailer in the pure sense. I know that Alibaba does does since B2C but the lion share of their busy in connecting Manufacturers with retailers or Wholesalers who eventually sell to the end consumer and Ebay only makes money on the transaction between a Business or Consumer to Consumer. They do not sell and market products themselves.

     

    Also, not sure where you got the $170B for Alibaba, I just saw the IPO information for them and they claim to have $5.55B in revenue for 2013. Yahoo own 22% of the company so they are going to make it big if this company really pops. Also most of that Rev actually came from the Paypal portion of the company, which the CEO just pulled out of Alibaba into another company which he owns. That is probably the reason they do not show in the list.

  • Reply 31 of 51
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,471member
    My wife says I am personally responsible for a lot of that Amazon graph. Be right back, FedEx are at the door ....
  • Reply 32 of 51
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 4,683member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    My wife says I am personally responsible for a lot of that Amazon graph. Be right back, FedEx are at the door ....

    we did our part too, we are doing some remodeling, and I could get most of the things we need off Amazon cheaper than Home Depot and Lowes, especially with Amazon Prime and I did not have to waste gas driving to the local Home Depot.

  • Reply 33 of 51
    nmregannmregan Posts: 2member

    I think you will find that Alibaba is MUCH  bigger than Amazon and eBay combined

  • Reply 34 of 51
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    nmregan wrote: »
    I think you will find that Alibaba is MUCH  bigger than Amazon and eBay combined

    Cool. Can you show us your proof that Alibaba does more revenue than Amazon and eBay combined?


    edit: It looks like Alibaba pales in comparison to either Amazon or eBay: http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/06/alibaba-files-for-massive-ipo-with-9-month-revenue-of-6-51b/
  • Reply 35 of 51
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by snova View Post



    end game is meaningless if you never get there.




    There's nowhere to get to.

    If you believe that then this would mean that there is no end. Thus end game is meaningless.  

     

    this is why the poster used the word "winning" and not "won" .  Winng would represent a summary of all events which lead up to the present and a prediction on future trend. Won would represent represent the final outcome. You are right, anything can happen tomorrow, but is not what the word "winning" means. In terms of profits per quarter, which do have closure on a per quarter basis, it is clear who is "Winning" and who is simply presenting a picture of potential profit in the future by trying to destroy all competition solely on predatory pricing practices. The same company who has been misleading investors for 20 years.  Is there an end game? I think its clear investors are starting to question that also by dumping their stock.  

     

    So "Winning" definitely is meaningful regardless if there is an end game or not.  Especially if you can predict who is going to be "Winning" in the future based on who has been "Winning" thus far and not hopes for an "End game" which as you correct state may not ever exist.  That is why investors play the market. They don't generally buy stock to try to take over the company. They buy stock because "Winning" is meaningful even if they see no "End game" or "End".  They decide when they want to get out and "Winning" is financially meaningful and has closure when they decide it has closure.

  • Reply 36 of 51
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    The main difference being that Apple actually makes a profit... a huge, gigantic, monstrous profit.




    Yeah, number 2 is meaningless when you're winning.

    pretty sure this means,   revenue is less meaningful when compared to profit/loss. 

    If we look at the US Internal Revenue Service and the Government as a single "company" if you will.  In 2012, the IRS generated $2.5 trillion of revenue. I ask you to look at the US balance sheet and tell me they are "Winning" when you compare it to the debt.

     

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_tax_revenue_by_state

  • Reply 37 of 51
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 21,308member
    While Amazon is far and away the world's largest online sales entity, Apple has been growing over the past three years and is now sitting in second place after unseating office supply company Staples.

    I thought Alibaba was the world's largest online retailer? :???:

    EDIT: See it was mentioned earlier.
  • Reply 38 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    snova wrote: »
    If you believe that then this would mean that there is no end. Thus end game is meaningless.  

    this is why the poster used the word "winning" and not "won" .  Winng would represent a summary of all events which lead up to the present and a prediction on future trend. Won would represent represent the final outcome. You are right, anything can happen tomorrow, but is not what the word "winning" means. In terms of profits per quarter, which do have closure on a per quarter basis, it is clear who is "Winning" and who is simply presenting a picture of potential profit in the future by trying to destroy all competition solely on predatory pricing practices. The same company who has been misleading investors for 20 years.  Is there an end game? I think its clear investors are starting to question that also by dumping their stock.  

    So "Winning" definitely is meaningful regardless if there is an end game or not.  Especially if you can predict who is going to be "Winning" in the future based on who has been "Winning" thus far and not hopes for an "End game" which as you correct state may not ever exist.  That is why investors play the market. They don't generally buy stock to try to take over the company. They buy stock because "Winning" is meaningful even if they see no "End game" or "End".  They decide when they want to get out and "Winning" is financially meaningful and has closure when they decide it has closure.

    How many companies were 'winning' 10 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago and are no longer around or a shadow of their former selves? What good did winning serve them? How many teams have a lost a game that they were winning with a last second play? Unless you win then winning is meaningless because your fortunes can change.
  • Reply 39 of 51
    snovasnova Posts: 1,281member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    How many companies were 'winning' 10 yrs ago, 20 yrs ago and are no longer around or a shadow of their former selves? What good did winning serve them? How many teams have a lost a game that they were winning with a last second play? Unless you win then winning is meaningless because your fortunes can change.

    If I am an investor picking the one that is Winning and being right, is completely meaningful.    Meaningful all the way to the bank.   Knowing when to get out before it is obvious that it is "Losing" is just as meaningful.    Where a company is 10, 20, 100, 300, 500 years from now. I could care less. Thus meaningless.

  • Reply 40 of 51
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    snova wrote: »
    If I am an investor picking the one that is Winning and being right, is completely meaningful.    Meaningful all the way to the bank.   Knowing when to get out before it is obvious that it is "Losing" is just as meaningful.    Where a company is 10, 20, 100, 300, 500 years from now. I could care less. Thus meaningless.

    The problem with that is that there's no one definition of 'winning' or 'losing', both can happen at the same time. Anyone that purchased Apple stock at 700 sees it as losing, and anyone that bought it at under 600 sees it as winning.
Sign In or Register to comment.