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....
"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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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? :???:
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.
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.
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.
Comments
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
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.
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)
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.
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).
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
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.
There's nowhere to get to.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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
I thought Alibaba was the world's largest online retailer? :???:
EDIT: See it was mentioned earlier.
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.
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.
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.