Wal-mart's costs must be enormous! They sure take in enough revenue...
Think thinner margins than Apple. Their costs are closer to their revenue because of the price competitive nature of commodity goods being mass marketed.
This time next year they'll likely be 3rd or 4th for revenue and have profits close to equaling the profits of slot one and two of this chart combined… but Apple is doomed¡
This is bad news. Very, very bad. For me, that is, not for Apple. I want everyone involved in the decision to shelf the 17" MBP to suffer horribly, to rue the day they put their convenience ahead of mine, and to crawl across broken glass to plead for another chance to make what *I* want. That seems somewhat less likely in light of this news.
Revenue is a better measure of how much money they are moving around, thus, their effect on the (world-wide) economy as a whole.
But absolutely not a better measure of success and isn't that what a ranking is about? That's like saying to a company losing money on every item sold that you can make it up in volume.
It beats me why profits are not the deciding factor in the ranking, surely turn over is far less important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Revenue is a better measure of how much money they are moving around, thus, their effect on the (world-wide) economy as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
But absolutely not a better measure of success and isn't that what a ranking is about? That's like saying to a company losing money on every item sold that you can make it up in volume.
That depends on what you want to measure and rank. In this case it's a measure and ranking of the economic influence of these companies, not how well they are doing. If you have two companies, A & B:
* A -- Revenue = $1,000,000, Profit = $1,000
* B -- Revenue = $100,000, Profit = $10,000
If one of them were to suddenly disappear, which company's disappearance would most affect the economy?
Company B is "doing better" than company A in terms of how much money they are making, But company A is moving more money around in the economy, buying more stuff from suppliers, etc. So, the impact of company A's disappearance would be greater than that of company B's.
That depends on what you want to measure and rank. In this case it's a measure and ranking of the economic influence of these companies, not how well they are doing. If you have two companies, A & B:
* A -- Revenue = $1,000,000, Profit = $1,000
* B -- Revenue = $100,000, Profit = $10,000
If one of them were to suddenly disappear, which company's disappearance would most affect the economy?
Company B is "doing better" than company A in terms of how much money they are making, But company A is moving more money around in the economy, buying more stuff from suppliers, etc. So, the impact of company A's disappearance would be greater than that of company B's.
Thanks for explaining. I confess I thought it was all about success rather than effect. I understand now, I can see company A in your example may well go bust leaving tons of suppliers without payment and many out of work any moment. So thus they are ranked higher than a highly profitable company. I'm not being sarcastic, I can now see this and can I well imagine that's how Wall Street thinks but I will click the sort button at the top of profit column and consider Apple number two, it makes me smile.
Comments
Apple is doomed!!! </peer pressure but felt good anyways>
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That reads like a Douglas Adams line.
It does a bit, doesn't it?
That's okay.
Don't Panic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Wal-mart's costs must be enormous! They sure take in enough revenue...
Think thinner margins than Apple. Their costs are closer to their revenue because of the price competitive nature of commodity goods being mass marketed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This time next year they'll likely be 3rd or 4th for revenue and have profits close to equaling the profits of slot one and two of this chart combined… but Apple is doomed¡
... AND Apple's stock will be suffering anyway.
This is bad news. Very, very bad. For me, that is, not for Apple. I want everyone involved in the decision to shelf the 17" MBP to suffer horribly, to rue the day they put their convenience ahead of mine, and to crawl across broken glass to plead for another chance to make what *I* want. That seems somewhat less likely in light of this news.
Poo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
It beats me why profits are not the deciding factor in the ranking, surely turn over is far less important.
Revenue is a better measure of how much money they are moving around, thus, their effect on the (world-wide) economy as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
It beats me why profits are not the deciding factor in the ranking, surely turn over is far less important.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Revenue is a better measure of how much money they are moving around, thus, their effect on the (world-wide) economy as a whole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange
But absolutely not a better measure of success and isn't that what a ranking is about? That's like saying to a company losing money on every item sold that you can make it up in volume.
That depends on what you want to measure and rank. In this case it's a measure and ranking of the economic influence of these companies, not how well they are doing. If you have two companies, A & B:
* A -- Revenue = $1,000,000, Profit = $1,000
* B -- Revenue = $100,000, Profit = $10,000
If one of them were to suddenly disappear, which company's disappearance would most affect the economy?
Company B is "doing better" than company A in terms of how much money they are making, But company A is moving more money around in the economy, buying more stuff from suppliers, etc. So, the impact of company A's disappearance would be greater than that of company B's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GTR
It does a bit, doesn't it?
That's okay.
Don't Panic.
Nice
Yikes. Not bad, considering how much smaller Apple's retail footprint is.
Thanks for explaining. I confess I thought it was all about success rather than effect. I understand now, I can see company A in your example may well go bust leaving tons of suppliers without payment and many out of work any moment. So thus they are ranked higher than a highly profitable company. I'm not being sarcastic, I can now see this and can I well imagine that's how Wall Street thinks but I will click the sort button at the top of profit column and consider Apple number two, it makes me smile.