Apple leapfrogs titans of industry to land No. 6 spot on Fortune 500

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 35


    Apple is doomed!!! </peer pressure but felt good anyways>

  • Reply 22 of 35
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,600member
    Congratulations Steve. Wish you were here to see it.
  • Reply 23 of 35
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    That reads like a Douglas Adams line.



     


    It does a bit, doesn't it?


     


    That's okay.


     


    Don't Panic.

  • Reply 24 of 35
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    Man... Exxon is a beast
  • Reply 25 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post


    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.


  • Reply 26 of 35

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    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. image

  • Reply 27 of 35
    povilaspovilas Posts: 473member
    Well Apple creates products and if you count only such companies (not oil companies) Apple would come on top.
  • Reply 28 of 35
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member


    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.

  • Reply 29 of 35
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    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.

  • Reply 30 of 35
    freerangefreerange Posts: 1,595member
    anonymouse wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 31 of 35
    27% profit is absolutely incredible in ANY industry...let alone tech. WOW!!
  • Reply 32 of 35
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,692member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    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 View Post


    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 View Post



    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.

  • Reply 33 of 35
    gadgetcanadagadgetcanada Posts: 423member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by GTR View Post


     


    It does a bit, doesn't it?


     


    That's okay.


     


    Don't Panic.



     


    Nice

  • Reply 34 of 35
    suddenly newtonsuddenly newton Posts: 13,811member
    Marvin wrote: »
    All store-based. That's why Apple shouldn't build too many stores. Wal-mart has 8,500 stores:

    http://www.journalnow.com/business/article_5ad539d5-d616-55ba-ab27-aeaf45b06074.html

    Their gross margins are lower too.

    Yikes. Not bad, considering how much smaller Apple's retail footprint is.
  • Reply 35 of 35
    MacProMacPro Posts: 19,500member
    anonymouse wrote: »


    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.