davidw

JP234 said:

macxpress said:

JP234 said:

genovelle said:

I bet Steve Balmer winces every time he reads his quote saying the iphone had no chance of gaining significant market share. 

I'm sure he's crying all the way to the bank. One of the ones he owns.

Maybe he's not, but I bet Microsoft is. He's the exact reason why Microsoft was completely left out of the smartphone space. He never took its competitors seriously and when you have companies like Apple entering your space you damn well better sit up straight and pay attention. 

Suppose you'd invested $1,000 in Microsoft on June 29, 2007, when the iPhone was introduced. What do you suppose it would be worth today?

At Friday's market close, that would now be $20,703.70.

Of course, by calculating the same metric, $1,000 in Apple on that day is now worth (are you sitting down?): $1,206,333.33

I doubt Microsoft is crying. But I bet Apple is popping the corks on Dom Perignon Vintage 2007! (BTW, it's because, adjusted for splits, Apple stock was worth 15¢/share on the day the iPhone was introduced. Microsoft was worth $16.20, over 100 times as much as Apple). Each currently have a market cap. approaching $3 trillion. Put away the kleenex!

Your numbers are way off!

You seem to be applying the splits to numbers that had already been accounted for the splits.

In June  of 2007, AAPL was about $140 and MFST was about $24. (split adjusted that would be $4.95 for AAPL)

$1000 invested in each in 2007 would get you 7 shares of AAPL at $140  and 20 shares of MSFT at $41 ( NOT using $4.95 for AAPL) 

Accounting for splits, today you would have 196 shares of AAPL (7 x 7 x 4) and 20 shares of MSFT

At today shares prices, that would be about $35,500 of AAPL (196 x $181)  and about $6,700 of MSFT (20 x $336)

Adjusted for splits on Jun 2007 ..... AAPL would be about $5.00 and MSFT would be about  $24 (share price alone can not be use to determine "worth" between the two.)

In 2007, Apple had a market cap of about $150B and Microsoft had a market cap of about $330B. So in 2007 Microsoft was "worth" only about twice that of Apple. But it took only 3 more years (in 2010) for Apple over take Microsoft in market cap. Apple went up from $150B to $222B while Microsoft went down from $330B to $220B. 

The comparing of current market caps between Apple and Microsoft is little misleading because in the past 10 years, Apple have bought back 10's of billions of dollars more of their AAPL shares than Microsoft have bought back their own MSFT shares. The number of outstanding shares is used to calculate the market cap. Apple been decreasing their outstanding shares at a much greater rate than Microsoft over the last 10 years.

BTW- I knew your numbers were off when you said that AAPL (after accounting for splits) would be at $.15 in 2007 when the iPhone came out. I knew that couldn't be right because the shares of AAPL that I bought when Jobs returned in 1998, cost me about $.17, split adjusted. And that included a 2 for 1 split in 2000 and another 2 for 1 in 2005, that would not have been included in 2007. It's $1000 invested in 1998 when AAPL was at about $20, that would be worth $1,000,000 today. Just 1 share of AAPL in 1998, would be 112 shares today. (if you didn't sell any on the way.)  

9secondkox2 said:

davidw said:

9secondkox2 said:

anonymouse said:

danox said:

twolf2919 said:

Price is THE decider on whether this headset will be a success.  This author - and others who’ve made the same point that Apple has had supposed failures many times before turn into successes - doesn’t seem to realize this.  When has Apple *ever* introduced a completely new product category at an initial price point of $3k?  Maybe the original Apple 2 (adjusted for inflation) - but nothing since then.   Sure, there are several niche “pro” products in THS range and beyond, but nothing with hoped for mass market appeal.  And  Apple clearly wants this to eventually become the next iPhone.  And I think the AR glasses originally promised for this timeframe had/has this potential - but not some dorky headset costing as much as a used car.

The decider will be the hardware and software integration, and the quality of the programs designed to use the capabilities of the device, if Apple has those things nailed down, then the device will succeed, however no matter what price Apple sets, it will be too much and the complaining will go on and on because many people will want it, but will not be able to afford it.

Even to this day, there are still many financial analysts who think Apple should drop their prices on all products to pick up more marketshare, which, if you know anything about Apple, you know that isn’t their way of doing business.

Yeah, well, remember when all the analysts said that Apple is Doomed™ if they don't release a netbook? 

The MacBook Air filled that hole. So in a sense, they did release a netbook. 

A lower cost thin and light was what the netbook rage was about. MacBook Air did that-Apple style. 

No, Apple answer to a netbook was the iPad. Netbooks about completely disappeared in just about  2 years after the iPad (and other copycat tablets) came to market in 2010. Apple just thought different and got rid of the physical keyboard. iPads even competed with netbooks in price. At the time, iPads only disadvantage was that they didn't run on any version of MS Windows. Which in the end, turned out to be an advantage. Bet there are way more 1st and 2nd generation iPads still in use to day, than netbooks.  I'm still using two them. One of them daily. 

No. It was the MacBook Air. 

Apples answer to the Kindle was the iPad. 

One of main reason why netbooks were so popular back in 2007 to 2010 was because they were cheap. They cost like $399 at Walmart. They were not really meant to be full function laptops. They were meant to cost less for users that didn't require a full function laptop and more importantly ..... didn't want to pay for one. And netbooks being smaller, lighter and less powerful were the results making them cost less. 

In 2008 when the first MacBook Air came out, it cost $1800. A MacBook at the time still cost $999. How is the MacBook Air competing in the netbook market when it cost $800  more than a MacBook. A Mac user actually had to pay more for a laptop that was designed to be smaller, lighter and less powerful than a MacBook. The MacBook Air was never meant to be like a netbook. One can buy 2 netbooks with $800.  

https://www.dignited.com/75988/netbook-explained/

chasm said:

mike1 said:

Actually, between the Ring doorbell and Alexa cases that were settled, the total fines are $30.8MM. A little less paltry.

Yes, that’s nearly an HOUR’S WORTH of Amazon profits! That’ll learn ‘em!

It you're going to use all caps for ..... "HOUR"S WORTH"......, then you should do more to make sure the numbers you're stating is accurate.

$30M per hour X 24 hours per day X 365 days per year ...... comes to a WHOPPING ....... $263B a year in profit. 

Apple annual profit per year is about $100B. No way is Amazon making more than 2.5X  profit per year, than the biggest tech company in the World. 

The $263B number you are using is closer to Amazon GROSS PROFIT. Having a gross profit does not guarantee having any net profit.

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/gross-profit

If you want to be accurate and use Amazon actual annual net profit, then it looks more like this. 

https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMZN/amazon/net-income

In 2021, the latest full year Amazon made a profit, and a record year for that matter.

$33.5B in annual profit ... divided by ..... 365 days in a year .... divide by..... 24 hours in a day .... comes to $3.8M a hour.  So it would take Amazon about 8 hours of profit to pay for a $31M fine. And that was using the profit they made in 2021. In 2022, Amazon didn't make a profit, but still had over $200B in gross profit. 





 

ihatescreennames said:

Fines this small are ridiculously ineffective. I wonder how amounts like this are determined and why the FTC thinks it was reasonable. 

Because the fine was for practices that Ring was doing with their customers data, before Amazon bought them out. Amazon has since changed those policies after they bought Ring. The fine was not for anything Amazon was doing but Amazon still have to pay the fine since they now own Ring.  That's not to say that Amazon is not some how using their Ring customer data like Ring was doing, just that they now more transparent about it and doing it with the customer consent. Even if maybe  Ring customers don't fully realize what they are consenting to.  

From the article ......

>The filing alleges Ring, along with its third-party contractors, could download and otherwise access all of its customers' videos, with no hurdles at any point, up until July 2017.  

............

In 2019, Amazon's camera doorbell unit changed its access policies for its employees and contractors, making it so they could only access private customer data with the customer's consent.

Ring was acquired by Amazon for $1 billion in 2018, and was meant to be a big push for Amazon in the smart home market. In 2020, the company paused data sharing in an effort to rework its privacy controls.<

Once again AI headline is some what misleading.

AppleZulu said:

First, Netflix encouraged users to share accounts.

Second, if you want a 4K HDR picture - the standard resolution for most TVs currently on the market - Netflix requires you to buy a $20/month premium subscription that allows watching on 4 separate devices, simultaneously. If you just want to be able to watch 4K on your one TV in the den, there are no cheaper options. 

Netflix wouldn't have to police who's watching if they simply priced their plans on a straight-up per-stream basis, with all subscriptions able to deliver the current 4K HDR standard. If I want to pay for three people, why do they need to care where those three people are? Instead, they're going to take a huge PR hit (and probably subscriber hit) as they roll this ill-considered nickel-and-dime plan out. What morons.

The standard resolution of most TV's means nothing when it comes to a "standard". It's the standard resolution of most of the contents thats matters. Watching a VSH, DVD or BR version of a movie on a 4K TV does not mean you are watching a 4K movie. You are not watching reruns of "Seinfeld" or "The Big Bang Theory" or  movies like "Star Wars" or "The Matrix",  from a steaming service in 4K, just because you have a 4K TV. 

How much contents are recorded in 4K? Well. it's not much. Not even when Netflix is the streaming service with the most 4K contents. 

https://pointerclicker.com/how-common-is-4k-content/

When 4K contents become more the norm, then one can claim 4k as the standard.  But right now, HD is still the standard.  One can't claim 4K as the standard when over 95% of the streaming contents are not and never will be, in 4K. Imagine how much more we would be paying for our internet service, if streaming 4K contents was the standard.  

https://pointerclicker.com/do-4k-tvs-use-more-data/

Could it be that maybe it's the other way around. In that many, if not most, of the premium 4K subscribers are paying extra for the extra two simultaneous  streams and not for the 4K contents?  I have 5 TV's (one of then a projection) in my home but only need 2 simultaneous streams because there's only 2 of us. But my brother (when his 2 kids were still living at home) subscribed to Netflix, he paid for the extra 2 streams because both his kids had TV's and computers and iPads and mobile phones, plus there were 3 other TV's in his home. For my brother (at the time), there was a real need for more than 2 simultaneous streams, regardless of the lack of 4K contents that he didn't care for in the first place. So in a way, the extra $5 he would be paying comes to $2.50 per extra stream. (But he couldn't just pay for 1 extra stream.) Then there are others that are paying for the 2 extra streams to share their account with others that not in the household. I imagine that more subscribers will sooner switch back to HD when they run out of 4K contents to watch, than subscribers that switch back to HD because they no longer need more than 2 streams. The average household have more the 2.5 TV's (not including tablets, computers and mobile phones that can also stream contents.)  And those that are sharing those extra streams are not incline to switch back as long as they can get away with sharing those extra streams.