Slashdot Mirror


Apple's Market Cap Exceeds Google's

Lawrence Person writes "Mac Daily News was one of many Apple-followers to note that Apple Inc.'s market capitalization exceeded Google today. That means that the combined value of all Apple's outstanding shares of stock exceeded the combined value of all Google's outstanding shares of stock. Apple's stock is worth $157 billion and change vs. Google's $156 billion. Other companies Apple has surpassed in market cap include Cisco, HP, and Intel. Also, Apple is now worth 3 times the value of Dell Computer, despite Dell's founder and CEO declaring over a decade ago that if he ran Apple, he'd 'shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.'"

689 comments

  1. Well let's just be honest here by Erie+Ed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Look at the price of iPod's, iPhone's, Mac Books, and their other products. They are selling them at an incredible profit. Not hard to see why apple is worth so much. As much as I hate apple I have to give them credit.

    1. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The funny thing is that I've seen a lot of Mac fans cheering each quarter at the new record profits and at the same time get very defensive (or even offended) when someone suggests that Apple is selling their products for a lot more than it costs them to produce (yes, including fixed costs like R&D etc) compared to most of their competitors.

    2. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MacOSXHead · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why would you hate Apple?

      They have succeeded with products that people want to pay for.

      They have contributed much to the open source community.

      They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

      They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.

      They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.

      I guess Apple is bad because they make money.

      Mod this guy up to a ten.

    3. Re:Well let's just be honest here by aliquis · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Personally I wouldn't rate them above Intel in "future profit expectations" or whatever to call them. I see Intels product as something harder to copy / worth more.

      It's harder to compare with Google since I don't really see Googles product, yeah I know, ads, but well.. It's not something real =P

      Vs Dell it's more understandable, Dell doesn't offer any unique, they don't have their own product so to speak, if Dell died someone else would make similar PCs with similar software and no-one would care.

      But then I rate the products of each company on their own merit and not the chances to earn money on them on the market.

    4. Re:Well let's just be honest here by aliquis · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      That's because they are retarded.

      (I don't need to post as anonymous coward, *care* about how mac fanboys moderate me.)

      I own a macbook pro but I'm not happy with the purchase and was more or less forced to buy it since I had paid for the ADC student membership to get it cheaper anyway. But then this edition had the same retarded 128MB of VRAM and they still have shitty screens, not to mention ridiculously overpriced and ran hot as hell.

      I don't think it's right to say buy an HP and install OS X on it but you sure as hell get a much better product for your money.

    5. Re:Well let's just be honest here by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Have you actually compared the price of their products with similar configurations? Their prices are on Par with Dell, HP, Lenovo... (+/- $100 (yes sometimes they are cheaper) ) You need to be sure you try to match the specs of everything. Make sure that you compare case dimensions, screen resolution and size, video camera, CPU (Celerons are not the same as the non-celerons) memory, bus speed... You find that the price is about the same for comparable models.

      However Apple only has a limited product from mid - high end. with large gaps in the middle so you may pay extra for what you need. As you may need to get a MacBook Pro because you need a computer with the power of the Mac Book but with a larger screen, that is Dells advantage of offering you many different configurations. But you are getting your moneys worth for what you get. You just may not be getting the computer you needed and paid more for a lot of features you don't need.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    6. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tell me you don't actually believe what you're saying. I did a price breakdown between the cheapest Macbook (available for a whopping $1099) and an HP laptop with BETTER parts in almost all respects, and was able to save about $200 on the HP. Anyone with any sense can see that Apple charges way too much for their products.

    7. Re:Well let's just be honest here by peragrin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's just it if you bought an HP you would have the exact same problems if you spent the same amount of money.

      You want a really high end notebook your going to shell out for it one way or another.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    8. Re:Well let's just be honest here by petermgreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      how did the weight and build quality of the two machines compare?

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    9. Re:Well let's just be honest here by rve · · Score: 2, Funny

      It is considered normal for some people to hate Microsoft, the PC, Budweiser, France or Hollywood, but... ... if someone hates Apple, a moral panic breaks out among its disciples. A call to arms is cried from the towers and the torches are lit to defend the faith by flame.

      It's just a brand of gadgets ffs! Your mother wasn't insulted, your religion wasn't oppressed. Save your energies for a fight that really matters, such as flaming people who don't like starbucks or adidas.

    10. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My biggest problem with Apple is their culture of silence. They very often don't even admit they have bugs that are talked about in forums etc (for example, pre 10.5 printing to windows printer shares were broken for a while).

      This gets VERY bad when you start talking about security vulnerabilities.

    11. Re:Well let's just be honest here by PJCRP · · Score: 5, Funny

      how did the weight and build quality of the two machines compare?

      I took apart a HP laptop, and it was made of components (transistors, capacitors, circuit board, gold linings and such), you know, the boring usual result of the miniturisation process. When I took apart a Mac, I stumbled upon a world was full of little elves and unicorns who were playing on rolling green hills surrounded by snow-tipped mountains and fields of beautiful flowers that danced in the wind like a Russian ballereena. There was also a rainbow or two there as well.
      The HP laptop was surprisingly a little bit heavier, but that's to be expected. Mactops were sprinkled with faerie dust for taking off most of the weight.

      --
      Knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything.
    12. Re:Well let's just be honest here by ktappe · · Score: 5, Informative

      I see you worship at the church of Apple.

      Or, maybe he provided a well thought-out list of specific, quantifiable, verifiable reasons why Apple is a company worthy of respect. You might want to go re-examine "worship" in the dictionary. (Hint: It does not mean "someone who disagrees with me.")

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    13. Re:Well let's just be honest here by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      or operating system and included software?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    14. Re:Well let's just be honest here by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      It's called a religion...

      disclaimer, before someone lights their torches and comes for me, I have at least one apple product in this house.

    15. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      filter error, please use fewer 'junk' characters ? I wonder how that did not trigger a removal of the crap above.

      Organization Tamer Bozkir
      Address1 Ankara
      City Ankara
      State/Province Merkez
      Postal Code 81000
      Country Turkey
      Country Code TR
      Phone Number +90.3805142899
      Facsimile Number +90.3805241600
      Email ismail@klavye.com.tr

    16. Re:Well let's just be honest here by rve · · Score: 1

      You post a disclaimer out of fear?

    17. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Kjella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And right now, Macs are the wedge in the door of the Microsoft stranglehold. Linux might slip in, but it's Macs doing the ramming. For example this report puts Macs at 7.9% and Linux at 0.8%. Maybe it's envy that Macs are so popular, but it's stupid. I've very long been a fan of Opera the web browser, but it got a lot more pleasant when we passed 10% "not IE" due to Firefox. I'm quite certain that running Linux as I am will become a lot more pleasant if we pass 10% "not Windows" due to Macs. The positive thinking rrowd could say it would promote cross-platform solutions. The machiavellians can say it's divide and conquer. In any case, Macs are good for Linux. Including shamelessly copying the good parts while still letting you run xfce if you want...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    18. Re:Well let's just be honest here by ronocdh · · Score: 1

      Look at the price of iPod's, iPhone's, Mac Books, and their other products. They are selling them at an incredible profit.

      Whereas Google, on the other hand, offers its services at a steep count, because it is holy and good.

    19. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Obviously I didn't go out and purchase both machines, but in my experience HP's build quality has been pretty good, and I understand the same to be true for Apple. Weight is a non-issue in most laptops, sorry.

    20. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Given the choice of OS X and Windows Vista, give me Vista any day. Sorry, I know that's not a popular opinion on Slashdot.

      In my case, however, were I to purchase a Macbook (at severely reduced price, of course) I would immediately install Linux on it. So in that situation we could say the Macbook would win.

    21. Re:Well let's just be honest here by aliquis · · Score: 1

      No way, I'm well aware that Apple computer should only be bought just after release because they carry the best price to performance value then but even then you need something like those 20% of from ADC membership to get them competitive priced.

      I think the lowest end macbook pro cost something like 18.000 or 17.000 sek here now and you would probably get a HP with similar specs for 8-9.000 sek. Sure the HP will be fatter and carry more plastic but similar hardware spec and the extra bulk may even make it run cooler.

      But when the next version of the macbook pro get released if you could get it for something like 13.000 sek then yes, it will be reasonable priced to similar products on the market, though most people pay much more.

      And of course since Apple is in the monopolitic position they are in when it comes to selling macs you can only buy from them and therefor they always cripple the low end version of each and every product forcing you to pay for a mid or high end version to get a decent speced / uncrippled machine. And as all computer companies they take their chances to earn even more on the options because most often computers are compared at their base specs anyway. So for instance if I had wanted 256MB vram I would also have had to buy 1/11:th faster CPU which I didn't cared for and 40GB more HDD, all for just 5.000 sek more.... There the 256MB vram probably had something like a 300 sek value.

      Similarly the 17" iMac had a TN-panel which therefor suck, I think the cheapest 20" iMacs still have 128MB vram, Macbooks use to (I don't know how it's now) not have a burner in the cheapest model, and so on. Even the cheapest Mac Pro have a very shitty graphics card, and since it's a mac you have to buy a special mac graphics card, there you could get any card if it would had been a hack.

      Macbook Pro isn't a "really high end notebook", it's a "latest CPU notebook with lots of small but nice extra features otherwise weirdly speced and at an insane markup."

      I don't care for CPU, I'd much rather have VRAM over CPU speed. Same for regular ram or 7200 rpm drive. Those extra features are things like, uhm, on the new one multitouch pad and the magnetic power cable I guess, not much more than that. Webcam and aluminium frame, keyboard back lightning, firewire and wlan may have been older then seen as cool features.

    22. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well for starters his username is 'MacOSXHead' so I think it's fair to say where his bias lies. On top of that his list of "specific, quantifiable, verifiable reasons why Apple is a company worthy of respect" Is in fact largely subjective and/or wrong.

      They have succeeded with products that people want to pay for.

      They have their own little market which worships them and which Apple accordingly serves and they don't see much action outside of it.

      They have contributed much to the open source community.

      Where and how much? Certainly not to the level of other companies and I've never taken advantage of any of their offerings.

      They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

      Pretty damn subjective if you ask me. Certainly things like the User Interface Guideline are a good idea, but on the other hand I find apples interface to be next to unusable. Also in the end their hardware is made in the same Chinese sweatshops that IBM, HP, and Dells stuff comes from.

      They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.

      The "great" part is again subjective, I magine that since I don't like using Apples I wont much enjoy programming for them either. Also every other major OS maker offers the API to their platform free of cost too.

      They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.

      You could also do the same thing with say The Windows Mobile platform (It's worth pointing that I am no fan of Microsoft either I just happen to have a WM5 phone right now) They have an online store and developer tools, so does Motorola now that I think of it.

      I guess Apple is bad because they make money.

      Applis isn't bad or good. The majority of people just don't give a shit.

      AC because of mod points.

    23. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you want to read this post?

      It has an open line after every phrase.

      Quite annoying to read really.

      In fact, I even hate myself for writing this post.

      I think I'll check the Post Anonymously box.

      I would have made it more annoying by starting

      each phrase with a they.

    24. Re:Well let's just be honest here by jacquesm · · Score: 2, Funny

      absolutely :)

      Nothing more dangerous than religious nuts with torches...

    25. Re:Well let's just be honest here by rootofevil · · Score: 2, Insightful

      your post used the word probably, which means you havent bothered to get off your ass and back your argument up with facts.

      try that first.

      last time i saw _comparably_ equipped mac vs pc pricing, they were at least equal.

      dont try to make the claim that some entry level loss leader is equivalent to a macbook pro.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    26. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They have contributed much to the open source community."

      I'm not *that* sure. Remember first Safari releases and their negative to open up its code, even though safari rendering engine is based in KHTML.

    27. Re:Well let's just be honest here by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      However weight has a big factor on cost. It may not be important to you but it is a cost factor that you need to compare. 4 lb vs 4.5 lbs could add a couple hundred to the laptop. More advanced battery lighter with the same power output costs more. smaller drives (in dementions) harder to make. More compact motherboard design... they all add up. Weight is a non-issue in terms of your value but that isn't my original point. the point is you need to consider all the issues. As we talk about apples finances. The point is they are not necessarily selling their equipment at a higher profit margins they may get some from the fact that they sell the OS and the PC so they can probably get an extra $50 because they don't need to purchase windows, but It is mostly because people like their stuff and it is reasonably priced for what you get.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    28. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, I don't speak terrorist. And: Nice model. Tits or GTFO.

    29. Re:Well let's just be honest here by quenda · · Score: 1

      at an incredible profit. Not hard to see why apple is worth so much.

      Actually, their profit is rather small, compared to their share price. Their P/E ratio is 35, which means if you buy now, you get about 3% profit.

      You need a massive increase in profit in future to justify this price. Buyers must be expecting that, or the greater fool.

    30. Re:Well let's just be honest here by mgbastard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I own a macbook pro but I'm not happy with the purchase and was more or less forced to buy it since I had paid for the ADC student membership to get it cheaper anyway. But then this edition had the same retarded 128MB of VRAM and they still have shitty screens, not to mention ridiculously overpriced and ran hot as hell.

      eh? You were forced to buy it because you bought an ADC membership just so you could get a discount on a mac? Your root cause analysis and thriftiness is worthy of a politician.

      --
      Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
    31. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic is, that they are built in Asia like everything else. So, what's up with the hype for Chinese products?

    32. Re:Well let's just be honest here by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 1

      Did you upgrade the ram on that apple to 4gb? (but no one needs that much is a stupid argument)

    33. Re:Well let's just be honest here by und0 · · Score: 1

      Apple laptops are build by Quanta. Guess what, Quanta builds laptop for HP, Acer, Dell, Lenovo (and OLPC ^__^)...

    34. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Stormwatch · · Score: 2, Funny

      Nothing more dangerous than religious nuts with torches...

      How about religious torches with nuts?

    35. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      I went back to the models I compared, and the Macbook is 5 lbs, whereas the HP is 6. In my mind the difference is hardly enough to justify a difference of over $200 in cost alone, and who knows what the difference is in value of components (as I indicated previously, the HP has superior specs).

    36. Re:Well let's just be honest here by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "They have their own little market which worships them and which Apple accordingly serves and they don't see much action outside of it."

      Their market-share has been going up for quite some time already. And the iPod/iPhone certainly caters to people outside Mac-users as well. But then again, your comment applies to just about any other company as well. Microsoft has 90+% market-share in the desktop, but you don't see much action outside it. If they did, then they would have even bigger share. But they don't.... Circular reasoning.

      "Where and how much? Certainly not to the level of other companies and I've never taken advantage of any of their offerings."

      They contribute to GCC quite a bit. They also practically own CUPS and employ it's head-developer. WebKit has been a trendemous boost to KHTML. QuickTime streaming Server is open source...

      "The "great" part is again subjective, Imagine that since I don't like using Apples I wont much enjoy programming for them either. Also every other major OS maker offers the API to their platform free of cost too."

      But it's a question how good those API's are.

      "You could also do the same thing with say The Windows Mobile platform "

      Maybe you could, but they (MS, handset-maker etc.) haven't done it, so it's all academical. Compared to iPhone, installation of apps in just about any other handset/PDA is a chore, and the barrier to install new apps is very high.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    37. Re:Well let's just be honest here by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Sure the HP will be fatter and carry more plastic and it also comes with Windows Vista and not OS X...

      There, fixed that for ya.

    38. Re:Well let's just be honest here by linhares · · Score: 1

      I took apart a HP laptop, and it was made of components (transistors, capacitors, circuit board, gold linings and such), you know, the boring usual result of the miniturisation process. When I took apart a Mac, I stumbled upon a world was full of little elves and unicorns who were playing on rolling green hills surrounded by snow-tipped mountains and fields of beautiful flowers that danced in the wind like a Russian ballereena. There was also a rainbow or two there as well. The HP laptop was surprisingly a little bit heavier, but that's to be expected. Mactops were sprinkled with faerie dust for taking off most of the weight.

      Elves and Unicorns, I see. But does it run linux?

    39. Re:Well let's just be honest here by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Weight is a non-issue in most laptops, sorry."

      So, weight is a non-issue on a device that is meant to be carried with you? O.... K....

      The problem with the Mac vs. PC-comparison is that 98% of them rely on paper-specs. People stare at the specs and the price and then determine the "winner". What they utterly fail to understand is that there are more to computers than mere specs.

      It's like choosing your car by comparing their specs in Excel.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    40. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      I keep seeing you denote currency in "sek". Gonna explain to the world which currency that refers to?

      Anyway, if currency conversion makes the MBP ridiculously overpriced for what you got in it, you honestly shouldn't have bought the thing ADC membership or no ADC membership.

    41. Re:Well let's just be honest here by PJ1216 · · Score: 0

      He paid for the membership to buy the computer. If he didn't buy the computer or returned the computer, that means he just wasted money on the membership. Its sorta like he put a down payment that he couldn't get back. At least thats what it sounds like he's saying.

    42. Re:Well let's just be honest here by digitalhermit · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a good point.. Because Mac and Linux is different, they can't take the same approach to developing a product as they do for Windows. I.e., a company could previously build for a Windows base. In order to pursue the sizeable non-Windows market they will need to design to standards because it's often cost-prohibitive to design specifically for Linux, Mac or the host of other non-Windows based devices coming online.

    43. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The funny thing is that I've seen a lot of Mac fans cheering each quarter at the new record profits and at the same time get very defensive (or even offended) when someone suggests that Apple is selling their products for a lot more than it costs them to produce (yes, including fixed costs like R&D etc) compared to most of their competitors.

      They are probably worried that this fact will detract people from buying Macs. The simple truth is that people buy the computers and other hardware despite this fact, even first time buyers. While you could save a few bucks by going elsewhere, it isn't always about saving money.

      To bring in the car analogy: people still buy Mercedes cars, even though you probably get just as much out of a Honda. It is the seemingly unimportant things that make a difference.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    44. Re:Well let's just be honest here by PJ1216 · · Score: 1

      A couple things not covered in a comparison like this is room for expansion and ability to upgrade. In a few years, while usually both the PC and mac are running, you may want something a bit faster or better. The guy with the mac? probably has to buy an entirely new computer. The guy with the pc? maybe buy a new video card, possibly upgrade the cpu or just put in a bit more ram... all of it *completely* cheaper than a new computer.

    45. Re:Well let's just be honest here by PJCRP · · Score: 1

      Whilst I don't think the Elven High Council will approve of it, the citizens of the Elven land probably won't notice much of a difference other than the fact that their unicorns have been replaced with plain, thoroughbred horses with paper-mache horns glued on top. But a horse is a horse, so I think they'll understand and come to terms with it eventually.

      --
      Knows everything about nothing and nothing about everything.
    46. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      "Weight is a non-issue in most laptops, sorry."

      So, weight is a non-issue on a device that is meant to be carried with you? O.... K....

      Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases.

      The problem with the Mac vs. PC-comparison is that 98% of them rely on paper-specs. People stare at the specs and the price and then determine the "winner". What they utterly fail to understand is that there are more to computers than mere specs.

      Such as the pretty case? I'm sure you have good examples, so please share them so that I might consider them.

    47. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MightyYar · · Score: 0

      No offense, but you've confused "overpriced" with "lack of options". Macs do not come in as many flavors as Dells or HPs. They do not make big, heavy, "desktop replacement" laptops. It is fair to criticize them for lack of choice - it can be annoying at times.

      However, where the models overlap in features (including size!), they also overlap in price. While it is true that there are no cheap Macs, it is also not true that they are "overpriced".

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    48. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      A call to arms is cried from the towers and the torches are lit to defend the faith by flame.

      The REALLY weird thing is that it goes both ways. There are fervent, creepy, anti-Apple people on here.

      Folks, they are just computers, music players, and phones. You will laugh at the current state-of-the-art 10 years from now no matter what brand you buy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    49. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Well, as a religious person, nothing scares me more than a person without faith. Oh, and homosexuals. Oh, and Barack Obama - who will sell our babies to Chinese gymnastic orphanages.
      </sarcasm>

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    50. Re:Well let's just be honest here by flyingfsck · · Score: 3, Informative

      Asus alone sells more Linux machines than Apple sells Macs. The Linux market share is totally overwhelming if you include embedded devices with sales of about 300 million units per year. Of course Apple sells more Macs and iPods than anyone else... ;)

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    51. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      Attended a briefing by some Apple guys on securing OS X. When it came to Q&A time, just about everyone asked for a mid-size tower, in the $1200.00-$1800.00 range. I work at an engineering/research place and it was explained to them that we need something more than an iMac but not everyone needs an 8 core MacPro. From what I've heard, we're not the only shop asking for this. Who knows, the Quadra 700 may make a return.

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    52. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Why would you find a 20% weight difference negligible, but a 20% cost difference significant?

      I think if you compare similar laptops, you will get similar prices.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    53. Re:Well let's just be honest here by the_arrow · · Score: 2, Informative

      I keep seeing you denote currency in "sek". Gonna explain to the world which currency that refers to?

      SEK = Swedish crowns, or "kronor" in Swedish. 1 SEK is around $0.16.

      --
      / The Arrow
      "How lovely you are. So lovely in my straightjacket..." - Nny
    54. Re:Well let's just be honest here by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. The silence on bugs & issues are horrible problems for apple. Road maps for software & hardware are even harder to come by. Can't convince many CIOs to use Apple if they won't tell us where Apple will be in September, much less 2010.

      On the flip side, apart from all the rumor mongering, they love to jump ahead of everyone else by using their secrecy. cf. MacIntel, iPhone.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    55. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Their P/E ratio is 35,

      Google's is 33, so this isn't absurd for "rising star" companies.

      Stuck-in-the-mud companies like HP, MSFT, and DELL are all in the 15 range. So technically, all investors are saying is that Apple will grow at roughly twice the rate of those three.

      (Before I get jumped on, I agree that MSFT is valued too low and I'm not sure why investors consider them "stuck in the mud", but they do.)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    56. Re:Well let's just be honest here by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases."

      Even a "small" difference in weight is a huge difference in the long run.

      "Such as the pretty case? I'm sure you have good examples, so please share them so that I might consider them."

      As it happens, I used simultaneously two different laptops, one my MacBook Pro at home, the other my company-issued HP-laptop. Specwise there was no huge difference between the two, but in actual usage, the difference was huge.

      - HP felt cheaper and flimsy, MBP felt sturdy and solid

      - MBP had a backlit keyboard which made typing in low-light conditions easy and great. HP had nothing like that. Also the keyboard on the MBP was better than on the HP.

      - MBP is made of aluminum, HP was made from plastic. The metal simply feels better during use.

      - MBP was considerably thinner, and therefore easier to carry. It was also lighter than the HP.

      - MBP had FW800-port, which was (and is) very useful when using it with my external HD's.

      - The Magsafe. My co-worker actually managed to damage his HP because someone tripped on the powercord when the laptop was on his desk.

      - Then there's the overall design. MBP had smooth and clean lines, HP was jagged, full of stickers, unclean surfaces etc. HP was full of LEDs that kept on telling me "useful" information ("I'm accessing the HD right now! Thought you might want to know!") but in reality they only accomplished to distract me Some people might not care. But then again, some people prefer Ladas....

      Those are all qualities that do not appear in the comparisons where people proclaim "But you can get X MHz more on the PC than on the Mac for the same amount of money!".

      And I only listed qualities that I used, there are others that I had no need for, but are still present. Like the optical audiojacks in the MBP.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    57. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only reason people are buying more Macs is because Microsoft made the mistake of pushing Vista (which sucks, XP was just fine) and all the blatantly false Apple commercials. There relatively recent line of commercials is one of the main reasons I have lost respect for Apple. Before I thought they made pretty nice stuff, it was just overpriced. Now I think they are an evil company that would be far worse than Microsoft if they had the same market share and money to throw around.

    58. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      "They have contributed much to the open source community."

      I'm not *that* sure. Remember first Safari releases and their negative to open up its code, even though safari rendering engine is based in KHTML.

      Nobody but the Apple haters remembers that, not even the KHTML developers who complained that Apple didn't release their changes in the format they would have prefered to receive them in.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    59. Re:Well let's just be honest here by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      $200 bucks!!! Whoopty frikken doooo. I'd pay an extra $500 just to get OSX instead of Vista. I'd pay the extra $200 just for the brand security, since I've been pretty much problem free with Apple products for over 25 years (YMMV). I'd pay $200 just to know that if something goes wrong with my computer, I walk into the mall and ask some teenager guy at the genius bar what the fuck is wrong with my computer, then go home and fix it myself. $200 alone is worth avoiding groveling to my closest geek-friend or going to the Geek-squad for them to screw up my Vista laptop even more. $200 ain't shit in the grand scheme of the world. And no, HP aren't BETTER parts in general. They offer a wider-variety of parts, but the parts that are in line with Apple prices are certainly no better (or worse).

    60. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is a strawman argument. That is not the real argument.

      Apple does have a better profit margin on their products in their field, somewhere around 30%. Why would anyone be offended at 30% gross profit margin? Apple is a corporation with a responsibility to create profit for their shareholder and 30% margin is not the worst. Because of this profit margin, Apple actually makes more profit and can grow faster than Dell with its market share that is several times bigger. Dell chose to sell junks at razor thin profit margin. That is their strategy and it works. But they do a lot of work for less profit and now Apple is 3 times their market cap. That reminds me the quote: Work smarter, not harder.

      In any case, Mac fans (yes I am a fan, though not a fanboi) are tired at the myth that Macs are a lot more expensive. Yes, Macs are a lot more expensive than a do-it-yourself PCs. Yes, if you choose a high end Macs and compare it to the cheapest PC at Wal-Mart, Macs look a lot more expensive (typical PC fanbois tactics). You can even try to compare a low end iMac with Wal-mart junk and that is still not a valid comparison. Apple simply does not cater to the low end, junk type computer/device market. If you want to be fair, pick a Mac and price a Dell to match its feature. Chances are, Macs are only slightly more expensive or surprise, even cheaper. And this is junky Dell, we are talking about. What about a more robust offering from HP?

      Can't say for all Mac fans, but what I dislike is not a claim that Apple makes a good profit. If they make a good product that we enjoy using, they deserve to make a good profit. It is the way Apple haters use invalid comparisons to spread FUD. Criticize Apple flaws properly with facts. I'll probably agree with you.

    61. Re:Well let's just be honest here by crovira · · Score: 1

      Since when is R&D a fixed cost?

      A company can spend $0.00 on R&D and still exist (look at chewing gum manufacturers.)

      R&D is a discretionary expense. It just happens to be a wise move for anybody (unless you're Microsoft who does what Apple does like a trained monkey, [just like Ford and Ferrari are two car makers, {they both make cars that's about as much as they have in common...}])

      --
      MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
    62. Re:Well let's just be honest here by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      EXACTLY!!!

      I don't see why there is such the enmity between the Mac and Linux communities. Does no one else recall the old concept that: "The enemy of the enemy is my ally?". As a Mac user, I'm happy with every advance that Linux makes against gates and his minions. And Linux users should certainly be happy with every stride Apple makes against gates.

      cya,
      john

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    63. Re:Well let's just be honest here by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 2
      I think I speak for many geeks when I say that we do not like Apple primarily because they are so good at marketing and a following of devoted users whom are allowing their love for the company cloud their judgement when it comes to evaluating the quality and value of Apple products.

      Apple has decent products, but they are not as magnificent as many of the devoted users claim them to be, especially if you look at the value that they are offering.

      If one were to conduct a no-bullshit trade study before making purchases of phones, music players, laptops, desktops, or operating systems, then Apple would sell a lot less products.

    64. Re:Well let's just be honest here by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1

      I went back to the models I compared, and the Macbook is 5 lbs, whereas the HP is 6. In my mind the difference is hardly enough to justify a difference of over $200 in cost alone, and who knows what the difference is in value of components (as I indicated previously, the HP has superior specs).

      Are you the sort of person who gets a laptop with docking station and leaves it there permanently, as though it were a desktop?

      I have to assume you never travel with a laptop if you don't think a whole pound makes any difference. Most people I know put their laptop in a carry on when they take it through an airport or on a train. Lug that bag around for a whole day for miles walking through an airport, catching connecting flights, lifting it up to put into overhead bins and that insignificant, extra pound starts to matter.

      Not to mention, saving a pound leaves more room for cheetos. :^)

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    65. Re:Well let's just be honest here by idontgno · · Score: 1

      The REALLY weird thing is that it goes both ways. There are fervent, creepy, anti-Apple people on here.

      Yah, the depth of polarization is weird. It's yin and yang, dark and light, matter and antimatter.

      I wish they'd just get together, mutually annihilate, and leave the rest of us to bask in the resulting high-energy ionizing radiation.

      obDisclaimer: I dislike Apple's corporate policies (i.e., litigation to enforce "marketing secrets", shutting down leak websites, etc). For that reason, I'll probably not give them any money until they become somewhat more responsible corporate citizens. But hate? Meh. I don't really like wasting emotion on corporate entities.

      --
      Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
    66. Re:Well let's just be honest here by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      I really am scared of people that are so well connected they manage to have the same digit 5 times in their uid...

    67. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Because I live in reality, where 5 and 6 lbs are both obscenely light, but $200 can go a long way?

    68. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      I don't doubt that what you say is true, but even in that situation, the difference between 5 and 6 lbs is negligible; it starts to weigh on you in more or less the same amount of time.

    69. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Also, just to clarify, I carry my laptop around with me every day. I don't even own a docking station.

    70. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      Three things.

      First: I apologize for both not making enough money to be able to "Pay an extra $500 just to get OS X instead of Vista."

      Second: I could have also gotten a 3-year accident-inclusive warranty and gotten a totally new laptop in the event of my current one being run over by a truck, and STILL have paid less money than I would have for a Macbook.

      Third: I said the HP laptop I compared had better specs. (Faster processer, more RAM, more HDD space, better video, longer-lasting battery, etc, etc...) not that its parts were better in general. If I had gone out of my way to bring the parts "in line" with the specs of the Macbook, I would have saved an additional $200 easily. Is a difference of $400 or more enough to make you sweat yet? It is for me.

    71. Re:Well let's just be honest here by stewbacca · · Score: 4, Funny

      Given the choice of OS X and Windows Vista, give me Vista any day. I know that's not a popular opinion on Slashdot or anywhere else on planet Earth.

      Fixed that for ya.

    72. Re:Well let's just be honest here by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      On the flip side, apart from all the rumor mongering, they love to jump ahead of everyone else by using their secrecy. cf. MacIntel, iPhone.

      That's why they are so secretive. There are lots of competitors that would rush a similar but inferiour product to market ahead of them and possibly spoil it for them. It also helps fuel the hype and thus get more free media attention.

      Being secretive about bugs and issues is bad though. I agree with that.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    73. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      "Weight is a non-issue when the vast majority of laptops (including the Macbook I looked at) are around 5 lbs in weight, with very little variation except for in extreme cases."

      Even a "small" difference in weight is a huge difference in the long run.

      In the long run, I have found that things under 10 lbs in weight produce the same amount of weariness on me no matter how long I carry them for (except for the cases of the obscenely small, such as a pencil. YMMV.)

      If we were discussing the Macbook Air, I think I could concede this point, but I have been talking about the standard Macbook.

      - HP felt cheaper and flimsy, MBP felt sturdy and solid

      How things "feel" is subjective. This opinion is likely true to you. Personally, every Macbook I've touched feels like I could snap it in half with my bare hands.

      - MBP had a backlit keyboard which made typing in low-light conditions easy and great. HP had nothing like that. Also the keyboard on the MBP was better than on the HP.

      I will concede the backlight, but whether or not the keyboard itself was "better" is subjective. I personally can't stand the keyboards on a Macbook. Likely it's a matter of personal preference.

      - MBP is made of aluminum, HP was made from plastic. The metal simply feels better during use.

      Unless your laptop's primary function is to rub it against yourself, I don't see how it "feels" as a major feature.

      Also, I don't recall, are standard Macbooks made of aluminum as well?

      - MBP was considerably thinner, and therefore easier to carry. It was also lighter than the HP.

      Discussed above.

      - MBP had FW800-port, which was (and is) very useful when using it with my external HD's.

      This depends on your peripherals. I don't tend to use firewire.

      - The Magsafe. My co-worker actually managed to damage his HP because someone tripped on the powercord when the laptop was on his desk.

      I would concede this.

      - Then there's the overall design. MBP had smooth and clean lines, HP was jagged, full of stickers, unclean surfaces etc. HP was full of LEDs that kept on telling me "useful" information ("I'm accessing the HD right now! Thought you might want to know!") but in reality they only accomplished to distract me Some people might not care. But then again, some people prefer Ladas....

      So, for you, prettiness is a major feature. For me it is not.

      Those are all qualities that do not appear in the comparisons where people proclaim "But you can get X MHz more on the PC than on the Mac for the same amount of money!".

      If I may be blunt: perhaps the reason they do not appear is because nearly all of them are completely irrelevant to the actual functionality of the laptop.

      They might be features you like, but they hardly justify the harsh premium I would have to pay. To me it isn't worth it.

      And I only listed qualities that I used, there are others that I had no need for, but are still present. Like the optical audiojacks in the MBP.

      I'm puzzled by the presence of such features in any laptop. I would gladly give them up for a more reasonable price.

    74. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Knara · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why Apple is considered a "rising star". More like "The Aerosmith Comeback" of the computer world.

    75. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FFS there are tons of reasons to hate Apple just like there are tons of reasons to hate any corporation. Or love any corporation. But that isn't the point of that post, or this thread...

    76. Re:Well let's just be honest here by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      If one were to conduct a no-bullshit trade study before making purchases of phones, music players, laptops, desktops, or operating systems, then Apple would sell a lot less products.

      What converted me to using Apple products, was to use other people's Apples. I discovered they just make better user interfaces.

      They aren't real big inventers, but they are quick at adapting and pushing a new technology, if it makes a device easier to use. Between GUI, trackpad, USB, touchscreen smartphones, and some other things, they have been great at pushing for easier to use technologies to the point where the entire market adopted them.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    77. Re:Well let's just be honest here by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The Magsafe. My co-worker actually managed to damage his HP because someone tripped on the powercord when the laptop was on his desk.
      magsafe has always stuck me as a bit of a half baked idea, how often is the power cord really the only thing hanging out of your laptop?

      P was full of LEDs that kept on telling me "useful" information ("I'm accessing the HD right now! Thought you might want to know!") but in reality they only accomplished to distract me
      I'm the opposite, I find the lack of a hdd led on the macbook rather annoying. when something is taking quite a bit of time with no decent progress indication I find it very reasuring to have an indication that there is disk activity. Hard drive noise used to fulfill this requirement but modern laptop drives are too quiet.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    78. Re:Well let's just be honest here by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      ...Apple is selling their products for a lot more than it costs them to produce...compared to most of their competitors.

      So Apple's customers are happy and the company more profitable than their competitors. I'm not seeing a problem here.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    79. Re:Well let's just be honest here by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      First: you miss my point entirely. I'd pay $500 more in THEORY to get a Mac with OSX, but in reality, I only have to pay $200 more (based on your figures). If you want to argue that $200 will ruin you financially, then you have nothing to apologize for being poor, other than the fact you are dropping nearly $1k on something that you can't afford

      Second: Everyone knows that extra warranty coverage is always a waste of money. What you described is covered in my homeowners insurance anyway.

      Third: $400 is less than the $500 theoretical dollars I said I'd spend for a computer with OSX over a computer with Vista. No, $400 does not make me sweat, unless I was paying $400 for something obscenely inferior to the cheaper product, which I'm not.

    80. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      So it was bigger on the inside? DAMNIT, and I'd been expecting police boxes to be the TARDIS, when it was actually my very own MBP all along!

    81. Re:Well let's just be honest here by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "How things "feel" is subjective."

      Not really. If something that is not supposed to creack and flex creacks and flexes, then it feels "cheap".

      "Unless your laptop's primary function is to rub it against yourself, I don't see how it "feels" as a major feature."

      When I type on the laptops keyboard, the machine constantly rubs against my hands...

      "Also, I don't recall, are standard Macbooks made of aluminum as well?"

      Nope. But then again, I was comparing MBP to a comparable HP.

      "Discussed above."

      You might feel that size weight is not important when it comes to laptops, but I will respectfully disagree.

      "This depends on your peripherals. I don't tend to use firewire."

      Maybe that's because your computer does not have good support in that area? My MBP has FW800-port, and my external HD happens to support FW800.

      "So, for you, prettiness is a major feature. For me it is not."

      No, it's not a "major feature". It just happens that I prefer pretty things over ugly things, everything else being equal. Maybe I'm strange in that way.

      "If I may be blunt: perhaps the reason they do not appear is because nearly all of them are completely irrelevant to the actual functionality of the laptop."

      No, they are not "irrelevant". Is it irrelevant that on one laptop you can comfortably use the machine in low-light conditions, whereas you can't with the other? Is it "irrelevant" that one PORTABLE computer is more portable than the other? And so forth.

      "They might be features you like, but they hardly justify the harsh premium I would have to pay. To me it isn't worth it."

      But there is no real premium. The price of the HP and the MBP was within 200e or so. And before you jump on that "harsh premium" of under 200e, there were some tangible specs that came along with that "premium", like bigger HD on the MBP (160GB on the MBP, 120GB (or was it 80GB?) on the HP and N-spec WiFI (HP had G-spec). So the actual price-difference between the two machines is something like 100e or so, maybe even less. And for that money I got a machine that is smaller, lighter and has genuinely useful features (backlit keyboard, FW800, better design (or, "prettier" as you put it), Magsafe etc...

      "harsh premium" indeed...

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    82. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey MacOSXHead, not to consider you biased or anything, but...

      Apple is notoriously cold to developers, their open source license is very questionable, and their iPhone application lock outs are just a recent example of how "bad" they are.

      Even without saying so, Google on the other hand is almost the complete opposite-- very developer friendly, very user friendly, and much open source.

    83. Re:Well let's just be honest here by 10Ghz · · Score: 1

      "magsafe has always stuck me as a bit of a half baked idea, how often is the power cord really the only thing hanging out of your laptop?"

      Powercord is usually the only thing that is going to the floor. Sure, I have an external display and few USB-devices hooked up to this machine as we speak. But no-ne can trip on those cables, since the cables remains on the desk. Only cable that reaches the floor is the power-cable.

      Sure, I might be able to damage the machine if I grabbed the display-cable and yanked hard, but I couldn't really do that accidentally. Tripping on the powercord is something that could be done by accident.

      "I'm the opposite, I find the lack of a hdd led on the macbook rather annoying. when something is taking quite a bit of time with no decent progress indication I find it very reasuring to have an indication that there is disk activity. Hard drive noise used to fulfill this requirement but modern laptop drives are too quiet."

      I have never really had any need for the HD-light. If I really, REALLY need to find out that whether the HD is doing something, I could always put my ear to the machine and listen to the HD. But I have never had any reason to do that.

      --
      Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
    84. Re:Well let's just be honest here by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      I've only made the comparison between the cheapest MBP and Dell's offerings, and if you look at the videocard, screen quality and resolution and cpu speeds, I still find the prices comparable.

      For example, the Dell XPS M1530 will start at 799 euros, compared to the MBP at 1799. But once you add everything in the Dell, it ends up at 1786,99, so the difference ends up being minimal, and it's actually higher without the 120 euro special action price.

      And they are similar weight and such. Not sure if the Dell had backlight in the keyboard and it certainly doesn't have the magsave, but it has a cardreader instead.

      YMMV, but overall I think Apple products are comparatively priced.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    85. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pdusen · · Score: 1

      I did not miss your point. You, however, missed mine: I am not poor, I am merely pragmatic, and will only pay a premium for tangible features of actual value to my productivity.

    86. Re:Well let's just be honest here by zymurgyboy · · Score: 1
      No need to call anyone a liar. I do what I described all over the US and between the US and Europe at least once a month. One pound does make a noticeable difference over the course of a day's travel, for me at least. Of course, YMMV. And I carry one, sometimes two laptops, daily when not traveling as well.

      All things being equal, how can you possibly argue that smaller/lighter is not better in such situations? I'd even go so far as to say it is worth a couple hundred bucks. For a primary tool I use everyday, for virtually every task, I'll spend the money there and save $200 shopping around for car insurance or household cleaning supplies or something.

      --
      If you never make mistakes, it's probably because you're not doing anything.
    87. Re:Well let's just be honest here by pthisis · · Score: 1

      I'm not *that* sure. Remember first Safari releases and their negative to open up its code, even though safari rendering engine is based in KHTML.

      Nobody but the Apple haters remembers that, not even the KHTML developers who complained that Apple didn't release their changes in the format they would have prefered to receive them in.

      Disagree, strongly. I'd say to the casual person who isn't a close follower of Apple or KDE, that is the only thing they would remember about the Safari/KHTML code. It's certainly the only thing that made Slashdot headlines. Normal daily code releases don't get press, so anybody who isn't really following the development mailing lists is never going to hear about them.

      I'm saying that as someone who likes Apple.

      --
      rage, rage against the dying of the light
    88. Re:Well let's just be honest here by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Look at the price of iPod's, iPhone's, Mac Books, and their other products. They are selling them at an incredible profit.

      As opposed to similar spec'd Zunes that sell for $10-$20 less than iPods. I guess that takes Microsoft out of the "incredible" profit zone and drops them into just the "great" profit zone?

    89. Re:Well let's just be honest here by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      If you are sweating $200 and claim that you aren't poor, then you must just be cheap. That's about as succinct as I can be, and was the entire point of my first post. I mean, I could point you to the myriad of studies showing better ROI, operating costs, productivity on the OS X side, but that would probably escalate into a he-said he-said war. I'll go with my studies (god knows I paid enough for school) and let you do the research.

    90. Re:Well let's just be honest here by donstenk72 · · Score: 1

      I buy Mac BECAUSE it is more expensive as I assume it is worth it. Just like a Merc or any other carmaker that has a reputation to keep up. These brands cannot afford to cock up too much as their reputation is one of the primary assets. Apple does cock up every now and again but generally it's products feel well made and are reliable. I consider it best of breed together with a few other brands: Nokia phones, Volvo cars, Canon cameras, Sony TV, etc. Actually, is there a list as such?

    91. Re:Well let's just be honest here by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      To bring in the car analogy: people still buy Mercedes cars, even though you probably get just as much out of a Honda. It is the seemingly unimportant things that make a difference.

      Having worked in a car parts plant (making HVAC motors, radiators, and seat adjustment motors) for a little while in an engineering position, I can say this:

      People have *no* idea what kind of hardware they're running when they compare Mercedes to Honda. Seriously.

      I hear the argument a lot. "Well, your Mercedes doesn't get you to work any faster!", or "it's just an engine, wheels, and a bunch of steel!". The truth is, having poked my head into the guts of these cars, from cheapo Pontiacs to really ridiculously high-end Mercedes (my factory made a whole range of crap), I can tell you that the extra money does buy a lot of extra hardware.

      Which is also why I dislike it when people judge a product entirely based on feature set. Just because you both have power steering don't make two cars equal.

      Example: Mercedes Benz cars almost invariably run IRBL radiator motors. These babies are *powerful*. They are capable of venting a LOT of heat in a short time, and have a theoretically unlimited lifespan. Those things fail when the solid-state electronics in them fail, which is a pretty fricking long time. Their speed control is also a lot more precise and advanced than their cheaper counterparts, so you get some energy savings there. And these things *almost never* fail.

      On the other hand I was in charge of some Pontiac vehicles during my time there. They all ran standard DC brush motors, which have a lifespan limited by the size of their brushes (the little piece that passes power to the commutator by friction), which for cheap vehicles was generally timed at around 5 years. They are also *much* more prone to failure, since the adhesives holding your magnets to the stator would fail eventually (where eventually is as short as a couple of years), and the fact that you're creating a cloud of copper soot behind also gunks up the internal workings of the motor.

      Comparing Mercedes and Hondas is really, really ill-advised. Most people are not aware of the sheer quality difference between the two. If I had the money I wouldn't hesitate plunking down the cash for one.

      Oh, and the Chrysler Town & Country is made up of surprisingly quality parts. Don't ask me why :S

    92. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Draek · · Score: 1

      They have succeeded with products that people want to pay for.

      That *some* people want to pay for, and quickly proceed to flame those of us that don't. Granted, not the fault of the company per se, but it does hurt their image nevertheless.

      They have contributed much to the open source community.

      Not as much as IBM or Sun, yet the "Lotus Notes was made by the Devil himself, he just subcontracted it to IBM!" jokes are still plentiful 'round here.

      They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

      In some ways, but in others they've popularized some very idiotic things such as DRM, batteries you can't change without voiding your warranty, focusing on visual design over proper ventilation in computer cases, etc.

      They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.

      They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.

      So funny that you'd put both of those together... gonna leave it up to you to figure out why ;)

      Seriously, there are reasons for people to like Apple, but there are also reasons for people to dislike them and to deny that, well, doesn't speak well for you. Or Apple, either (see #1).

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    93. Re:Well let's just be honest here by konohitowa · · Score: 1

      Well for starters his username is 'MacOSXHead'

      Based on that logic, I can see that you're a coward but you don't want anyone to know.

    94. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Obviously I was limiting myself to desktops and the desktop market. If you want to talk about "devices" there's plenty other companies that have to be included. How many Linux call phones are there? How many NON-linux cell phones are there? MP3 players? Set tops? Servers? Supercomputers? And even if Linux is kicking ass in some of those markets (supercomputers is one) does that really change anything about what I said about the desktop? You say "overwhelming marketshare" but completely fail to state what the market you're referring to is. Sounds to me like you sum up everything that runs Linux and compare it to just Macs - that's not a very apples-to-apples comparison...

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    95. Re:Well let's just be honest here by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Um... So... They follow the specs given by computer company. Use Part A,B,C and arrange them as such. vs an other company use Part A,E,C and arrange them different as E is cheaper then B. and only adds 0.1 lbs to the product. The quality of PCs and Laptops are not because of the manufacture it is the design. Toyota's are considered built better then GM/Ford however a lot of the workers and factories that Toyota uses are old GM/Ford factories and workers. The difference is the design of the product. Or lets make sure the pistons are of a metal when heated doesn't expand to a point where it breaks the engine. Lets move put a rubber gasket on part A to reduce vibration damage.....

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    96. Re:Well let's just be honest here by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      Your still missing the point. 5lbs vs. 6lbs costs more to make it 5lbs thus why it is $200 wither or not YOU PERSONALLY find value of the extra pound is not the point. The point is are Apples Over Priced, And still a $200 difference for a 1lbs means you are not comparing similar models. For some people those who carry their laptops around a lot, 1 lbs does matter. Especially when you consider most laptop users have extra stuff in their bags too. Books, power adapters... which can make your carry weight 9lbs or 10lbs and still that extra lbs you can feel after you go a distance with it. I can usally tell if I forgot to pack my notepad (paper one) because I can feel the difference in weight when I pick up my bag. However I digress. You are not comparing Apples to Apples Pun not intended when the weight is off 20%. It could be the difference of a older heavier drive (hard and/or optical) different batteries. Small and Light ones are more expensive then the big and heavy... Even just the material... Heavy Plastic or a light metal.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    97. Re:Well let's just be honest here by radish · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can't resist a challenge!

      Mac Book Pro 15":
      Black Case
      2.5 GHz C2D
      2GB RAM
      250GB 5400RPM SATA HDD
      15.4" Screen, 1440x900, LED backlight
      8x DVDR/CDR
      Wireless-N
      Bluetooth

      Dimensions: 1"x14"x10", 5.4 lbs

      Price - $2500

      Dell Studio 15:
      Black Case
      2.5 GHz C2D
      2GB RAM
      250GB 5400RPM SATA HDD
      15.4" Screen, 1440x900, LED backlight
      8x DVDR/CDR
      Wireless-N
      Bluetooth

      Dimensions: 1"-1.3"x14"x10", 6.1 lbs

      Price - $1269

      So the Dell is slightly heavier, and slightly thicker at one end, but costs basically half the price. Every other spec I could find is equivalent.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    98. Re:Well let's just be honest here by theolein · · Score: 1

      Man, I don't really care for these Mac vs. PC flamefests, but I work in a company that is 90% Mac (even our Windows machines run on Macs). Why do we do it when Dell or HP or perhaps even Lenovo would have cost far less (This is definitely true, PCs are much cheaper than Macs)?

      It is because you get what you pay for. The build quality and design quality on Macs is simply phenomenal, truly fantastic. Have you ever looked at litte things like the power button on a Mac Book Pro, or the total lack of wires and cables floating around inside a Mac Pro?

      Your average Dell is a cheap, brittle piece of plastic crap, with palm rests that bend when you place your hand on them, hinges that break, and laptop lid latches that are made out of breakable plastic.

      And that's not even comparing the OS. I support Mac, Linux and Windows at work, and I have by far the most problems with Windows and the three million little quirks that make up Windows.

      The Dell is only cheaper because you have to buy two of them becuse they break so often.

      That said: Dell seems to have finally gotten the idea that design counts and their new laptops and the little pluggable desktop look quite neat.

    99. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why would you hate Apple?

      Because I choose to. I can do anything I like. Whether I tell you why is my prerogative. I don't answer to you and never will.

      > They have succeeded with products that people want to pay for.

      > Yes we know. The question is why people want to buy these products. People buy a lot of shit all the time but that doesn't mean we respect the companies who market this shit.

      They have contributed much to the open source community.

      > That's patently false. See what Rob Braun says. They duped the open source community - that's more like it. Do your research, fanboy.

      > They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

      Oh total crap.

      > They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.

      True. But there's no market to sell products because they insist on a hardware lock-in.

      > They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.

      Oh my god give it up.

      > I guess Apple is bad because they make money.

      You KNOW why - it's because of repulsive trolls like you.

    100. Re:Well let's just be honest here by radish · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that Apple stuff is well designed and generally well put together (although I'd take a ThinkPad over anything when it comes to quality, personally). But that wasn't the GP's assertion - he asserted that Apple cost the same for the same spec. Whilst that is true in some cases, it certainly isn't in others.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    101. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Darktan · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to add the cost of the OS (is Windows included in $1269?). Then there's the cost of the Development suite, if you're into that sort of thing.
      OS X - included.
      Dell - $949.00 (MS Visual Studio 2008 Pro)

      So, yes, the Mac is has a premium pricetag, but you get a lot of value for that, assuming that the features that Apple offers are the ones you need.

    102. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I was living in Germany the locals told me that Toyota regularly came out tops in the surveys on reliability carried out by the local AA (ADAC) Not sure if that still holds (it was 7 years back) but the quality of the Japanese cars is not to be despised. Some are better than others of course, I would rate Toyota and Honda higher than Mazda for instance.

    103. Re:Well let's just be honest here by aliquis · · Score: 1

      Since I have this machine I'm not that much looking for other ones, but it's easy to find a machine with 2GB of ram and 256MB of vram for around 8000 sek at least. It will probably be fatter and maybe use say a 2GHz CPU or so, what do I know, and I don't care either. Probably have a bigger HDD than the cheapest mbp.

      Compaq CQ50-112EO

      2 GHz AMD Turion x2 RM70
      3GB DDR2
      200GB 5400 rpm sata
      DVD-DL
      8200m (crap.)
      15.4" 1280x800
      2.93 kr

      5990 sek.

      HP DV7-1094

      C2D P8400
      3GB DDR2
      320 GB 5400 rpm SATA
      9600 GT 512 MB
      17" 1440x900

      Got HDMI, e-sata which the MBP don't have.

      9900 sek.

      Asus M51TA-AP004C

      Turion ZM82
      4 GB DDR2
      320 GB HDD
      DVD-DL
      HD3650 512MB
      15.4" WXGA
      hdmi, e-sata, wlan-n, gbit lan, bluetooth, expresscard, webcam, 4 usb, 8-in-1 card reader, 2.95 kg.

      8990 sek.

      The later one probably have 1280x800 then I guess, so lower res, but twice as much ram, twice as big hdd, twice as much graphics ram, twice as many usb ports, card reader and e-sata and cost half as much as a MBP.

      And this is from a general electronics chain in Sweden, from the real online computer stores you can probably get better deals.

      I don't give a shit if they would "sell for loss", or more correctly not sell for a huge profit, that's not my problem, if I get a better machine for less that's all I care about.

    104. Re:Well let's just be honest here by dw604 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I've always hated Apple. One mouse button and a crappy early OS turned me off for life.

    105. Re:Well let's just be honest here by dw604 · · Score: 0, Troll

      3 words ONE MOUSE BUTTON. Hate. Anger. Never again.

    106. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      OK. I don't normally swear on /., but this is bullshit.

      First, the $2500 MacBook Pro you price has a 512MB video card, an option that is not available on any of the Dell Studio series. You should be comparing to the $2000 Macbook Pro, which has the 256MB video card.

      And once you include things like Wireless-N to match the Mac and the Ultimate version of Vista to match OS X, it becomes less of a blowout. And then you have to match the software bundle, etc. And most Mac users don't buy RAM from Apple, since you can get it much cheaper from third party vendors. And then you end up paying more to Dell for a backlit keyboard, camera, etc. And then there's things like Magsafe and so on.

      Worse, you are comparing the low to mid range Studio series against the high end Macbook Pro, when you should be at least comparing the XPS series, or more appropriately the Pro class laptops that Dell sells. These are more expensive because they have better components and aren't made on the cheap.

      I don't doubt that you can buy an equivalent Dell for slightly cheaper than a Macbook Pro (a few hundred dollars difference). But dishonest exaggerations like yours are just stupid.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    107. Re:Well let's just be honest here by radish · · Score: 1

      Don't forget to add the cost of the OS (is Windows included in $1269?).
      Yes it is.

      Then there's the cost of the Development suite, if you're into that sort of thing.
      I'm sure a Windows developer already has a VS license. If not, you could use that or slum it with a free one (I heard gcc works just fine on Windows!). Really, you're grasping at straws - the challenge was to find a cheaper laptop based on specs.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    108. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MacOSXHead · · Score: 1

      two words... Mighty mouse.

      three words... 3rd party mice.

      one word... zzzzzzzzzzzzzz

    109. Re:Well let's just be honest here by radish · · Score: 4, Insightful

      OK. I don't normally swear on /., but this is bullshit.

      And I don't normally reply to posts replying to mine, but hey - yours is special :)

      First, the $2500 MacBook Pro you price has a 512MB video card, an option that is not available on any of the Dell Studio series. You should be comparing to the $2000 Macbook Pro, which has the 256MB video card

      OK, fine, the graphics cards are different - my mistake. $1200 different? If you say so! But whatever, if you want to use the $2000 Macbook Pro that's fine, just add the $50 for the HDD upgrade. But then we only have a 2.4GHz cpu, so the Dell is now faster and still something like $800 less.

      And once you include things like Wireless-N to match the Mac

      Did you even read my post? It was a pretty easy to comprehend list. Wireless N was already included in my price.

      and the Ultimate version of Vista to match OS X,

      OK if you insist, add $150 for Vista Ultimate (wouldn't we be installing Ubuntu anyway??). Now we're down to $650 difference.

      And most Mac users don't buy RAM from Apple

      So Apple overcharge? Say it isn't so!! I thought that was the whole point of this discussion :) Regardless - 2GB is the least you can spec on these machines so your argument is redundant.

      And then you end up paying more to Dell for a backlit keyboard, camera etc

      $50 for the keyboard (didn't see that), camera is included. Now we're at $600. Keeping count at home?

      OK, so the final tally by your specs (some of which I don't agree with - such as Vista Ultimate) still has the difference at $600 for a $2050 Macbook Pro. That's what, 30%? Quite a markup (particularly as with your spec I have to have the case in white, Dell let me choose!). I personally don't think magsafe is worth that much but YMMV.

      But dishonest exaggerations like yours are just stupid.

      Pot, meet kettle.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    110. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Maserati · · Score: 1

      >Powercord is usually the only thing that is going to the floor.

      Yup. Magsafe can save a whole business trip. I've seen too many laptops ruined because the power cord got tripped a wrenched he socket out of alignment. And a MagSafe connector really works, the laptop gets a small yank horizontally and the connector pops out. Even if it was perched precariously enough that it still hits the floor the accelerometer will park the drive heads before it lands.

      Those two features alone make switching a good idea. Kick the power cord out in a hotel room the night before a presentation and you're toast. That could cost your company real money.

      That, and it's Unix and it runs Microsoft Office.

      --
      Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
    111. Re:Well let's just be honest here by poliopteragriseoapte · · Score: 1

      Does the Dell have DVI out, capable of driving a 30" display? Because that's what I use my Macbook Pro for... DVI output is useful even on a 24" display. Fact is, a Macbook or Macbook Pro can be a true desktop replacement; most Dells aren't, due to lack of DVI output.

    112. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Our mod points to go eleven

    113. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Admiral+Ag · · Score: 1

      I did it myself, and it was evident pretty quickly that you were full of shit. So now it's only 650 bucks and not 1250.

      But the fact remains that you are comparing a declared low to mid range consumer quality machine (the studio series) with a high end professional class machine. Try it with Dell's Premium XPS machine - which they state is for professional use. I'm already up to $1800 trying to make it like the MBP. And this isn't even including the software bundle. I'll take $200 for OS X over Windows any day.

      Sure, you can build a shittier Dell for less than that, but it will be just that: shittier. If you want to compare Dell machines with Apple machines, then compare machines in the same class, not some gimped cheaper version which even Dell obviously doesn't think are as good (or they'd be asking for more money for it).

      Compare Apples to apples and you don't have a case.

      --
      "by that I mean people who don't sit on slashdot all day wondering why everyone else isn't building robots" DECS
    114. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's called 'debit'.

    115. Re:Well let's just be honest here by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1
      They have succeeded with products that people want to pay for.

      That type of people, the SUV demographic, more precisely, make me wanna puke

      They have contributed much to the open source community.

      [Citation needed]

      They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

      Hardware? WTF??? Software? Again, WTF?? Macs are overpriced PCs, no better quality than a Dell with the same parts. And OS X is PC/Desktop-BSDs flegmatic brother (15 times the latency for creating threads OMFG!?!?1).

      They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.

      Open source development for what, prey tell? Darwin? That ubiquious open source leach? Is there anything for Mac that originated on Mac that runs on something else? Hones-to-betsy question.

      They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.

      They have created a new niche, oh happy day for the open market. *facepalm* */wrists*

      I guess Apple is bad because they make money off the back of open source and applying M$-esque buisness techniques .

      Fixed that for you.

      {/rant} *calms down and takes a glass whiskey*

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    116. Re:Well let's just be honest here by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's not up to you to set the value of that pound - it's up to the market.

      For you, $200 is clearly more valuable than 1 lb. For lots of other folks, that pound is worth more than $200 - otherwise why would HP make smaller lighter models?

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    117. Re:Well let's just be honest here by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Really? A real desktop replacement notebook is going to have a docking station allowing for more expandibility and quick and easy hookup of your peripherals, something that neither the Macbook or Macbook Pro offer.

    118. Re:Well let's just be honest here by rootofevil · · Score: 1

      http://www.bookendzdocks.com/Docking_Stations-Docking_Station_for_15_MacBook_Pro.html

      you mean something like that?

      they exist and work just fine, even being 3rd party.

      --
      turn up the jukebox and tell me a lie
    119. Re:Well let's just be honest here by Aaron5367 · · Score: 1

      $200 bucks!!! Whoopty frikken doooo. I'd pay an extra $500 just to get OSX instead of Vista. I'd pay the extra $200 just for the brand security, since I've been pretty much problem free with Apple products for over 25 years (YMMV). I'd pay $200 just to know that if something goes wrong with my computer, I walk into the mall and ask some teenager guy at the genius bar what the fuck is wrong with my computer, then go home and fix it myself. $200 alone is worth avoiding groveling to my closest geek-friend or going to the Geek-squad for them to screw up my Vista laptop even more. $200 ain't shit in the grand scheme of the world. And no, HP aren't BETTER parts in general. They offer a wider-variety of parts, but the parts that are in line with Apple prices are certainly no better (or worse).

      Well, there will always be those of us who like to throw money at our problems, instead of fixing them ourselves.

  2. Not too much of a shock, really. by scott_karana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not really a shock.

    One company's based on ubiquity and mindshare. The other's the same though less so, but actually retails physical items.

    1. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 2, Interesting

      One company's based on ubiquity and mindshare. The other's the same though less so, but actually retails physical items.

      I'm no fan of apple, per se; but at least they sell things that have value without all the spying going on.

      EVERYTHING you do that involves google has a spy element to it. ie, logging. ie, things that can be used in court against you, if it so suits google.

      I could buy a mac, disconnect it from the net (if I wanted) and still get computing value from it. disconnect google 'things' from the net and you have .... NOTHING. ie, if you can't be tracked using google's 'products' then there basically IS no product.

      the 2 companies could not be more different in what they offer for 'sale'.

      google has hype and hype does not last. there really needs to be a real product and right now, google is an 'ad serving company'. I don't think that's sustainable in the long run.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by NoPantsJim · · Score: 5, Funny

      google has hype and hype does not last.

      Well then, it's a good thing Apple doesn't have a company image largely leveraged on hype.

    3. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by dfjunior · · Score: 1

      EVERYTHING you do that involves google has a spy element to it. ie, logging. ie, things that can be used in court against you, if it so suits google.

      hence the command: "DO NO EVIL!"

    4. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by Onan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You're right, a company that sells services rather than goods can never be sustainable in the long run. That's why all power companies, telephone companies, cleaning companies, shipping companies, security companies, doctors, lawyers, and accountants all went out of business decades ago.

    5. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by amorsen · · Score: 5, Insightful

      hence the command: "DO NO EVIL!"

      Google's motto is "Don't be evil". The difference is subtle but significant.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    6. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Google gears?

    7. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? Wherein lies the significance?

    8. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by Heembo · · Score: 1

      You can be not-evil yet still (wooops!) be forced into doing evil things buy powers greater than you. That is the key distinction.

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    9. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      But does Google even sell services? As far as I see, they sell advertising space. Like a billboard company. Except for billboard companies, the amount of space is limited, and it's hard for other companies to take that billboard space from them. Yahoo used to be the same way. Then Google came by with a better search engine, and therefore a more attractive place to put your ads, and everybody moved to Google. What's to say that somebody won't supplant Google, in the search engine/web destination front, and start pulling away all the advertisers. Advertisers will put their ads wherever the most people will see their ad. If somebody else comes along, and takes all of the eyes away from Google, all the advertisers will follow. It's happened with all the other advertisement based online businesses in the past. I'm not sure why anybody thinks google is different.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    10. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by amorsen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is probably impossible to find a person who has not done a thing considered "evil". Yet most people don't think of the whole population as "evil".

      Reasons for doing evil things include being forced to choose between a lesser evil and a greater evil, or simply making mistakes.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    11. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by oyenstikker · · Score: 1

      It seems that most of the enterprises in business that have been in business for more than 150 years make alcoholic drinks. Lets stick to that.

      --
      The masses are the crack whores of religion.
    12. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by randito · · Score: 1

      so according to the posted list, apple will be surpassing IBM's market cap soon, which will really scare the crap out of microsoft.

      IBM Global Services is an insanely large chunk of IBM's revenue, and they are not doing too well AFAIK.

    13. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      It's also not really a shock, because Apple's annual Revenue, Gross Profit, Total Assets, and Net Change in Cash are larger than Google's.

    14. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      But does Google even sell services?

      No, they sell eyeballs, which is how network TV has been making it's money for the last, oh, 50 years or so... but, I'm sure that's just a fad.

    15. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Except that the number of networks is limited. It's also very costly to start up a new network, with nationwide coverage. With internet sites, anybody can just come around and create a new one, and the costs are directly tied to the number of users. So if you have no users you're costs are low. Once you get lots of eyeballs, your costs are high, but you have lots of eyeballs, so it's easy to sell advertising. This means it's very low risk, and very easy to be a start-up.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    16. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what your point is. Are you saying Google's business model isn't sound because another competitor can sweep in and take over? History has shown that certainly isn't the case... making money on advertising means more than just throwing up a website with a few ads on it. It requires eyeballs, and I'll bet even sites like Facebook, which are wildly successful, don't see a fraction of the traffic that Google sees.

      Meanwhile, the cable television space has shown an explosion in content availability, but guess what? The networks still take the lions share of ad spending dollars. Why? Because they have the eyeballs, and the content to draw them, and no piddly little cable channel can compete. Kinda like Google.

    17. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a popular meme. But where do they state that, actually? I looked at their corporate info page and only found it in reference to advise for advertisers, not as any company-wide ethics commitment. Did I just miss it elsewhere, or has that phrase been hyped to high heaven on behalf/regardless of Google?

      In other words, is it their motto really? (I'll be glad to stand corrected if it is -- I own some of their stock but view them as just another greed-based if quite creative corp among others.)

    18. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by nahdude812 · · Score: 1

      You seem to have correlation and causation confused.

      Google offers Internet-based products, subtract the Internet, and their products don't work. It's not really surprising, and it doesn't mean that they do it this way solely for the purposes of tracking you (this is the mistaken causal relationship you've taken up). Even still they offer apps like Picasa and Google Desktop which work just fine without an Internet connection.

      Many of Apple's products don't do much without Internet either; Safari, Mail.app, iPhone (yes, I know it's still a phone, but if you only wanted a phone, there's cheaper better alternatives for this purpose). That doesn't imply a nefarious intent.

      Complaining about Google apps not working without Internet is like complaining about computers not working without electricity, and it's exactly as absurd to assume malice as a motivation.

    19. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by laffer1 · · Score: 1

      There's a difference. The average person can point to the service they get from your examples. In fact, there is something physical about each of those examples.

      Google sells virtual ads. That is their product. Is an advertising company worth that much? I think not.

    20. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by Nicolay77 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why anybody thinks Google is different.

      Because they hire most of the smart people.

      Not because the smart people at Google will make the perfect search engine, but because they will NOT make a competitive search engine with the competition.

      When smart people start going to other companies instead of Google, and avoid Google like the plague, then we will be sure that Google is not different. But now they are.

      --
      We are Turing O-Machines. The Oracle is out there.
    21. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by servognome · · Score: 1

      You're right, a company that sells services rather than goods can never be sustainable in the long run.

      Of course it depends on the long-term viability of the services themselves... remember AOL had a $200B market cap at one point.
      When I see their market cap I have to ask myself "What makes Google special?" and I'm hard pressed to find an answer. Yes, Google has achieved critical mass, but they don't have any services that users could abandon overnight if something better comes along - remember Yahoo used to be the undisputed king of search.

      --
      D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
    22. Re:Not too much of a shock, really. by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying that they business model isn't sound. I'm saying it's very easy for someone else to enter the market, with very low risk, and very little investment. That means that it's quite probable they could be usurped by some other company.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  3. insane by hcdejong · · Score: 5, Insightful

    How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

    1. Re:insane by Architect_sasyr · · Score: 1

      I don't know for sure but are share/stock options included in what a "market cap" is?

      Damnit I'm in IT not beancounting!

      --
      Me failed English...
      FreeBSD over Linux. If my comments seem odd, this may explain...
    2. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      Just taking wild guess here, but... long-term profit projection? Some investors look beyond the next fiscal quarter, you know.

    3. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You, sir, do not understand the stock market.

    4. Re:insane by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because in today's economy, the worth of a company isn't what it is, but what it could be. Or rather, what analysts expect it to become.

      And when analysts don't know jack about what they analyse and assess, you get a dot.com bubble.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:insane by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's because there is no fixed correlation between "monetary value of the company outside of the stock market" and stock price within the stock market. The price of a stock is set by the current collective opinion about what the future price of that stock will be - which itself can be predicted to be set by the collective future opinion of the future future price of that stock - if that makes any sense at all :)

      Setting aside stocks which pay dividends, which can at least claim to have some definite value, stocks' values are purely speculative. Even if the company was liquidated, common shareholders would never see any of the proceeds, because holders of preferred stock would get it all (which is likely much less than their investment anyway).

      While the overall trend of the market is to give money to companies most likely to add value to the economy, definitely there are many many "stupid" decisions made by the market. In order to accurately predict what a stock will be worth in the future, you have to assume a certain level of stupidity in the collective valuation given to the stock by the market. And for that reason, stupidity is built into the system.

      It's a crazy system that I personally think benefits the overall economic development of the market, but in a way that is pretty haphazard and subject to quite a bit of waste. I don't think there are any reasonable alternatives however.

    6. Re:insane by hcdejong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But even then: say I bought all of Apple's stock. If I relied on dividend alone, it would take me 53 years to make a profit on my investment. The only way I could profit in the short term is by trading the shares. It's devolved from a long-term profit projection into a pyramid scheme, IMO.

    7. Re:insane by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some investors look beyond the next fiscal quarter

      And rightfully so. A company's stock is its promise of profitability, and the shares are shards of this promis. Stock market are really places where people buy and sell promises. The valuation of these promises has thus everything to do with the future, and not the present.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    8. Re:insane by pla · · Score: 5, Informative

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      Most companies trade at a P/E much, much greater than 1. Historically, a P/E of 14 counts as "fair value", the point considered neither high nor low. For comparison, the average for the tech sector as a whole varies over time between 40 (at the height of the bubble) and 25 (currently in that range). Apple, at 35, falls a bit higher than its sector, but not so much that you'd call it extreme.

    9. Re:insane by nicolastheadept · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But is Apple's profitability going to climb enough to make this investment worthwhile? Apple's stock does seem overvalued.

      --
      09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
    10. Re:insane by Filip22012005 · · Score: 2, Funny

      You, sir, do not understand the stock market.

      Does anyone?

      --
      When the policeman of the tie, rule you violate, hello punishment of the kitty?
    11. Re:insane by mjc82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      ...it would take me 53 years to make a profit on my investment.

      Given it's been 13 years (Nov-1995) since they last paid out a cash dividend it's going to take you a lot longer than that! They use the profit they make to re-invest and increase shareholder value. In the last 4 years alone the share-price has gone up by a factor of 10!

      Seriously though, market valuations are very much based on market sentiment and prediction of future market sentiment based on projected company performance, i.e. how people "feel" and expect to "feel" about the company. It's messed up but its how the market seems to work.

      It's better to look at relative performance of various companies to gauge whether prices are sane. Google's P/E (price/earnings) ratio (~30) is still high compared to other mature tech companies, which can be translated as meaning that Google is still expected to grow pretty quick, it's just that Apple (~35) is expected to grow slightly quicker.

    12. Re:insane by cartman · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      Actually, Apple has $4.6 billion in profit.

      Usually, market caps are much greater than yearly profits. If they were the same, then that would mean the investment could yield 100% per year in earnings, which is much higher than usual.

      Right now, Apple would pay about 3% per year if they distributed all their earnings as dividends to investors. That figure isn't very high, so why is Apple's stock price (and market cap) so high?

      Apple's stock price is high because wall street expects that Apple's profits will increase substantially in the future. The high stock price is based on anticipated future returns. If Apple were a "no-growth" company then it's market cap would be about half what it is.

      (If you subtract the cash and assets from the market cap, you have $120B, which is what wall street thinks the risk-adjusted discounted net present value of all future earnings from Apple will be. Wall street expects those earnings to increase.)

      I'm not sure I would invest in Apple at current prices. I'd rather put my money in intel or even microsoft.

      The difference between Microsoft and Apple, is that Microsoft is seen as a NECESSITY for business, whereas Apple's products are seen as COOL. But cool is fleeting. I could see young people dropping their iPods 5 years from now the same way young people dropped acid-washed jeans, Doc Martens, and Walkmans. But businesses will never drop Wintel. Never.

      I'm not sure that the risk of "suddenly uncool" has been adequately factored into Apple's share price.

    13. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One dirty word: SPECULATION!!!! Boo-yah!!!!

      (Filter error: Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.) That is why on the end CEOs take all the money, the black jets, and the hot girls, and /.rs stay on their mommas basements crying because their stock options are worth nothing...
      Another word of advice to you dotters: Real Men YELL at you, beat you and take your lunch money, this is life, deal with it...

    14. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Damn, you're at +5 already or I'd say "mod parent up."

      I've pretty much always been an Apple fanboy, and it was the first stock I ever bought (back in late 2000). Apple around 2002 was an example of where the market broke down severely: a solid and profitable company with $4 billion in cash worth a little over $5 billion, simply because investors had no affinity for the company. Apple today is an example of where the market breaks down in the other direction: it will be a couple of years before Apple could even possibly improve their profits enough to justify the price it has today.

      Modern markets are largely about sentiment and projections rather than profits or financial sheets, which is one of the results of no longer having a market based on investors seeing actual returns from their investments in a company - i.e., dividends. Instead investors are seduced by abstract notions of profit and money, sort of like when you give a teen a credit card and they spend irresponsibly because it makes spending and debt seem almost meaningless.

      One detail to this is that while projections are what is used to justify high prices, investors rarely show anything even slightly resembling patience. Thus when a company shows even one quarter short of projections, it is often enough to start a massive decline in stock price. It also, ironically, means that while long-term projections are prized, many of those who prize them are quite willing to see the company act against its long-term interests by taking short term profits to meet the high goals for the current quarter - e.g., the entire mortgage debacle was done knowing that there'd be hell to pay for lots of bad loans and tricking customers into ARMs that they couldn't afford.

    15. Re:insane by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Can it be understood?

    16. Re:insane by gnasher719 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      You used the 2007 figures of $3bn profit. The last figures are $4.6bn profit for the last year. That would be 50 percent growth, which is the key factor. Someone posted that you'd need 53 years to make $160bn if you make $3bn profit a year. Obviously we would need to subtract the $40B in cash and assets firsts, leaving $120bn. And divide by $4.6bn per year, making it 26 years which is about equivalent to 3.9% interest per year. But now we have to factor in the growth: If Apple managed the same growth for the next three years, then profit could triple and the 3.9% interest goes up to 12%. That is why Microsoft is valued so low: Because the market doesn't expect any growth anymore.

    17. Re:insane by csubi · · Score: 1

      160$B market cap - 40$B in cash = 120$B, / $3B annually in profit = if you bought Apple now for it's market cap, your could start seeing profit after 40 years. Since it is highly unlikely that Apple will continue to make $3B or more in profits annually, for _40y_, I guess their market cap is overestimated. Just as it is the case for many other companies listed on the stock exchange. I find this quite surrealistic but I guess it's just the economy ( me stupid ).

    18. Re:insane by TripHammer · · Score: 1

      I think to be fair here Market Cap has nothing to do with projected value, it is simply the current share price multiplied by the number out outstanding shares.

      To the grandparent's point, stockholder equity, which is total assets less of total liabilities is kept on the books at the issuing price of the stock, not the current market value. Apple's stock has simply appreciated since it has been issued - weather or not is has appreciated too much is something Wall Street will figure out.

    19. Re:insane by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      While it's possible Microsoft will recover their reputation, it's been pretty severely damaged in recent years, and Apple has been making business inroads, mostly without even trying. I'd even argue that "necessity" isn't what it seems, and the future of business necessity isn't as easy to predict as people think.

      Which isn't to say I think Apple will take Microsoft's business lead. I just imagine it'll be more balanced in the future.

    20. Re:insane by mcvos · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know for sure but are share/stock options included in what a "market cap" is?

      Options are not shares. Options are a guaranteed option to buy/sell a share. It's speculation on the rise/fall of the share value, without the ownership of the actual share itself. That's why options are cheaper and riskier than shares.

    21. Re:insane by chthon · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Money IS a pyramid scheme.

      Face it : who gives out money ? The government. The amount of money printed is the inflation.

      The total amount of money is limited. This means that when some people get more money, other people will have less money.

      However, banks make the money that people have circulate around the system. This in contrast to most other pyramid schemes, where the bottom dwellers lost their part.

    22. Re:insane by Oswald · · Score: 1

      No, they aren't. Options are only potentially shares. Companies--by which I mean the board of directors and the current shareholders--can issue [arbitrary amount] more shares at any time. Options simply set a price on a certain number of shares and set who can buy them at that price, but before they are exercised the shares don't exist and aren't counted.

    23. Re:insane by AndrewStephens · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Apple's stock price is high because wall street expects that Apple's profits will increase substantially in the future.

      ummm, no. Apple's stock is high because Wall Street expects Apple's stock to be ever higher in the future. Stock price is only tenuously connected with expected profits - it's speculation that drives todays market.

      If iPods ever become uncool then Apple will make something else. People stopped carrying walkmans and wearing stonewashed jeans, but Sony and Levi are still with us today. I would be more worried about an economic recession taking away Apple's market, but if that happens then any stock you choose will be toast.

      --
      sheep.horse - does not contain information on sheep or horses.
    24. Re:insane by mcvos · · Score: 1

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      Does the assers figure include the value of their brand names and other intangibles?

    25. Re:insane by adpads · · Score: 1

      It could have to do with the mad quantities of stock options Apple issues to its employees, if those are counted in the market cap. I think there is a clause that requires them to hold their shares for at least a year. In that case some of those shares might represent capital that is "locked in."

      But how do they keep so many shares out there without diluting their share price? As of today Apple shares seem to be trading at a ridiculously high multiple of 34.5 http://finapps.forbes.com/finapps/jsp/finance/compinfo/Ratios.jsp?tkr=AAPL, while the average for the US tech sector is less than 20. http://www.crossingwallstreet.com/archives/2006/07/sp_500_pe_ratio.html. (The price/earnings ratio is a measure of share price against predicted earnings per share in the coming year). Why are Apple shares so ridiculously overpriced?

    26. Re:insane by mcvos · · Score: 1

      But is Apple's profitability going to climb enough to make this investment worthwhile? Apple's stock does seem overvalued.

      I agree. I sold mine years ago. Clearly way too early, but now it really looks like a risky investment.

      Then again, I was wrong years ago. I could be wrong again.

    27. Re:insane by mcvos · · Score: 1

      It's devolved from a long-term profit projection into a pyramid scheme, IMO.

      The stock market has always had some degree of pyramid scheming in it. How much depends mostly on the surplus money investors have. Considering the current status of the US financial market, I wouldn't invest in Apple right now.

      If I had money, I'd take a good look at Nintendo. I did two years ago, but couldn't figure out how or where to buy their shares.

    28. Re:insane by sumdumass · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, money is just a marker for value and worth. It is true that more money then value or worth can exist and cause an inflation scenario. But as long as people are creating value and worth (lets call it wealth from here out), they are creating money. This is especially easier to do with the banking systems in place that allow loans from debt.

      And no, the total amount of money isn't limited. Well, it is but not buy an arbitrary number of printed bills and coins. It's limited to the amount of wealth in circulation which is why factors like the GDP and so on are so important in gaging a countries wealth. It is also a main reason why the easiest way to spur a stagnant economy is to lower taxes and capitol gains rates.

    29. Re:insane by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Because market cap is current_ask_price_per_share*number_of_shares_in_float.

      So if their stock price is overinflated (your back-of-the-napkin math indicates you think it is, I think. I haven't done any research to have an opinion.) you end up with numbers like this.

    30. Re:insane by Fantom42 · · Score: 1

      Since most options involve one party in a long position and another in a short position, no.

    31. Re:insane by MrMr · · Score: 1

      Yes, everybody knows that. We're all waiting for the next sucker born to offload the shares on.

    32. Re:insane by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 1

      Apple's stock is speculation inflated, by the same process that bank stocks are being speculation deflated (people are betting for apple based on their positive sales results in a bad economy, vs. against banks based on the current mortgage issues).

      This type of speculation makes people like Warren Buffet rich, because they sell apple when it's inflated and buy the banks when they're deflated.

      --
      stuff |
    33. Re:insane by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Eight years ago, Apple wasn't making a profit at all. They were at the high end of a shrinking niche market. Now they are making a $3 billion annual profit, and are at the high-end of two growing markets and doing well in a few others. It's not a huge stretch to imagine that they could get the profits up to $5-10 billion.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    34. Re:insane by mgblst · · Score: 1

      That is like saying, how can a car with 4 wheels, have a red roof.

      The value of a company (its market cap) is how much the market thinks the company is worth. It is not the value of adding sales+profit+cash. It takes into account things like future earnings, potential, people...

    35. Re:insane by malchus842 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      But businesses will never drop Wintel. Never.

      Just like they would never leave IBM?

      In the last 5 years, I have seen significant uptake in Apple computers in the corporate world, from small to large. I work for a fairly large financial services firm and all of our Unix/Linux admins have Macbook Pros. And they are spreading to other groups as well.

      Never say 'Never'!!

    36. Re:insane by neomage86 · · Score: 1

      Because, if you assume that they continue to make 3B/year in profit, the time value of that annuity is over 70 Billion (assuming a discount rate of 4%). If you see even moderate growth, imagining that annuity having a net present value of a 120 billion isn't unreasonable.

    37. Re:insane by 4iedBandit · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that the risk of "suddenly uncool" has been adequately factored into Apple's share price.

      I'm not sure you understand Apple's customers.

      Sure there are fleeting customers. However Apple has survived not because they had cool products, but because the quality of their products inspire quite fierce loyalty in their customers.

      How many iPod owners replace the old iPod with anything other than another one?

      How many iPhone users replace their iPhone with anything other than another one?

      How many Mac users replace their Macs with anything other than another one?

      If you see their success merely as a result of being "cool" then I think you are dismissing them far too easily.

      Now if you want to talk about how much of Apple's success is Steve Jobs, then you have a point. His fanatical insistence on excellence is the real driver behind the success of the company. I have a very real concern for the future of the company when Jobs leaves.

      Apple users aren't the sheep they're typically depicted as. The loyal users are loyal because they like great products that function really well and look as good as they function. Take away the fanatical devotion to great engineering and great product design, and you will have "just another tech company." If that happens it doesn't matter if it's Apple, Dell, Microsoft, or anyone else.

      --
      "The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
    38. Re:insane by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      2006 annual income: ~ 2 billion
      2007 annual income: ~3.5 billion
      2008 annual income: ~4.x billion?
      2009 annual income: ~5.x billion?

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    39. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Put it this way.

      If you bought Apple now, for $157billion (assuming you could buy all shares) then you would own a company that's got $40billion in cash and is raking in $4.5 billion a quarter - $18 billion a year.

      That's a bit like investing $117 in a bank and getting $18 a year interest back, or a greater than 15% return. That's a pretty good return all up.

      Just like money in a bank, but shinier and whiter.

      Look beyond JUST the quarter.

    40. Re:insane by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      the stock value of apple in dollars has gone up 10 fold in the last decade or so, but the value of the dollar has gone down by at least a factor of two in that same period, so really the increase is not as dramatic as it seems.

    41. Re:insane by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      If your 1% market share target iPhone can force Nokia, Sony Ericsson to take huge, really huge decisions and change concept of things. You are way more powerful than you seem to be.

      Look at Google... At least Apple produces some stuff that you can hold in your hand. That is Google: http://www.google.com/ . That is all. Why doesn't Google market cap and numbers surprise anyone really?

    42. Re:insane by thedrx · · Score: 1

      A friend invested in Nintendo shares before they released Wii and NDS Lite. It was a good investment :P

    43. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      it is a system that borrows a definitive amount from an uncertain future to pay for now.

    44. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You would spend $160 billion on something that brings you $24 billion a year?

      If you say no, then I wish you luck in your life.

    45. Re:insane by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Apple's stock does seem overvalued.
      That's the great thing about it: you don't have to believe anyone else. The stock seems overvalued to you ? Sell it / short it. You think the profitability is going to grow ? Buy it. You're unsure ? Don't do anything about it. No one is stopping you from acting out your mind, including not giving a f*** about it, or going there and correcting the discrepancy you perceive, on your own. If you turn out to be right then you would have helped bring some balance back into the whole thing, and been rewarded for it.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    46. Re:insane by mgbastard · · Score: 1

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      Well first of all, subtract the 40B in assets from the 160B before you start really comparing P/E and dividends. Also, this industry pays extremely low dividend rates compared to other blue chips. That will probably improve later, but 30 years is still a young enough industry. Eventually, somebody will start doing to buoy their stock price, and others will have to follow.

      Still their P/E is large, but remember they spend a lot on R&D, which tends to be worth a lot more than the initial investment in this field over time. Investors recognize that too, which adds huge amounts of confidence to long-term stability and stock re-sale value, making it very attractive to institutional investors. Apparently much more so than Microsoft with something like a 15 P/E. Nice confidence there!, I would think DELL's P/E would be lower than Microsoft but its not. Maybe there is something to this market prediction concept after all...

      --
      Anyone seen my low uid? last seen 10 years ago while panning the #@$# out of Taco's 'web based discussion system'
    47. Re:insane by mcvos · · Score: 1

      A friend invested in Nintendo shares before they released Wii and NDS Lite. It was a good investment :P

      Any idea how and where they did that? I couldn't figure it out. I suspect the problem is that Nintendo is only traded in Tokyo and my bank won't let me buy there, but it could be I'm just looking in the wrong place. Despite my luck with Apple, I don't have a lot of experience investing in foreign stock.

    48. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's just wrong - only taking income into account, it would take you 53 years to double your investment. The shares are something you own, you can sell them any time. Any dividends are profit from the minute you get them.

    49. Re:insane by maxume · · Score: 1

      The institutional ownership of Microsoft, Dell and Apple is about the same:

      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=AAPL
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=MSFT
      http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=dell

      It is kind of bizarre, Microsoft had 5 times Apple's profits on 3 times Apple's revenues (Adding 8 billion of gross profit on top of 9 billion of revenue, to Apple's 3 billion of gross profit on 5 billion of revenue).

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    50. Re:insane by Kjella · · Score: 4, Informative

      I would be more worried about an economic recession taking away Apple's market, but if that happens then any stock you choose will be toast.

      Lousiest piece of economic advice I've heard today. A recession means a great shift in consumer demand where high-margin "fashionable" products to low-margin "cost concious" goods across the line, both in terms of what products people buy and which products of a given type. If you don't see how that'd affect some stocks way more than others, you should really stay out of it.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    51. Re:insane by kma100 · · Score: 1

      Speculation has always driven some aspect of the price. It's got nothing to do with "today's market".

    52. Re:insane by maxume · · Score: 1

      The share price is a proxy for a certain percentage of future earnings; it is exactly related to projected value.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    53. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The market cap of a stock (and therefore the basis of the share price) is the Net Book Value + the Net Present Value of Future Earnings.

      Net Book Value can be pretty accurately calculated, Net Present Value can be calculated exactly, Future Earnings is where it gets tricky.

      Nothing about this is magical, or crazy for that matter. Go to Las Vegas and bet on a horse race - you'll notice that some horses pay better odds than others.

    54. Re:insane by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      Money IS a pyramid scheme.

      Face it : who gives out money ? The government. The amount of money printed is the inflation.

      Technically, inflation is the amount of money printed in excess of real GDP growth. If people kept producing more things to buy without an increase in money supply, you would have deflation.

    55. Re:insane by onecheapgeek · · Score: 1

      iPods. Loyalty, or locked-in by allegedly unwanted DRM?

      Bad argument, sir.

    56. Re:insane by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Simple. Take their market cap and subtract the cash. So to buy Apple you would be paying $120B for $3B/year in profit.

      That means it would take FORTY YEARS OF PROFIT to recoup the $120B you would have to pay to buy the company. That is NOT cheap. Anyone buying Apple at these prices must either expect profits to double in the next few years (and stay high!), or have no idea what they are doing investing ('cept that they like dem dere ipods).

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    57. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're example applies to stocks in general. The stock market works on trading shares to make more money. Its kinda the driving force behind it. If people all depended on dividends alone (btw, Apple doesn't pay dividends, at least now they don't), the stock market would crash cause no one would be selling. I'm surprised you've been marked +4 insightful. It has absolutely nothing to do with apple. you're just saying the stock market is a pyramid scheme, which you can make an argument for, but it works... so, its not a really a scheme, is it?

    58. Re:insane by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      Options are not necessarily cheaper or riskier than shares; it depends on your trading strategy.

      An example of an option being more expensive than a share, would be a share that traded at $10, and you wanted to buy a put at a strike price of $40 (that gave you the right to shell the shares at $40). The put would be worth at least $30 (the difference between the current price and the strike price of the put) plus a premium mostly based on the time limit of the put.

      As to risk, consider a share worth $100 and you think the price will go up $10 today. You can buy the share for $100 (risking $100 for $10) or a call with the strike price of $100 for considerably less. In the former case you would, if correct, stand to gain 10%, and in the latter many 100s of % if you were correct. If wrong, you are exposed for the full price of the stock, and lets assume your call expires worthless (so the full price of the call). The latter has less money in play, thus, less risk (e.g., if the stock goes down 10%, you don't lose $10 as you would owning the stock, only the $1 or less you paid for the call).

      Covered options are a risk control strategy - that's where you, e.g., write calls against stock you already own. But I'll let you go read about those elsewhere.

      --
      -- I speak only for myself
    59. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Informative

      Oh, no... Ron Paul is back.

      Please take an entry level econ course, and convince Ron to as well.

      The total amount of money is NOT limited. Wealth is not finite. Even if you DID hold the money supply constant, then the value of the money would simply go up as wealth was created.

      Money is just a means to simplify barter. Don't get too hung up on it's "value". You shouldn't be holding on to piles of cash - especially not under the mattress.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    60. Re:insane by i_liek_turtles · · Score: 2

      While a lot of people may buy from the iTunes store, most people still use it as a general MP3 player. Do they find some magical way to put DRM on something that didn't have DRM in the first place?

    61. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If you had money - forget the stock market. In a credit crunch, there is good money to be made LENDING!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    62. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm, nope. It would take you one day. But by your calculation it would take you 53 years to double your investment

      stocks aren't lottery tickets, they have intrinsic value.

      Take 72 and divide it by the rate of return (expressed as a percentage) to get the time it would take to double with compounding. You want it to be 5-15 years depending on your risk perspective.

      Your actual doubling time would be 38 and change. All in all, not a particularly solid investment for the growth-oriented, and I won't tell you what it is good for because I'm not a broker, and certainly not your broker.

      Usual disclaimers apply... Anonymous Coward Inc is not responsible, blah blah blah ;)

    63. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      It's because there is no fixed correlation between "monetary value of the company outside of the stock market" and stock price within the stock market.

      There is SOME correlation... a company's shareholders are not likely to accept a purchase price below market cap. And buyouts, mergers, acquitsitions of public companies aren't exactly rare.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    64. Re:insane by shadowrat · · Score: 1

      say I bought all of Apple's stock

      if you did buy all of apple's stock, you could pay yourself whatever you wanted from apple's coffers. You could even give yourself a billion dollar bonus in good years.

      And maybe, just maybe, use your influence to get an iphone at $200 without being eligible for an at&t hardware upgrade. Clearly it would be worth the $150 billion.

    65. Re:insane by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      But even then: say I bought all of Apple's stock. If I relied on dividend alone, it would take me 53 years to make a profit on my investment. The only way I could profit in the short term is by trading the shares. It's devolved from a long-term profit projection into a pyramid scheme, IMO.

      Congratulations, you now have a basic understand of how the stock market has always worked. It's all make-believe with no basis in reality. And I do mean all of the stock market, not just Apple stock.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    66. Re:insane by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      I would think that their previous practice of back-dating options would turn off many investors. Oh-well.

    67. Re:insane by Palshife · · Score: 1

      You may be surprised to learn that money works a little differently than that. The total amount of money is not limited, and you can actually create money today.

      How? Go to a bank and get a loan. Any loan will do. The money that they deposit into your account does not come from another account or vault. The bank does not have that money on hand. They manufacture it (though not physically). As you spend that money, it ends up in the hands of businesses and individuals, eventually landing in savings accounts, investments, etc. It may also, however be used to pay off other debts, in which case that money disappears.

      I don't do nearly as good a job explaining it as Paul Gringon's video, Money As Debt. It's on YouTube and I totally recommend checking it out. I remember seeing it for the first time and thinking it was all garbage, but it's helped me appreciate the complexity of the financial world.

      --
      Attention deficit disorder is a complicated issue, spanning several major... HEY LET'S GO RIDE BIKES!
    68. Re:insane by kesuki · · Score: 1

      wow a +5 insightful on almost complete disinformation.

      "CUPERTINO, California--April 23, 2008--Apple® today announced financial results for its fiscal 2008 second quarter ended March 29, 2008. The Company posted revenue of $7.51 billion and net quarterly profit of $1.05 billion, or $1.16 per diluted share"

      http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2008/04/23results.html

      "Google reported revenues of $5.37 billion for the quarter ended June 30, 2008"

      "Free cash flow, an alternative non-GAAP measure of liquidity, is defined as net cash provided by operating activities less capital expenditures. In the second quarter of 2008, free cash flow was $1.07 billion. "
      http://investor.google.com/releases/2008Q2.html

      200 million dollars difference, in profit between Google and apple at least i Think that number was 'profit' Google goes out of their way to avoid the 'profit' word entirely.

      oh yeah, google has less cash than apple, if perhaps more profit(assuming the number i quoted was profit) 40 bn by your 07 apple numbers to "Cash - As of June 30, 2008, cash, cash equivalents, and marketable securities were $12.7 billion. "
      12.7 bn for google. I'd guess having more cash and less profit is worth more market capitalization.

    69. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Money and wealth are unrelated.

      Want proof? Consider these two examples.

      I create a perfect $100 bill. It is indistinguishable in every way from one printed by the government. Is there any more wealth in society from my creation? No. But there's $100 more money.

      I create food. Food obviously has value, as it sustains us. There is more wealth in society from my creation. Is there any more money? No.

      Now, money certainly serves an important purpose in lubricating transactions which would otherwise be essentially impossible to carry out (barter tending to be impractical in complex societies, the butcher couldn't possibly care less about the esoteric software engineering I make my living from) but it's very wrong to speak of creating wealth as being the same as creating money. It's true that money is a marker for value, but there's nothing permanent or fixed about it. The same value that's marked by $100 today could just as well be marked by $200 tomorrow (although that would tend to indicate absurd levels of inflation).

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    70. Re:insane by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Actually, that's probably why Apple stock is so high - the big R is lurking just around the corner, and Apple still had a record quarter.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    71. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Say what? The total amount of money is certainly limited. Yes, banks can create more through loans, but the legal reserve requirements make this a converging infinite series. The maximum limit is a constant multiplier on top of the "real" money supply, it does not continue without end.

      As for wealth not being finite, what the hell? Everybody I know has finite wealth. The Earth is finite in extent. Stuff beyond the Earth is not yet accessible. Where is all of this infinite wealth being kept?

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    72. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope, let him come, let him stay. The people who actually make money in the stock market need him!

    73. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because the market is going to price in the next X years of profits. $3B this year. $4B next year. $7B after that ... a projection. Forward price to earnings ratio. Forward p/e. They'll bid up the price to this.

      That is what happened to .com stocks. Only thing is their p/e's were like 200. Not 10-20.

      For instance, if a successful company doesn't make their numbers you see the 30% hair cut instantly. Its because the assumption of profits for the next X years was incorrect. Or vice versa.

      The price fluctuations reflect the future. Usually, known knowledge is already priced in.

      And if there is a large backer of a company, then all logic can be overridden too. They just might protect the price. A great example of this is H&R Block who have a terrible business. Think Whirlpool might be the same situation. :)

    74. Re:insane by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      They are not unrelated in that the percent of $nation's currency you have control of, is correlated with the percent of all $nation's wealth you have control of. Money is the representation of *proportion* of wealth.

    75. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They have the same risk of becoming 'suddenly uncool' as BMW and Porsche.

    76. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Nonsense. Another example. Let's say that through some twist of fate I come to own a million-dollar house but have no money whatsoever. I control a fairly significant proportion of my nation's wealth, much more than the average person in my nation (at least until the property tax man comes and takes it away from me). And yet I have zero money, zero percent of my nation's currency.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    77. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      coolness derives from innovation. Each year Apple's innovation seems to accelerate relative to competitors like Microsoft and Sony. I think that the market presumes that this is sustainable as long as Steve is in charge. Also, increasing product integration results in barriers to entry for competitors. I really hope that they take on consumer electronics next. I want to sweep away all of the Sony and Phillips devices that communicate with each other using 70s technologies. How many goddamn volume buttons do I need?

    78. Re:insane by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      This is wrong, wrong, wrong. IF what you say is true -- that the market expects a growth from 3.9% to 12% in 3 years, then the market price would have already increased enough to bring that return rate much, much lower.

      ALMOST every time you see something like you just said, it is inherently contradictory. You can't say the market expects such a huge increase in return, because the proof of that would be a large increase in the stock price... more and more until the return is no longer more attractive than alternative investments.

    79. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course wealth is finite. There is only a finite amount of work that can be done in the lifetime of the universe while it winds down into heat death. More practically there is a finite amount of matter on the Earth, and a finite amount of energy provided to the Earth by the sun, and a finite amount of energy stored chemically, and a finite amount of energy that can be obtained from fissile material.

    80. Re:insane by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Huh? Assuming a constant price, you would make a profit the first time there was a distribution of earnings. It sounds like you believe that you purchase a share and the share doesn't hold any of that value. It does, just like any other purchase.

    81. Re:insane by mattwarden · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What you say is true in an innovating economy. However, the point Ron Paul makes is that because the government does NOT hold the money supply constant, there is a severe punishment to anyone who saves or invests their income rather than spending it through consumption. There is even a school of thought that gains more and more steam every year that the government inflates that says you should save next to nothing and spend everything, since (the school of thought says) you are more likely to be saved by the government's social programs than by trying to fight the government's inflation through retirement savings.

      Take away the idea of inflation and replace with a 5% yearly tax on your savings accounts (of any type). Do you get it yet? It's the same damn thing (except worse since that 5% doesn't get fed back into the economy by the government).

    82. Re:insane by theCat · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most wealth is hallucinated, and can evaporate in an instant upon waking. Look at housing. Look at stocks. Look at the "tulip craze". Valuation bubbles are just shared dreams of making wealth from nothing at all, then sanity asserts itself. You end up with nothing for your nothing, which is just as the universe intended it. [See: First Law of Thermodynamics] And all your furious wheel-spinning actually eats up a lot of useful energy, decreasing real wealth/value and hastening macroeconomic collapse and ultimately the heat death of the universe. [See: Second Law of Thermodynamics]

      Nobody can actually "make" wealth. There is only so much real wealth because there is only so much reality to move around. The rest is an agreement of sorts about the value of things in exchange before those things evaporate. That agreement can fall apart almost instantly once enough people awaken and move on. [See: End of Oil]

      ($ActFast||$DecideFast)

      --
      =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    83. Re:insane by maestroX · · Score: 1

      Please take an entry level econ course, and convince Ron to as well.

      I have great economy lesson!

      If you convince at least three of your friends to take it also, you will get lesson for free!

    84. Re:insane by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      Where is all of this infinite wealth being kept?

      In the ground? Theoretically the Earth has a finite amount of wealth stored within it, but we're not even close to exhausting that yet.

    85. Re:insane by maestroX · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that the risk of "suddenly uncool" has been adequately factored into Apple's share price.

      Nor the risk of Jobs getting hit by a bus...

    86. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      So what? "A whole lot" is just as far from infinity as a single penny. If you mean "a whole lot" then say it, don't say "infinite".

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    87. Re:insane by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Usually somebody makes an assertion, somebody else asks "why", and then somebody goes into more detail.

      It's not very often that you see a conversation that goes the other way.

      ummm, no. Apple's stock is high because Wall Street expects Apple's stock to be ever higher in the future. Stock price is only tenuously connected with expected profits - it's speculation that drives todays market.

      Congratulations. You said exactly what the parent to your post said, but in far less detail. Bonus points for somehow convincing yourself ("umm, no.") that you said something different.

    88. Re:insane by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Saying he's wrong three times doesn't make you right.

      In fact, you're wrong by your own logic. The average returns of the US stock market are around 11%. By your logic, using his numbers, the price of Apple's stock should increase to.... Just about where it is right now. If the price of the stock would go any higher, the expected rate of return wouldn't be very attractive compared to other stocks.

    89. Re:insane by nevali · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of music on iPods doesn't have an ounce of DRM anywhere near it. Only non-iTunes Plus tracks purchased from the iTunes store does, and last I looked, Apple sold fewer than a few dozen tracks (including iTunes Plus) per iPod owner on average.

      So, er, what DRM?

    90. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ⥠But businesses will never drop Wintel. Never

      Like they would never drop IBM. :-)

    91. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      Parent post is the winner of today's "Most Ignorant +5 Insightful" award. This award is of course more of a reflection on the moderators than on the the poster.

    92. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Face it : who gives out money ? The government. The amount of money printed is the inflation.

      You are confusing money with currency. They are not the same thing.

    93. Re:insane by p0tat03 · · Score: 1

      If you mean "a whole lot" then say it, don't say "infinite".

      First of all, I'm not the OP, so I didn't say "infinite". Secondly, even if I did, you're just splitting hairs. The original point was that money is not intrinsically finite, and that the total "wealth" in the world is not a constant, and is growing over time. This is to dispute the notion that any sort of money-printing is unjustifiably causing inflation and lowering the value of currency. So sure, 10,000 years from now we might hit a cap by exhausting the world's resources. But for the time being, to claim that money is finite in the immediate or even medium-term is foolish.

    94. Re:insane by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      You might be right (IANAE) but your examples are crap.

      I create a perfect $100 bill. It is indistinguishable in every way from one printed by the government. Is there any more wealth in society from my creation? No. But there's $100 more money.

      But you have caused inflation, just as a govn't does when it prints more money. So YOU are 100$ richer, but as the worth of the country hasn't changed, so everyone's dollers are worth .00000001% less to compensate.

      I create food. Food obviously has value, as it sustains us. There is more wealth in society from my creation. Is there any more money? No.

      There is more money if you export that food to china and they pay you with something that you can use to buy other stuff (yen/dollars). Like any product, it is 'worth' whatever someone is willing to trade/buy it for.

      world Economics is very interrelated; I know still have a lot to learn [too].

    95. Re:insane by coolsnowmen · · Score: 1

      deflation...I can only imagine.
      That is this young American's wet dream.

    96. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I don't care if you're the OP or not, either you said it or you're defending it. In both cases, it's wrong.

      Second, I don't care what you're disputing. To call a finite resource "infinite" is wrong, period, full stop, end of sentence.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    97. Re:insane by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      "Nobody can actually "make" wealth"

      I have a loaf of bread. You have two dollars. I value your two dollars more than I value my bread. You value my bread more than you value your two dollars.

      We exchange the bread and the two dollars.

      Your wealth is now increased.
      My wealth is now increased.

      Guess what we just did? We *created* wealth.

          - Alaska Jack

    98. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You might be right (IANAE) but your examples are crap.

      I create a perfect $100 bill. It is indistinguishable in every way from one printed by the government. Is there any more wealth in society from my creation? No. But there's $100 more money.

      But you have caused inflation, just as a govn't does when it prints more money. So YOU are 100$ richer, but as the worth of the country hasn't changed, so everyone's dollers are worth .00000001% less to compensate.

      Yes, and? Of course my action has consequences. But the fact of the matter remains: there is more money after I do this than there was before. The fact that there is not correspondingly more wealth (the cause of the inflation) is the entire point of the example.

      I create food. Food obviously has value, as it sustains us. There is more wealth in society from my creation. Is there any more money? No.

      There is more money if you export that food to china and they pay you with something that you can use to buy other stuff (yen/dollars). Like any product, it is 'worth' whatever someone is willing to trade/buy it for.

      world Economics is very interrelated; I know still have a lot to learn [too].

      No, you are confused. Nowhere is money created in this example. If you export it to China and they pay me with money, that money changed hands, but it didn't pop up out of nowhere. The total amount of money in the world stayed constant, the total amount of wealth increased.

      If this is too confusing, take an opposite example. Go buy a truckload of bread. Dump it out on the ground and set fire to it. You've just destroyed a whole bunch of wealth, but the total amount of money in the world stayed exactly the same.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    99. Re:insane by theCat · · Score: 1

      Well maybe you shaped the flour but you didn't make the bread, the Sun did via the agency of plants, who are the only ones can reorganize CO2. Plants reorganize CO2 into starches using energy from the Sun. You harvest the grain and reorganize the berries into flour using energy from the Sun. Adding additional materials you reorganize it all again into dough, then bake it using energy from the Sun. Maybe you ship it around the planet, using energy from the Sun. *Then* you exchange it. Then someone eats it and it's gone to fertilizer, eventually back into some combination of CO2 and methane mostly, again awaiting reorganization into something complex.

      Rinse. Repeat.

      Money/value/wealth are all proxies for sunlight, and we cannot make sunlight (though we *did* dig it up and pump it out of the ground for a short while.) Someone "pays" the baker for being clever about pulling off his bit of slight-of-hand. The value add is the knowledge of how to make all the parts swing together. Otherwise, there is nothing of value, outside of the sunlight, which itself is critical and was before we arrived on the scene and invented futures markets. We are literally surrounded by things that would be of immense value if only someone would reorganize them a little for us. Oil companies do this with crude. Carpenters do this with wood. The only value-add here is their knowledge. The things we continue to find useless are useless because nobody has noticed a use for them. Though we are starting to get hip to the intrinsic value of sunlight.

      So one could say that we hallucinate what is useless as easily as we hallucinate what is of greatest value. The idea that there is value or money in any of it starts and ends in our heads, as individuals, perhaps as cultures, and under the hood it is just the gears of the Sun churning the soil and seawater of this small planet into interesting shapes that hallucinate that they are important and rich.

      act fast decide fast

      --
      =^..^= all your rodent are belong to us
    100. Re:insane by Clovert+Agent · · Score: 1

      But businesses will never drop Wintel. Never.

      There was a time when businesses would never drop IBM either. Never.

      One day Microsoft will be no more. One day Intel will cease to be. They will either morph into very different companies, or the evolving market will leave them behind, the same as every other company on the market today. That's the way of the world.

      So careful with those "nevers". "One day" might be very far away, or it might be around the corner, but it's highly unlikely to be "never".

    101. Re:insane by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is more money if you export that food to china and they pay you with something that you can use to buy other stuff (yen/dollars). Like any product, it is 'worth' whatever someone is willing to trade/buy it for.
      world Economics is very interrelated; I know still have a lot to learn [too].

      Whatever you do with the food doesn't matter, you have expanded wealth by creating more valuable resources.

    102. Re:insane by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

      A few factors. BUT the easiest explanation is that Market Cap, is simply the price of a company's stock at any given point in time, multiplied by the number of shares outstanding. It is NOT conjecture, speculation or a judgment call, at all; it is a simple case of math, with no relation to underlying technical or fundamental realities of the company.

      I don't have the time/energy at the moment to type much. But the first reason is that the investment community is comfortable (so far) with the fact that AAPL trades at a much higher price/earnings ratio (earnings divided by shares outstanding) than any other company in their industry.

      Another obvious factor is earnings per share. Apple creams the competition here, which also feeds the 'conventional' attitude (de facto 'comfort') towards the high p/e.

      Apple is priced as a growth stock. So when there's obvious momentum (now, and for quite a while, actually) in Apple's gross sales, operating margin and earnings per share, [Sounds like 'Bingo!', no?] then of course their higher p/e is more easily rationalized.

      However,if they got repriced as a value stock, say a major domo in there dies, or earnings per share and quarterly growth start slipping too much, then look out below. Then there's 'market risk' which is simply a case of being a healthy stock, in a Market that has been judged 'sick', never mind the details like p/e's and earnings per share.

      But right now, and for a while, Their price/earnings ratio is at least double that of any competitor (I'm rounding off a bit, please don't quote me). I don't 'like' the company for personal reasons. But, to bring a company 'back' from abyss, and then not just 'hold market share', or simply survive, but to thrive the way they have. That's worthy of something like respect. You don't see that all the time, no kidding.

    103. Re:insane by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I was in the process of writing a lengthy addressing both your printing money (which in order to be effective involves a certain amount of deceit) and growing scenarios. Instead, I think we can trim it way down and only address a few simple points.

      The first point is that there doesn't need to be anything permanent on using money as a marker for value or wealth. Obviously, if you have more money then wealth and value, you have inflation and with more wealth or value you have deflation. Think of it as a sliding scale on a rubber band that has money as the marker.

      I said on a "rubber band" because the second point is elasticity of money in the current system. We can take loans on deposited money from banks that equal more then the amount of physical money availible. As long as these loans are sound, then we can use more money then what is in existence (printed, coined whatever) at any given point in time.

      An example of this might be, you and I have a bank in which we both deposited $50. I take a no interest loan out for $90 to buy something you created (value and wealth). You deposit that money back into the bank. We still have a total of $100 in the bank but you now have $140 deposited and I now have $50 deposited with a promise to pay $90 at some future time. Lets say I took what I purchased from you and done something with it to make it more valuable and you want to buy half of it back. So you take a no interest loan out for $100 and purchase this from me. I deposit the money.

      Now we have a situation where you still have $140 deposited but now have a promise to pay $100 at a future date. I have $150 deposited with a promise to pay $90. So the bank has a total of $290 on deposit now with promises to pay $190. Our use of 90% more money then we have on hand allows the wealth verses money scale to flex beyond simple supply and demand laws and principles of inflation and deflation. If anyone hoards their supply of money, as long as they don't bury it in their back yard or stuff it under their mattress, money can be created as needed to mark wealth. This stabilizes the inflation and deflation cycles so $100 today is worth $100 tomorrow when $100 more wealth is introduced into or removed from the system.

      Now that is a drastic oversimplification but the premise is that anyone can create wealth and therefor money by reusing other people's money. Wealth though, can disappear just as easy as the money appears. Lets say you owned a house and never did any maintenance on it. What was once worth $100,000 with rotted siding and a leaky roof, bad plumbing and so on might be only worth $20,000. But if it took 20 years to get to that condition and because of population growth and other factors that home values increased 3% a year It's value or wealth potential increases too. In good repair, lets say the home is worth $180,000 after 20 years (3% increase in value each year). The $20,000 house in disrepair would have effectivly lost not only the 80 grand from it's original worth, but the 80 grand in increased worth. So wealth isn't static either further enforcing the elasticity of the scale.

      Finally, the point of my comment was that money isn't a pyramid scheme where one person ends up with it all eventually. As long as wealth is being created, money is too. If there is only $100 in existence and I am hoarding $80 of that, The only way I can end up with all of it (like in a pyramid scheme) would be if you created no wealth and only performed something for me for compensation that you then used to buy something from me. If you create any sort of wealth outside of that, you have created money outside of my system without changing the value of money inside it. Except that this money can be used both inside and out side the system. So with $100 in existence and the GDP ($100) grows by 200%, then there can be $300 in circulation without printing any more money and without any inflation or deflation.

    104. Re:insane by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Actually, you have a million dollars. Simply sell the home for the cash or rent it for residual income. Having wealth and not using it doesn't mean you have no money, it means you aren't working your assets for what they are worth. A one million dollar home could be turned into a communal condo of sorts (similar to an assisted living home for the elderly) relatively easily depending on where you live. In ohio or wisconson or something, it would be a large 10 or more room home with lots of acreage. In more populated areas like LA or NYC or even something with an ocean or lake front view, the demand would be high enough that a small condo could be worth 1 million. But either way, selling it or doing something with it would give you any money you think you don't have. So with a 1 mill home, you have essentially 1 million dollars in wealth.

      If you don't believe me, look at it this way, if I sued you for 1 million dollars and won before the tax man took the home from you, Could I take the 1 million dollar home to settle your debt? Of course I could.

    105. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      No, I don't have a million dollars. I have something worth a million dollars. There's an enormous difference between the two. I can't live inside a million dollars. I can't buy food with a house. The economy allows me to convert between the two, but that does not make them the same.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    106. Re:insane by prockcore · · Score: 1

      How about instead of "never" we say "not until Apple starts doing volume licensing"? Is that better?

    107. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Constant, predictable inflation is pretty darned easy to deal with - just don't hold on to cash. Previously, though there was no long-term inflation, we had wild swings of inflation and deflation. That is extremely traumatic to the economy.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    108. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      What resource is finite? Isn't the universe infinite?

      In any case, for the next few billion years there is a huge resource hitting the earth (sunlight), and it will continue to be used to build wealth.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    109. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      The universe may or may not be infinite, it's still an open question. It is probably infinite.

      But even if it is, that doesn't mean anything. You can't get to all of it. Current cosmological theory holds that bits of the universe that are sufficiently far enough away are unreachable. If the universe is infinite then it continues to expand forever, and our future light cone cannot reach all of it no matter how long you wait, as the speed of expansion also continues to increase. The end state of such a universe is heat death, with eventually every particle ripped apart from all others, each one existing in isolation. It's true enough that this end state continues forever according to this theory, but nothing ever happens again.

      Of course none of this is 100% absolutely certain. It's obviously possible that some day somebody will discover that Einstein was wrong, faster-than-light travel is possible, the universe is infinite but doesn't come to a halt, or whatever. But this goes against all currently known physics. If you're basing "infinite wealth" on such ideas then it's not reality, it's just hope, and it should be stated as such.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    110. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If my economic worldview only fails in a few billion years when the sun burns out, I'll consider it to be successful :)

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    111. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I never said otherwise. But that doesn't mean that wealth is infinite, as you said several posts up.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    112. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Okay - you got me. Wealth can be considered infinite until the sun dies.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    113. Re:insane by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Um... isn't that exactly what I just said? The stock price will increase to the point where the expected rate of return is equal to that of alternative investments (the market, if you will).

      I certainly don't see where I'm wrong by my own logic...

    114. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      That's nonsensical. It's limited, both in time and space, thus not infinite.

      You seem to be using "infinite" as a placeholder for "a whole lot". This is really bad and misleading usage.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    115. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      If an equation works until the end of humanity, do we really need to be so pedantic?

      I would agree with you if we were talking about astrophysics, but this is economics! We aren't even talking a geological scale - we're almost on a "lifetime" scale. It is unimportant to the discussion whether infinity means "1,000,000,000 years" or "forever". Context!

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    116. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Yes, it matters. "Wealth is not finite", you said. Well, yes it is. The rate at which wealth is created is limited. The rate at which this rate increases is limited. The time in which it can be created is limited. The total amount is inherently limited by known physical law.

      I don't really know what point you were trying to make with that statement. Maybe that wealth can be created and destroyed, that economics isn't a zero-sum game, and that the total wealth and per-capital wealth of the world can go up even as population increases. But if that's what you meant, that's not what you said. That's my ultimate point: what you said was wrong, misleading at best, and at worst I just have no idea what you meant by it.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    117. Re:insane by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      IF what you say is true -- that the market expects a growth from 3.9% to 12% in 3 years, then the market price would have already increased enough to bring that return rate much, much lower.

      That part.

    118. Re:insane by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      I don't get it, still. Perhaps I am just dense. That part was a lead-in to the bigger point of the comment, which is if the market expects something, that means it has already priced appropriately (otherwise, what evidence are you using to suggest that the market expects it, and if there is a disparity between market's value and the actual share price, then why isn't the market buying the stock until there is no more disparity?).

      So if the market is expecting a 12% annualized return on investment on Apple stock, the share price will increase until the marginal return of each subsequent share falls to that of the next best investment. Of course, it is not as deterministic as I am making it sound, but the general idea holds certainly for large disparities like the one the parent was suggesting.

      If you are trying to say that 12% annualized return is not better than the market because historically the market grows at 11% on average (which at this point is what I'm thinking you're saying), that's not really relevant. You are talking about long term historical averages, but the only thing that is relevant is recent past, current, and recent future performance. The broad market indexes are down over 10% year to date, and even if you believe that the market will recover half of that in the next year (not likely), we're still talking a 7 point higher return if you invest in Apple. If only long term historical averages mattered, then the market would see no volatility at all; prices would increase to a proportion of 10% expected return and not budge.

    119. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      Maybe that wealth can be created and destroyed, that economics isn't a zero-sum game, and that the total wealth and per-capital wealth of the world can go up even as population increases.

      That is exactly what I meant.

      what you said was wrong, misleading at best, and at worst I just have no idea what you meant by it.

      You are being way to pedantic. It should be blindingly obvious that any economic discussion ends when humanity does. I really don't care if my economic theories that depend on infinity fall apart in a billion years or so.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    120. Re:insane by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      What does year to date have to do with this? You think investors are going to bid up the price of the stock to get the expected rate of return down to the 9 month average based on a 36 month projection?

      Here's what I'm saying. I'm saying that the poster you initially responded to listed numbers (3.9% growth over 12 months. 12% over 36 months that line up with exactly where your post claimed the returns should be in line with. In other words, his numbers are right and the price of the stock based on what you asserted is right where it should be to confirm that.

      Again. 12% annualized return three years from now, 3.9% annualized return now.

      Let me see if I can put this more simply. You took his projected numbers from three years from now and mistakenly made the rest of your analysis on the basis that the numbers were for today. If the numbers do, in fact, play out that way, then the price of the stock will be bid up further as the results play out. But for now, the price has already "increase[d] to the point where the expected rate of return is equal to that of alternative investments", and his numbers were appropriate.

    121. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Sorry, but nothing's blindingly obvious when you're saying "wealth is not finite" when I'm sitting here and the world clearly contains finite wealth, always has, and as far as anyone knows, always will.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    122. Re:insane by malchus842 · · Score: 1

      For what? You get the OS with the machine - you don't buy it separately. There are no license codes, no activation, nothing. The only time it could come into play is at upgrade time, and I am sure that a corporate sale of 2500 copies (for example) would garner a discount.

      Fundamentally, Apple operates in a different fashion.

    123. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      the world clearly contains finite wealth,

      Fortunately, the world is hit by the sun.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    124. Re:insane by prockcore · · Score: 1

      I am sure that a corporate sale of 2500 copies (for example) would garner a discount.

      You'd be wrong.

    125. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      ...And? "Can continue to grow" means nothing like "not finite".

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    126. Re:insane by malchus842 · · Score: 1

      Proof?

    127. Re:insane by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if it is current or projected, except that you have to factor in a couple extra years of cost of capital. The part I am contending is that he is saying the market is expecting that % of return. If that were true, then the price would be high enough that the return ends up being equal to the market. Whether that is 3 years from now or 50 years from now is not relevant, because the underlying assumption is that the market is already convinced it will happen. I am not making that "mistake"; it was an assumption put forth by the original post.

      Your mistake is in this statement:

      If the numbers do, in fact, play out that way, then the price of the stock will be bid up further as the results play out.

      That is not the scenario we are discussing. The scenario we are discussing is one where the market already is convinced this return will happen, so there is no additional information gained by it playing out. What you are talking about is a scenario where the market believes with x% certainty that the stock will return y%, and the probability x increases as it becomes partially true (but in this scenario it is numerically the same thing, as the expected value changes, the price increases appropriately, and you still cannot beat the market except through luck).

      If you recognize this assumption from the original post, I'm pretty sure we're saying the same thing, as I said a few posts ago...

      Also, this is not something I made up after smoking too much weed one night. This is the Efficient Market Hypothesis, postulated by men much smarter than I: "The efficient-market hypothesis states that it is impossible to consistently outperform the market by using any information that the market already knows, except through luck." The market is not 100% efficient, as there are individuals (eg, Buffett) who have consistently out-performed market returns, but most people aren't Warren Buffett nor do they have the information infrastructure that he has. For the most part, the EMH holds true, and that has been supported with historical data.

    128. Re:insane by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure I would invest in Apple at current prices. I'd rather put my money in intel or even microsoft.

      Don't forget Fannie Mae.

      --
      Why is this even on SlashDot?... Why is this even on Slashdot?...Why is this even on Slashdot?
    129. Re:insane by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, I don't have a million dollars. I have something worth a million dollars. There's an enormous difference between the two. I can't live inside a million dollars. I can't buy food with a house. The economy allows me to convert between the two, but that does not make them the same.

      Actually, you can buy food with a house and you can live in a million dollars. But your thinking here is telling of why your mind state is the way it is. Your thinking of money as a tangible object and legal tender. Maybe 50 or 100 years ago, it was, but we have long left that in the past.

      The only reason you have to convert between two states of existence is because you can't make change for a house after a $5.00 value meal at McDonald's. You would be in the same boat with a 1 million dollar bill and that even by your definition would be "money" (This is because no McDonald's will have change for a million and most likely won't have change for a thousand dollar bill on a $5 purchase either). So you see, the only thing hindering your usage of the house as money is it's ability to be broken down to smaller denominations to make transactions. There are tools for this at your disposal though, you can take a loan out on the house, sell it, rent it and probably make more then the appreciation it would collect just sitting there.

      But, if you have a 1 million dollar home, you have money. You could simply take a loan out on the houses value. Lets say you barrow $100,000 on it. You then have 9/10ths of a million dollar home and $100,000 in an account somewhere waiting for you to pull the money out. But on the same note, money sitting in a bank account isn't legal tender either and it isn't tangible because no bank carries or holds all the money deposited in it. So an account with 1 million dollars in it is the same as a house worth 1 million you own. You still have to convert it to cash or find someone willing to take the promissory note you write on it (check). And to further illustrate this point, look around and you will see that not all places will accept checks and some that do, won't accept out of state checks.

    130. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You're describing ways to get money, you are not describing money.

      The fact that one entity is easily convertible into another entity does not make them equivalent. It makes them easily convertible. Your long, rambling post about how easy they are to convert does not, in fact, refute my point in any way.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    131. Re:insane by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Lol.. Go alone your way then. Money is anything of value with a worth. It is that simple. If you have anything that you can assign a dollar value to that other would agree on, it is just the same as money and there is no difference. You basically saying that because money is green and has in god we trust written on it, all banking checks aren't money, all retirement accounts aren't money, all stock investments aren't money, credit cards aren't money, and so on.

      The problem is that the world doesn't work that way and you can and do use things other then greenbacks to pay for things that cost money.

    132. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that things which aren't liquid and can't be generally used to purchase stuff aren't money.

      That green stuff with "in God we trust" is money, not because the government says so, but because it buys stuff.

      The hypothetical house is not money because you cannot use it to buy stuff. You can go through various painful shenanigans to convert it into something that will buy stuff, but you can't buy stuff directly with the house.

      You can buy stuff directly with checks, so they are money. Yes, some places don't accept them. Some places don't accept cash either. The important thing is that they are generally accepted. Houses aren't.

      And yes, stocks and investments aren't money. They are objects you own which can be converted into money at the market rate. Ever talk to somebody who plays the market a lot, and hear him say "I made $BIGNUM on the market today!"? Invariably this is said when his stock goes up, but when he has not taken any action. Well guess what, he didn't make any money. His stock gained value. But no money gets made until he actually sells and converts that stock back into money.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    133. Re:insane by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      No, I'm saying that things which aren't liquid and can't be generally used to purchase stuff aren't money.

      That green stuff with "in God we trust" is money, not because the government says so, but because it buys stuff.

      So then a credit car is money and a check is money right? Actually, no. I will go into further details later when you attempt to claim they are.

      The hypothetical house is not money because you cannot use it to buy stuff. You can go through various painful shenanigans to convert it into something that will buy stuff, but you can't buy stuff directly with the house.

      If I sued you and won, I could take the house as payment right? You would have effectivle used the money to pay a debt which would be the same thing as buying something.

      You can buy stuff directly with checks, so they are money. Yes, some places don't accept them. Some places don't accept cash either. The important thing is that they are generally accepted. Houses aren't.

      Hmmm. So if someone would take the house as a payment, it would become money right? Here is where your idea falls down. When someone has money, It doesn't matter if it is locked up in some asset or if it is sitting in the kitchen drawer. They have that money. Just because they have to do something in order to use it in a certain way doesn't make it not money. A person with a million dollars in assets whether it is locked up in a house or stocks or cash in his pocket is still a millionaire.

      And yes, stocks and investments aren't money. They are objects you own which can be converted into money at the market rate. Ever talk to somebody who plays the market a lot, and hear him say "I made $BIGNUM on the market today!"? Invariably this is said when his stock goes up, but when he has not taken any action. Well guess what, he didn't make any money. His stock gained value. But no money gets made until he actually sells and converts that stock back into money.

      You might want to talk to your lawyer on that. They count as money when your wife divorces you and you have to split of the estate (in most state, she will gat a portion of your retirement even if it is only through your work). They count as money when someone dies and you have to pay the death taxes. They count as money when you get sued and lose. They count as money when a judge figures out child support payment and whether you need to provide tuition or insurance or something.

      There are just too many things that count investments as money. Hell, when you goto court for a crime and request a court appointed attorney, the value of your house counts as money.

    134. Re:insane by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      You might want to talk to your lawyer on that. They count as money when your wife divorces you and you have to split of the estate (in most state, she will gat a portion of your retirement even if it is only through your work). They count as money when someone dies and you have to pay the death taxes. They count as money when you get sued and lose. They count as money when a judge figures out child support payment and whether you need to provide tuition or insurance or something.

      No, they count as assets. There's a difference.

      Here's my fundamental problem: using your definition of money, everything is "money". Therefore it becomes a pointless word. We already have words to describe this concept, like "value" and "assets". Why should "money" mean the same thing? The word "money" implies an inherent liquidity which houses and other such things do not possess.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    135. Re:insane by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Here's my fundamental problem: using your definition of money, everything is "money". Therefore it becomes a pointless word. We already have words to describe this concept, like "value" and "assets". Why should "money" mean the same thing? The word "money" implies an inherent liquidity which houses and other such things do not possess.

      Everything with value is money or equal to it and indistinguishable from it. Unless your going to go by the strict interpretation of "legal tender", but then your credit cards and bank checks don't work. An interesting side note is that if I give you a pig for putting a roof on my porch, you are supposed to claim the pig as income for the work you did. The IRS has already made that clear in what has become the Freeman situation and with several of the Amish clans who were bartering. It doesn't matter if I pay you 10 cherry pies for mowing my yard or raking my hay and you eat them that night, that is considered income according to the IRS and the Cherry pies are money.

      The difference between money and legal tender is that money can be refused as a type of payment. Legal tender which is what all government currency is, cannot be refused as payment unless you made some agreement before entering into the transaction. Even then, it might be impossible to refuse legal tender as payment. Well, you can refuse it, but you then lose all rights to the debt that was being paid. But a house, a horse, a car, your shirt on your back is money in the same sense that a credit card or a bank draft is. It is more apparent if you find someone willing to take it as payment (and if you look, you will). But back to the comment you made, you don't see someone claiming to need 1 million in cash to be considered a millionaire. A million dollars in assets (notice how that was explained by money denominations) does in fact make you a millionaire.

    136. Re:insane by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      ...And? "Can continue to grow" means nothing like "not finite".

      Let's put it this way... if you were deriving an economic equation, and you could greatly simplify it by assuming something is infinite - go for it. If your equation falls apart in a billion years no one will care.

      If you are an astrophysicist and you try the same, it won't work out very well.

      That's what I mean about context.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  4. On the one hand ... by Bryan+Ischo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ... it's amazing that a company like Google, that has been on the stock market for only a few years, can have a market capitalization about equal to that of a technology powerhouse like Apple.

    On the other hand, is there anyone in their right mind who thinks that Google will be as valuable after 30 years as Apple has proven to be?

    1. Re:On the one hand ... by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, is there anyone in their right mind who thinks that Google will be as valuable after 30 years as Apple has proven to be?

      my bet (which is worth nothing) is that they will be ecliped by something else in a few short years. they will crash and burn, wallstreet will shun them and they will be 'fallen google'.

      a friend of mine keeps saying 'they cannot sustain this and wallstreet is very unfriendly when their darling starts to slip'.

      all the over-benefits google gives its employees will be cut to the bone. all the 'good guys' will have left and gone to better/alternate places.

      google may even have scandals which destroy their brand name and trust. once you lose trust (and they are working HARD on that!) then they no longer have 'ownership' of eyeballs on the net.

      "the harder they come, the harder they fall, one and all". no reason to think google is anything more than a marketing company who sells ads and attracts people with non-primary 'benefits' (like the search engine). do realize their PRIMARY function in life is to sell ads. you haven't forgotton that with all the 'free' things they give you, right?

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:On the one hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or to put it another way, a company that sells actual products (Apple) compared to one that provides services for free (Google).

    3. Re:On the one hand ... by wolf12886 · · Score: 1

      is there anyone in their right mind who thinks that Google will be as valuable after 30 years as Apple has proven to be?

      Bah, don't get bogged down in reality, remember, your on /., where a self-referencing, somewhat off-topic post that adds nothing of value to the discussion can be modded +5 funny.

    4. Re:On the one hand ... by Scarblac · · Score: 3, Insightful

      On the other side we have Apple. They produce gadgets and computers, that do have quality, but also a lot of brand hype. And are very expensive.

      If there is a recession coming up, people will soon find that they can make do with their old gadgets a bit longer, or go with the cheaper option.

      --
      I believe posters are recognized by their sig. So I made one.
    5. Re:On the one hand ... by Jeppe+Salvesen · · Score: 5, Interesting

      On the other hand, is there anyone in their right mind who thinks that Google will be as valuable after 30 years as Apple has proven to be?

      I'm unsure. It all depends on whether Google will continue to attract the best heads in the business and continue to be able to use their talents in the best way possible. If their profits slip significantly, shareholder drones might insist on cutting costs..

      Then again, will Apple manage to maintain and refine their secret sauce when Steve Jobs is gone?

      --

      Stop the brainwash

    6. Re:On the one hand ... by GaryPatterson · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google provides services for free?

      You've got the model backwards. *You* (and I) are the products Google is selling to advertisers. The freebies are just fluff to keep the product happy.

      It's a fair model, and I sound more cynical than I actually am, but it's worth remembering in any dealings with companies like Google.

    7. Re:On the one hand ... by ionix5891 · · Score: 1
    8. Re:On the one hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      do realize their PRIMARY function in life is to sell ads. you haven't forgotton that with all the 'free' things they give you, right?

      Actually, with my trusty Adblock and ability to ignore text ads, yes, I actually did.

      Well, actually, I take that back. The advertisements ticker at the top of Gmail has actually given me some interesting links.

      Google just seems to take the sniper approach to advertisement: don't inundate the user with ads, and give the user an ad they might be interested in, and the user doesn't get as annoyed with the ads anymore.

      That, for me, is why I like Google so much, but then again, that probably makes me a fanboy. Better than a MS fanboy though, right?

    9. Re:On the one hand ... by Daengbo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You nailed it. Saying Google isn't a real business is like calling your local TV station a sham.

    10. Re:On the one hand ... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      I think you're half right. Certainly most people do not need to replace their Macs as often as they do (guilty!), so they'll hang on to their current ones longer (I will be). But they certainly won't replace it with some cheaper tat. Why pay $250 for an eepee ceeee eeee (I'm sure they charge by the 'e') when you can pay $0 and keep their, current, superior machine?

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    11. Re:On the one hand ... by omfgnosis · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It really depends how much of Apple's target market is severely affected by a recession. Not everyone is affected equally.

    12. Re:On the one hand ... by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "On the other side we have Apple. They produce gadgets and computers, that do have quality, but also a lot of brand hype. And are very expensive."

      Poor people don't buy Apple gear, and targeting upscale markets can be a good way to survive a recession. Apple could shave its profit margin and still target upscale customers. There are plenty of things that can be cut other than computer and hardware purchases, such as all other entertainment.

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    13. Re:On the one hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's smaller. Why pay twice as much for a Mac when you can just buy Intel?

    14. Re:On the one hand ... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      Google just seems to take the sniper approach to advertisement: don't inundate the user with ads, and give the user an ad they might be interested in, and the user doesn't get as annoyed with the ads anymore.

      Exactly. All other web advertisers seem to think that advertisements have to be annoying and useless, whereas Google seems to be the only one who is aware that ads are annoying, and tries to make them as unobstrusive and useful to the user as possible.

      Google frequently shows me ads that are somewhat relevant to me (although very often it's job ads from my current employer, which is not so useful), and they show them in a way that doesn't annoy me. Before Google it was flashing banners with rapidly moving monkeys to win free crap.

    15. Re:On the one hand ... by mcvos · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You nailed it. Saying Google isn't a real business is like calling your local TV station a sham.

      That's a good comparison. Although Google seems to be more honest about it, and it's nicer to us than many TV stations.

    16. Re:On the one hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On the other hand, is there anyone in their right mind who thinks that Google will be as valuable after 30 years as Apple has proven to be?

      Yeah - me. I have 10% of my net worth in Google and here's why.

      It all comes down to how strong their market advantage is. Apple currently offer the best high-end phone around, but will it be the best each year for the next 30 years? I doubt it.

      Meanwhile there's a good chance Google will be search king year-in, year-out for the next 30 years.

      Think I'm wrong? Put your money where your mouth is and short Google.

    17. Re:On the one hand ... by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

      A quote I remember from Bill G , at least meaning: "One day, a better solution can be made by a single person and everyone may switch to it making us completely crash".

      A really interesting, unique search engine could be made to actually race with Google and next day, you see everyone uses it. It is same for Apple too.

      I remember stars of search before Google, they all faded away.

      I personally stay away from Google search unless completely neccessary, I can keep couple of other search engine names in my mind and use them for the jobs best fit for the job. I don't think Google search results are quality ones anymore, full of viruses/worms/SEO hacks and actually autonomic sites which are just designed to spam Google results appear. As they don't bother with Yahoo Search or even "Live Search", I choose Yahoo or ask.com :) For example, ask.com guys made very interesting things lately with search results.

       

    18. Re:On the one hand ... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Where have you been? Macs have been Intel based for a while now.

      If what you meant to ask was why don't I buy Dell then the list is endless. I have a Dell laptop that work provides and there are so many things I hate about it: unreliable trackpad, the nipple, crappy plastic case, poor design (eg the case/lid, the presence of multiple volume control buttons). It goes on and on. I'd rather do without than buy any consumer Dell.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    19. Re:On the one hand ... by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Oh and re your double the price comment: that's been debunked so many times on /. that you must be new here.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    20. Re:On the one hand ... by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

      How is buying a Mac not buying Intel?

    21. Re:On the one hand ... by maztuhblastah · · Score: 1

      Then again, will Apple manage to maintain and refine their secret sauce when Steve Jobs is gone?

      Yes, I think so.

    22. Re:On the one hand ... by pkphilip · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a good comparison. Although Google seems to be more honest about it, and it's nicer to us than many TV stations.

      I find that a dubious assertion. Your local TV station is far more benign than Google.

      1. They don't know everything about your browsing habits.

      2. They don't know who emails you, who you email, what you email etc.. or your IM, your documents etc.

      3. They don't know what products you prefer to buy, how much you are willing to pay for them (if you are using google checkout)

      These are just some of the ways that Google could screw you over. An average TV station doesn't have as much information on you nor does it have the tools to cause you as much grief.

    23. Re:On the one hand ... by linhares · · Score: 1

      If there is a recession coming up, people will soon find that they can make do with their old gadgets a bit longer, or go with the cheaper option.

      Like this 500USD mac.

    24. Re:On the one hand ... by linhares · · Score: 1

      Google frequently shows me ads that are somewhat relevant to me (although very often it's job ads from my current employer, which is not so useful).

      Are you positive it's not your replacement they're after?

    25. Re:On the one hand ... by mcvos · · Score: 1

      That's a good comparison. Although Google seems to be more honest about it, and it's nicer to us than many TV stations.

      I find that a dubious assertion. Your local TV station is far more benign than Google.

      I'm not claiming Google is more benign. I'm claiming two things: that they're honest about what they're selling and how they make their money, and that they're nicer to us.

      No TV station has ever given me something like Google Earth, for example. Although there's one Dutch public broadcasting organisation that supports lots of nice things too, and they've created an open source CMS specialised in multimedia. They're nice people, but they're rare in TV land.

      I agree that Google is not bening, knows way too much, and would be scary as hell if they weren't so dedicated to not being evil (and they're still pretty scary), but most TV stations rudely interrupt the show I'm trying to watch to throw loud, unwanted ads in my face. Google doesn't do that. Instead, the give me Google Earth.

    26. Re:On the one hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google will drop to next to no value as soon as someone develops a better search algorithm, which will likely happen in the next few years. They are spending WAY too much money and time away from their core business to maintain it, and someone better will come along, soon.

    27. Re:On the one hand ... by MacDork · · Score: 1

      If there is a recession coming up, people will soon find that they can make do with their old gadgets a bit longer, or go with the cheaper option.

      Global recession? I think you underestimate Asia.

    28. Re:On the one hand ... by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      1. They don't know everything about your browsing habits.

      3. They don't know what products you prefer to buy, how much you are willing to pay for them (if you are using google checkout)

      Your local TV station doesn't have this information about you individually, and maybe they didn't acquire it themselves through technical means, but you can be DAMN sure they have a pretty good idea what their viewing audience is up to collectively.

      No, they don't know who e-mails you... but Google doesn't know who e-mails me either, because I choose not to use GMail, even though I do use several of their other services.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    29. Re:On the one hand ... by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 1

      News flash: The recession has come and gone, it's a depression now.

      --
      Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
    30. Re:On the one hand ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You make me luagh. Technology powerhouse.... You're fucking hilarious.

    31. Re:On the one hand ... by Knara · · Score: 1

      Take a look at the asian stock markets to date in 2008 and let me know what you think then.

      The idea that the rest of the world is decoupled from the US economy is silly.

    32. Re:On the one hand ... by pkphilip · · Score: 1

      most TV stations rudely interrupt the show I'm trying to watch to throw loud, unwanted ads in my face.

      Yes, Ads inserted during a show are very irritating, but at the end of the day it is just something that inconveniences the viewer - it does not cause any more damage than that.

      Google doesn't do that. Instead, the give me Google Earth.

      None of the Google tools are made available to you because Google wants to be unilaterally helpful to you. Remember that Google is a commercial enterprise which puts its shareholder's interests first.

      Google's tools ensure that they have millions who give Google details about themselves. Google uses this information to generate revenue and a lot of it.

      Google has just launched a service for storing medical records online. If you think that is just so that they can help you, think again.

      I repeat - no TV station is nearly as dangerous as Google.

    33. Re:On the one hand ... by MacDork · · Score: 1

      The idea that the rest of the world is decoupled from the US economy is silly.

      Tell me about it when the world drops the US dollar as its reserve currency. What's silly is the idea that the rest of the world needs the US for anything. The US is the largest debtor nation on the planet and on the verge of bankruptcy. I guess the rest of the world does need us... to pay back the money we owe them. As you've pointed out though, their markets are realizing that we can't pay them back and are adjusting accordingly. They will recover long before the US does... if the US does.

    34. Re:On the one hand ... by Knara · · Score: 1

      No, the world needs us as one of the largest consumers of the goods they're producing.

      I know its trendy to believe that the US is shootin' for a downfall of epic proportions, but that's very, very unlikely to happen.

    35. Re:On the one hand ... by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Global recession? I think you underestimate Asia.

      So? Apple's marketshare in Asia is almost zero.

  5. Don't RTFA by Iftekhar25 · · Score: 1

    I know this is redundant, but seriously... don't! The summary's got more digestible information than the article on macdailynews.com does!

  6. What will Apple do with all their cash? by Nicolas+MONNET · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Not only do they have an insane market cap, they also have tons of cash. The former means that it would be completely stupid to buy back shares with the latter.
    So what are they going to do with that cash? Expanding the product line significantly would mean diluting the brand. Even buying / Starting a low end brand would have the same effect.

    1. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Jesrad · · Score: 1

      Well, I think funding a private space program for Mars colonization would reinforce the brand.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by shplorb · · Score: 1

      Do they pay dividends? Perhaps it's a stupid question, but as an Aussie beginning to dabble in shares it seems like a lot of these "hot" US tech companies don't pay dividends.

      I mean, Microsoft only recently started paying them despite raking in enormous profits every year. Does Google pay dividends? I believe that their shares don't even allow you to vote... madness!

      Do people pay enormous amounts for shares in these companies hoping that one day they will pay dividends or do they hope that some other company will buy them out? They're really the only reasons I can think of.

    3. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Fallen+Andy · · Score: 1
      Buy a big chunk if not all of AMD?

      Andy

    4. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Google nor Apple pays dividends. They're still growing and investors are betting on strong future growth. The company invests profits in growth rather than distributing to shareholders. Off topic, but in February, I bought some AAPL stock at $120, now it's trading at almost $180 :)

    5. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by phillous · · Score: 1

      Shares are long term investments, where the idea is that they'll go up in value. Dividends are entirely optional for a company, and often actually take more value out (watch a stock graph at divi day).

      If its income you're after, then stocks and shares aren't the way to go at all. Bonds and other fixed income securities might work better. Of course they best route is usually a bit of everything, just incase the floor falls out of the bond market for example ;-)

    6. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      So what are they going to do with that cash? Expanding the product line significantly would mean diluting the brand. Even buying / Starting a low end brand would have the same effect.

      One CEO of a slightly smaller company (only a few hundred million in the bank) told me that if you have money in the bank, that's a very good place for it to be. He said that because he made the mistake of taking the money and buying companies, and it was pure luck that complete disasters and one excellent purchase evened themselves out. But he could have achieved the same results with much less work, and much less risk, and without losing any sleep, by keeping the money in the bank.

      In the past, Apple has used their cash to buy very specialised things that they wanted. Like (I think) Raycer which was important for 3D graphics know-how, now PA Semi, strategic investments into ARM, Akamai and I think a $100mil investment into Samsung? for developing LCD monitors a few years ago (I think that was repaid, but it served its purpose).

    7. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
      When a company makes a profit they have three options:
      1. Invest it in growing the company.
      2. Invest it in other companies that are growing.
      3. Give it to the shareholders.

      For most tech companies, option one is best. Option two is tricky because it comes with a lot of risk which is hard to justify if the company isn't an investment fund manager (although buying a majority share in smaller, successful, companies in related markets, or investing in joint-ventures or spin-outs to explore new markets is often a good move).

      Option three is basically an admission that the company has reached market saturation point. A company that issues dividends is likely to be a safe investment, but won't be likely to grow much. They'd typically go in the low-risk part of a portfolio - a relatively safe place to leave money with an annual return, but no hope of large returns.

      The other reason companies avoid dividends relates to tax. If you buy shares and they go up in value, you can often borrow against that value (risky, but possible) or trade them for other shares (e.g. trade them for very safe shares and then borrow against these). When you sell them, you have to pay tax. With a dividend, you have to pay tax immediately. This eliminates a lot of the dodges that rich people use to avoid paying tax, which means that they are less likely to want the shares.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    8. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on what they want to do. Buying shares creates more demand and increases the price. This benefits existing shareholders who want to sell. It also reduces the number of outstanding shares and increases earnings per share which often makes Wall Street analysts happy which may lead to later share price increases. They could also take that cash and use it to finance up coming projects, plow it into R&D, or buy a stake in another company that enhances the current Apple product line. It all depends what the board and the executive team believe is the best use for that capital.

    9. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by phillous · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not true. Dividends are merely a way of extracting the value of the stock. The point of investing in equity is that you own a (very very tiny) percentage of the company. If the company becomes worth more and more, then your percentage is worth more. Its got nothing to do with realising value, because you can sell it afterwards.

      If you were to buy alot of gold, and then the gold were to go up in value, would the gold be worth nothing because it didn't excreate gold dust? No, its still worth more than you bought it for so you've made a profit.

      applauds himself on the least crap analogy on /. today

      Equity is NOT an income, its all about capital growth.

    10. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Jartan · · Score: 1

      A stock that never pays dividends is worth nothing. Why would anyone buy it?

      I've never really agreed with the excessive focus on increasing shareholder value in our markets but there are times where it's the right choice to make.

      The way stocks gets traded makes it all seem so shady but they really do signify ownership of something with some actual value.

    11. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by mcvos · · Score: 1

      in February, I bought some AAPL stock at $120, now it's trading at almost $180 :)

      I knew I should have kept mine. When the Nano was first introduced, I bought AAPL for about $50, and a couple of months later I sold for $80, I think.

      Had I been a bit richer then, I could have been really rich now.

    12. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Expanding the product line significantly would mean diluting the brand. Even buying / Starting a low end brand would have the same effect.

      I don't know if you realize it, but this is exactly what a lot of people are expecting Apple to do sometime within the next month. Of course it is speculation, but what IS known is this: they are making a change to one or more of there product lines in a way that will significantly affect their margins. This is based on financial projections and comments made by the CFO at the shareholder's conference call last month. Now, any guesses as to what they are planning?

      --
      Qxe4
    13. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      But why would it go up in value? There's no way to turn that paper certificate into anything else that has value, other than selling it. So unless that certificate entitles you, at some point, to a stream of payments, then there's no point owning it.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    14. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stock buy backs are a valid way to serve your investors. Each stock certificate bought back increases the value of the outstanding shares.

      Example. I hold one share out of 10 million outstanding. I hold 1/10millionth of the company.
      If they buy back a million shares, I would now own 1/9 millionth of the company.

      Reinvesting in R/D, purchasing other companies that are excellent and buy backs are all great uses of the profits. Dividends can be but they
      increase the tax burden of your share holders.

    15. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      They should follow the lead from so many other big businesses and jump into the mortgage business.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    16. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      1. A company can stop paying dividends at any time, regardless of its dividend history. No stock anywhere truly entitles you to a stream of payments.
      2. The company could, for instance, dissolve and give all the money back to shareholders in one great-big "dividend".
      3. The company could be purchased by a larger company, and the shares converted to something that has dividends.
      4. They could start paying dividends, whenever they so choose.
      5. The next sucker might buy one off you in 10 years' time for more money than you purchased it for on the assumption that one of these points will apply still further in the future.

      The issues aren't simple because a stock isn't simple. Narrowing everything down to today's, or the past's, dividend is oversimplifying.

      You have to deal with "ifs" and "could haves" in volatile investments. Bonds are a better way to establish nearly-guaranteed monetary growth.

    17. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by MattW · · Score: 1

      Expand on their iPod and Computer empire by inventing an awesome phone? ...

      Oh.

      iCar, anyone?

    18. Re:What will Apple do with all their cash? by djp928 · · Score: 1

      But why would it go up in value?

      He already told you. Because the company is worth more (has more assets, makes more money, sells more product) and therefore your small piece of said company is worth more, because people are willing to pay more to take it off your hands.

      Why does gold ever appreciate? It becomes more scarce, demand goes up, new gold mines don't pan out and can't keep up with current demand--many reasons. Your gold bar doesn't suddenly get bigger, but it is worth more because people are willing to pay more for it.

      Neither have any realized profits unless you sell them when they're up. But it doesn't mean there's no added value there, or that you somehow can't measure that value.

  7. Legs to stand on by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Well, when you factor in a rapidly growing computer market (for Apple) with lots of growth potential left, a rapidly growing music market with lots of growth potential, a rapidly growing smartphone market, a rapidly growing mobile applications market...

    And so on.

    The thing of it is, Apple can still miss in a few categories and still have tremendous room for growth. They have many legs of stability holding up their table of success (I daresay that's the most awful metaphor you'll encounter this week).

    The market rewards innovation, mindshare, and success. Apple has all three...

    If after that you are still mystified - buy mutual funds.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Legs to stand on by oldhack · · Score: 1

      The market rewards innovation, mindshare, and success. Apple has all three...

      No, market rewards profit and profit outlook. Mindshare, innovation, etc. are all side issues. Apple looks overvalued to me, but it ain't my money, and I'm not into short selling, so no dog in this fight.

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    2. Re:Legs to stand on by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      The market rewards profit. That's all that matters.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    3. Re:Legs to stand on by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Well, Apple has shown great strides in penetrating the OS market...yet they've only penetrated it at the rate of about 3-5%, leaving a full 90% -ish percent left for growth. I'd say that, plus quality phones and mp3 players, is the potential that investors see in Apple.

    4. Re:Legs to stand on by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      No, it is not growth. Growth does not mean anything in a competitive market.

      The reason that Apple has a larger market cap is because they have a valuable franchise, and growth within that franchise will continue to maintain profit margins. Growth outside of the franchise will result in (theoretically) zero profit due to competition.

      Apple is overvalued. It's a bubble. Yadda yadda. But at the same time, you cannot take asset value and equate that to market cap without taking into account the value of the franchise.

    5. Re:Legs to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      many legs of stability holding up their table of success

      I'm so getting that tattooed across my back.

    6. Re:Legs to stand on by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      But it's not franchise/goodwill alone. You have to take into account execution of new products and Apple has done very well, which then leverages the power of the franchise.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    7. Re:Legs to stand on by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      No, market rewards profit and profit outlook. Mindshare, innovation, etc. are all side issues.

      Mindshare and innovation are the key factors to future profit. You can't say profit outlook is important and dismiss the things that make it happen as side issues.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    8. Re:Legs to stand on by oldhack · · Score: 1

      Mindshare, innovation may lead to profit, but not necessarily, and financial market is all about profit (and bubbles and scams and rumors :-).

      --
      Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
    9. Re:Legs to stand on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The stock market rewards profit (or the expectation of future profit).

      However the GP was probably referring to the consumer market which, for the most part, couldn't care less about profits (though many Apple devotees are atypical in this regard).

    10. Re:Legs to stand on by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      Yes, that would be growth within the franchise (goodwill has nothing to do with it -- that's related to paying more than market value for acquisitions.)

  8. Roller coaster stock! by pecosdave · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Seriously, if you bought Apple stock when it was first available and sold it all in the early 80's you would have been incredibly rich. Then, if you would have bought it all back in the 90's and sold it again today you would have replenished what you would have spent in the mean time.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Roller coaster stock! by JAlexoi · · Score: 1

      I love the "Would have" and "Should have" posts....

  9. This means Apple computers are cheap! by SanderDJ · · Score: 1, Informative
    "Apple is now worth 3 times the value of Dell Computer."

    And since Apples cost only twice as much as Dells, this means Apples are cheap!

    More seriously: as an Apple shareholder I would like to have some dividend. Pretty pretty please?

    1. Re:This means Apple computers are cheap! by Jesrad · · Score: 2, Informative

      With 160B cap and 3B profit, and assuming a dividend share of 50%, you'd get less than 1% of your stock's value in dividend. That's not much.

      --
      Maybe we deserve this world ?
    2. Re:This means Apple computers are cheap! by SanderDJ · · Score: 1
      First, you don't know how much stock I own.

      Second, 1% is infinitely more than 0%.

      Sorry, I'm a nitpicker.

    3. Re:This means Apple computers are cheap! by neokushan · · Score: 2, Informative

      How much stock you own is completely irrelevant, 1% of one share and 1% of 1,000,000 shares is still not a lot in comparison to the VALUE of the shares.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    4. Re:This means Apple computers are cheap! by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Funny

      You're too kind, I would have tried to sell him a bridge.

      --
      Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
    5. Re:This means Apple computers are cheap! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      More seriously: as an Apple shareholder I would like to have some dividend. Pretty pretty please?

      Why? If you think you can invest your money somewhere with a bigger ROI than Apple, maybe you should sell your Apple shares and do this. Their profits grew by over 50% in the last year, so I'd be surprised if you manage it.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:This means Apple computers are cheap! by mcvos · · Score: 2, Funny

      First, you don't know how much stock I own.

      Second, 1% is infinitely more than 0%.

      Then sell 1% of your shares. There's your dividend.

      Do you know there are companies that pay dividends in shares? I'd consider that the biggest con ever, if I didn't know the stockmarket pulled much weirder shit every day.

  10. Other market cap comparisons by cartman · · Score: 4, Informative

    Apple is also larger than oracle, sap, and cisco, and nearly as large as IBM. The only tech company larger than Apple by any significant margin is Microsoft; but even then, Apple is more than 60% as large as Microsoft and is growing considerably faster.

    1. Re:Other market cap comparisons by carahan · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Market capitalization should not be the only thing taken into account when comparing the size of a company. This is just a basic comparison, I'm not a bookeeping wizard. From Google: APPL Total Revenue 2007: 24,006.00 millions IBM Total Revenue 2007: 98,785.00 million APPL Market Cap: 158.84B IBM Market Cap: 170.44B This valuation makes sense when you notice that Apple's P/E is 35, above average for a tech company, and IBM's is only 15.5. Apple still has a ton of growing to do to match the current stockprice; aka, their current eventual expectations. Chances are that even if Apple reaches that size there will be ups and downs just like any other company so some people will leave the bandwagon prematurely. It just goes to show how much more expections are for a company in the spotlight.

    2. Re:Other market cap comparisons by sunspot42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      If "smartphones" evolve to become the dominant computing platform over the next decade - as I think is likely - Apple has the potential to grow until it dwarfs Microsoft . . . and everybody else in the business. Looking at the market as it stands right now, Apple is in a position to become a sort of Microsoft on steroids over the next 10 years.

      For years the tech press has been nattering on about "convergence" devices. Microsoft and Sony sank tens of billions of dollars into their game console business in part because they'd hoped their devices would become a ubiquitous digital hub, a move I always found questionable, since many households would never purchase a game machine and neither company has shown any skill in providing interfaces users enjoy working with.

      Unfortunately for them, in the meantime increasing miniaturization and decreasing power requirements made it practical to produce full-fledged personal computers you could fit in your pocket. The iPhone is a tiny Macintosh with a built-in touchscreen that just happens to come with an integrated cell phone, and as such represents a far better bet as an ideal convergence device than a videogame machine.

      Apart from the appeal of the cell phone as a convergence device, the other problem for the remaining players in the market, like Dell, HP and Microsoft, is that margins on dedicated personal computers are crashing. The same technology which makes it possible to cram a fully-functional (if not state-of-the-art) personal computer into your pocket has also slashed the price of even relatively high-end desktop PCs to well under $1000. At these low prices - you can get a fully capable desktop these days for around $300, and a laptop for $200 more - the devices are becoming commodities with little if any margin left. Low PC prices are also making it increasingly difficult for Microsoft to justify its outrageous software prices - on a PC loaded with Vista and MS Office, the cost of the Microsoft software can easily exceed the cost of the hardware itself.

      Apple has the advantage of producing and selling both the hardware and the software. As such, the declining cost of hardware won't necessarily erode their product margins, or at least won't erode them as much as it will their competitors. They can also have the cost of the unit subsidized by the carriers themselves, allowing them to charge consumers more for their products than rivals like Dell and Microsoft, who either don't have access to such subsidization (Dell and their PCs) or who have to split it with the hardware manufacturers (MS and the smartphone makers themselves). While Apple's overall margins are likely to decrease as most customers migrate away from more expensive, traditional desktop and laptop PCs, their market share and overall number of units sold will explode. And their margin situation will still be vastly superior to that enjoyed by the likes of Dell and HP in the (dying) dedicated personal computer business.

      Apple's other advantage is their focus on the customer experience. Whereas Microsoft has spent the past 20 years trying to lock customers inside the Windows jail, Apple's focus has been on trying to lure customers onto its Macintosh platform. It shows with the iPhone, which has an interface that puts the jumbled, klunky Windows smartphone interface to shame. The iPhone sports an interface consumers are willing to pay a substantial premium to enjoy.

      I suspect at some point in the next 2-5 years Apple will move to make the iPhone a true PC. They'll make some kind of docking station available, so you can connect it to a full-sized monitor and keyboard and wired network when you're at home or at the office, the way laptop docking stations currently allow users to connect. It'll have the advantage of allowing corporations to replace not only their existing desktop and laptop PCs, but also their telephones and employee cell phones, since the iPhone will be able to function as all of these devices. Mobile users who require a keyboard and larger mon

    3. Re:Other market cap comparisons by shilly · · Score: 1

      This is fantastic insight into the future of the iPhone. It makes absolute sense that in due course, the iPhone *becomes* the computer. There's a huge challenge for Apple to manage -- how to monetise this future, as it clearly erodes the value of their current computer lineup, but you're spot on. The key technical challenge is finding a way to provide a mobile user with a keyboard, trackpad and laptop while they are out of the office and needing to do the kind of work (spreadsheets, powerpoint) that can't easily be done on an iPhone. I guess technically the solutions might incorporate OLED screens that can be rolled up, but how to make the setup non-clunky is challenging (although the kind of challenge that Apple has prowess in solving)

    4. Re:Other market cap comparisons by giorgist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      60% of Microsoft with less than 10% of the market ?!

      Top news story at 11: "Chair seen in orbit around Pluto"

    5. Re:Other market cap comparisons by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Interesting
      This assumes that Apple won't make the same mistakes with the mobile platform that they made with the Mac in the '80s - locking it down to third parties and alienating developers. From what I've heard, the iPhone dev environment is really nice. As an Objective-C developer who's written an Objective-C runtime library, parts of an Objective-C compiler (which Apple use on the iPhone) and maintains a dozen or so Objective-C frameworks, I'd be very interested in the platform. Unfortunately, their developer license agreement is so hostile that there's no chance of me agreeing to it.

      Nokia would be in a really good position if they started listening to their HCI people, but I wouldn't be surprised if we see some Indian and Chinese hardware manufacturers starting to produce 'white box' phones running an open source stack and relying on external developers to do most of their software work for them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Other market cap comparisons by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      Pfft. So 'increasing miniaturization and decreasing power requirements' mean that pc hardware is becoming so cheap that we will have an iphone as convergence device and buy a load of dumb terminals, docking stations or whatever you want to call them to plug our iphones into?
      Yeah, that makes sense(sarcasm-o-meter explodes).
      Or maybe more computing power will be built into electrical products, so the TV will have an integrated PVR and maybe web browser and other services.

      If most of our data and even our applications will follow us around wherever we go, on our phone, it will be by sellotaping a bootable usb stick to our iPhone.

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    7. Re:Other market cap comparisons by zmollusc · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, why not build a smaller lighter laptop with built-in 3G (or whatever that week) phone connectivity that connects to an _incredibly_thin_and_lightweight_ ( This is what sells to fashionistas, apparently. Go figure. ) telephone handset via bluetooth?
      Thus the computer replaces the iPhone.

       

      --
      They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
    8. Re:Other market cap comparisons by Gorbag · · Score: 1

      You're comparing the market for PCs and leaving out a lot of other markets. Apple has, what, 70% of the mp3 player market? What's M$'s share of that?

      --
      -- I speak only for myself
    9. Re:Other market cap comparisons by mini+me · · Score: 1

      What market are you talking about? Apple has roughly 25% of the US consumer PC market, for example.

      There isn't "the market." There are hundreds of different markets that both Microsoft and Apple compete in.

    10. Re:Other market cap comparisons by Lars+T. · · Score: 1
      Funny you should mention "growing"...

      Revenue growth compared to 2006: AAPL +24.3%; IBM +8.1%

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    11. Re:Other market cap comparisons by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      There's a huge challenge for Apple to manage -- how to monetise this future, as it clearly erodes the value of their current computer lineup

      Yeah, I was gonna point this out. Apple's been giving guidance for awhile stating that their margins are gonna erode going forward - this is the reason why. Still, I don't think they have any longterm alternative. If they didn't jump into the "smartphone" market now, they'd likely be pushed in a year or two by Samsung or Nokia or Blackberry, as other vendors either intentionally (or unintentionally) release phones that can function as full-fledged PCs (because they are little PCs).

      These little PCs are really going to be a disruptive technology. Companies are either going to embrace them, or die.

      One interesting revenue stream that's going to open up for Apple now though is a cut of third-party software sales, via the iTunes store. This is the kind of model Nintendo pioneered back in the '80s - others develop the software, but only Nintendo gets to release and distribute it (and gets a cut of the purchase price). It may ultimately allow them to sell the iPhone at a loss, even after carrier subsidies, and make the money back (and then some) on 3rd party software sales.

      I don't think the lack of a keyboard will matter. You could always release a portable "docking station" with its own keyboard, monitor and battery, for those road warriors who need a keyboard and larger screen on the go. And for high-end users - graphics professionals and the like - traditional laptops will still be available, along with desktop workstations and the like. I just think we're going to see average users migrate away from systems like that - these desktop and portable workstations will only account for 5-10% of the total "PC" market, tops (in volume, not dollars - the margins on these systems will remain much higher). Everybody else will be using their "phone" as a PC.

    12. Re:Other market cap comparisons by sunspot42 · · Score: 1

      Pfft. So 'increasing miniaturization and decreasing power requirements' mean that pc hardware is becoming so cheap that we will have an iphone as convergence device and buy a load of dumb terminals, docking stations or whatever you want to call them to plug our iphones into?

      Yeah, that makes sense(sarcasm-o-meter explodes).

      Every office I've been into in the past 5 years has been festooned with docking stations, monitors, keyboards and mice, for use with their laptops (the docking stations usually come with the laptop). So for business, buying similar devices for the iPhone would be absolutely no different from what they're doing already - except that the iPhone could reduce by two the number of devices they have to buy for their employees, as it could function as both a cell phone (when disconnected from the company network) as well as an IP phone (when docked).

      Longterm, high speed wireless connectivity could eliminate the need for docking stations entirely, even to connect to nearby monitors.

      Or maybe more computing power will be built into electrical products, so the TV will have an integrated PVR and maybe web browser and other services.

      Maybe, but that's not as useful as being able to take whatever you've got wherever you go. Why strand last night's episode of Mad Men on the PVR in your tee vee at home, when you could watch it over your lunch hour on your iPhone at work? Or take it with you to your friend's house and watch it together on her 50" flat panel set?

    13. Re:Other market cap comparisons by city · · Score: 1

      Exactly, there is no reason to think the original poster's scenario doesnt take place, just with other players as the main characters, like say HTC+Google.

      --
      I am a v1ral sig. Plse c0py me and h3lp me spread. Thank y0u?
    14. Re:Other market cap comparisons by shilly · · Score: 1

      For the fairly obvious reason that you then need at least two pieces of kit (laptop, phone / earset) to answer a call. Not very convenient.

    15. Re:Other market cap comparisons by shilly · · Score: 1

      I think you're right to say that there will be interesting new revenue streams opening up -- the refresh cycle for a phone vs a laptop is one obvious way that at least some of the loss can be recouped. I agree that the lack of a keyboard isn't fatal, and portable kit will obviously help, as will new technology (maybe this is the driver for speech-to-text software to go mainstream?).

    16. Re:Other market cap comparisons by giorgist · · Score: 1

      MS works so hard and has it's hand in so many markets, I recon Apple is but 2% or less than MS on the big picture, and to have 60% of the value of MS

      I stand by:

      Top news story at 11: "Chair seen in orbit around Pluto"

    17. Re:Other market cap comparisons by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, because free-for-all development with no cohesive plan has worked so *well* for Linux in taking over the desktop.

      Never mind that Linux is *free* - people still don't want it...

      Life is a series of trade off's. Plenty of developers have decided the trade off of dealing with Apple's restrictions outweigh the benefits. The app store has been available for one month and use has exploded - as more developers have time to publish more wares I think the volume of the app store will be truly astonishing.

      Not long ago you would have been laughed at if you hinted that video game sales would pass movies and music sales - but they did. Markets are shifting and it's gong to be interesting to watch...

  11. Too be fair by Repossessed · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A little over ten years ago, liquidating Apple would have made sense, whatever else I might think about the company and the products, Jobs is a fucking miracle worker, and we need more business leaders with his ability (if maybe not ethics).

    --
    Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
    1. Re:Too be fair by Jack9 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      To be fair, selling Apple off piecemeal would have been the right decision. The Jobs-Apple machine has completely replaced everything from that period (and earlier) from product line to store layout. The branding of Apple hurt iPod sales in 2001 but whatever branding was on it would have done just as well in the long run due to their new product lines. The success of the iPod's interface is largely the result of a contracted company called Pixo that any other company could have hired (as long as they had Jobs to direct). See wikipedia:iPod. But that's just my opinion.

      --

      Often wrong but never in doubt.
      I am Jack9.
      Everyone knows me.
    2. Re:Too be fair by Phroggy · · Score: 1

      The branding of Apple hurt iPod sales in 2001

      I disagree. Remember that when the iPod was originally introduced, it was Mac-only. Windows compatibility wasn't even offered; this was a Macintosh accessory targeted at Mac users. Apple was filling a niche: most other portable MP3 players were not Mac compatible. Apple had recently released iTunes (which they'd bought from another company and rebranded) and wanted a portable MP3 player that could integrate with it, taking "Rip, Mix, Burn" to the next level.

      It was precisely the Apple branding that allowed the iPod to become successful in this market. With Apple's name on it, Mac users could be assured that the product would work well for them; with any other name on it, most Mac users would naturally assume the opposite. Apple's brand carried with it the reputation for designing elegant and intuitive user interfaces; many people who had seen the clunky interfaces of competing devices were willing to try the iPod because they felt the brand name virtually guaranteed that the interface would far outshine the competition.

      The next step was to introduce Windows compatibility (by working with MusicMatch to add support to that company's Jukebox application). By this time, the iPod was already successful, but Windows compatibility opened it up to a much larger market. Finally, a year and a half after the iPod was introduced, Apple released iTunes for Windows.

      --
      $x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
      $x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
    3. Re:Too be fair by Serious+Callers+Only · · Score: 1

      The success of the iPod's interface is largely the result of a contracted company called Pixo that any other company could have hired

      But is the success of the iPod solely down to the interface? I'd say it's a combination of the great work by Pixo (staffed by former Apple employees, and led by Mercer, formerly at Apple), and integration with a great form factor/usability, and a touch of panache.

      It was just small enough for a pocket, the scroll wheel and physical controls were nice and simple and went with the pared down interface, it could store loads of music (and yet wasn't a brick), it had a nice program to organise your music and get it on there (also from outside Apple), and it had a fast Firewire interface as opposed to USB 1.

      All those things were available individually in other players at the time, but bringing them all together in a product that shipped was what made the iPod a success. I remember showing one to someone after they first came out, and they said 'One day, all music players will work this way'. They were right in that others would try to emulate this integration (see Zune), but wrong in that there is something difficult about getting all those elements working together so well in one device, and getting it shipped for a reasonable* price.

      *For certain values of reasonable

  12. As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember the ups and the downs. Apple's stagnation during the Scully-Spindler-Amelio years. The failure of Copland and the dark age during which AAPL traded at $12/share and Sun take-over rumors ran rampant. Michael Dell's ass-hat punditry.

    Then we saw the awesome Second Golden Age, a.k.a. the Return of Jobs - something we never thought could come to pass. We got the G3 (a terrific processor for its time) and the iMac. Of course it wasn't all rosy, we also had the The G4 MHz stall and the MHz Myth. But since Jobs' return there have been few misses and many outstanding hits. The greatness of OS X returned the Mac to its original place of software technological leadership. The iPod was a game changer, and even those of us who were among the hard-core Apple faithful never predicted what game changer it would prove to be in short order. And yes, the Intel defection proved to be (despite my anger toward it) a galvanizing force behind Mac platform growth. Now we have the iPhone (and iTouch) platform making history in its own right.

    Apple has successfully captured so much market share in the last few years, people who will not likely return to the non-Apple world. Yes, the company is probably moderately overvalued right now, but with such growth and market saturation, a high valuation is sensible as long as the broader market can sustain recent rallies. Look at the iPhone sales estimates and then think about Apple's valuation. Google is a great company - unquestionably so - but it's an Internet property that can be replaced by a simple click of an address bar if a superior solution becomes available. (I'm not trivializing Google's place in the market but rather pointing to the fact that Internet leadership can change in quick order with disruptive technologies.) Not so with Apple, which isn't just a creative hardware vendor nor just a leading software producer, nor just a cultural business icon, but all that and more put together.

    The only real question is, going forward, how long will Steve Jobs continue to lead the company. For he has always been the driving visionary force behind Apple's success, and without him Apple's value would take a substantial hit. I wouldn't want to be an AAPL share holder on the day he announces his retirement. Until then though, one can make a lot of money by buying Apple toward the bottom of market lows and holding on for almost inevitable new highs.

    --
    Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    1. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      The failure of Copland and the dark age during which AAPL traded at $12/share and Sun take-over rumors ran rampant.

      AAPL actually hit $3-4 at one point in the 90's.

    2. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by xenn · · Score: 1

      Apple has successfully captured so much market share in the last few years, people who will not likely return to the non-Apple world.

      umm... Duh?

    3. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Split adjusted perhaps, but it never went below $10/share AFAIK. If it had been as low as $3-$4, there would have been delisting rumors, which never occurred. I know - I followed the stock ever since at least 1993 when it was trading around $30/share, to those circa 1996 lows, and ever since.

    4. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by timmarhy · · Score: 1

      they've had one good product in 10 years - the ipod+itunes. the iphone is all flash and no substance frankly it doesn't do anything ground breaking.

      --
      If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    5. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      You show as much insight as CmdrTaco reviewing the iPod.

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    6. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by mcvos · · Score: 2, Funny

      AAPL actually hit $3-4 at one point in the 90's.

      I really need to know now: did CERN invent a time machine or not?

    7. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by falcon5768 · · Score: 1

      um hi NOTHING OUT THERE IS GROUNDBREAKING. The freaking MAC wasnt groundbreaking, the iPod was a 5 year old idea at the point of its debut, and Windows and the Mac OS certainly where not.... it was all in presentation, of which Apple has trumped every single company out there. You would be very hard pressed to say ANYTHING in the tech world in the last 30 years was groundbreaking.... they are all variations on a theme that has existed since the 70' (internet, computer development, OS development etc) Its all in the presentation to the populous and always has been.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    8. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by Daengbo · · Score: 1

      I just saw it paging through the history in Google. I guess it could have been adjusted, but I didn't notice any statement to that affect.

    9. Re:As a ~20 year Apple Fanatic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. The Mac was definitely a ground-breaking advance over PARC. The iPod was ground-breaking, which allowed it to capture the music player market practically over night.

  13. hardly a meaningful measure by timmarhy · · Score: 1

    market cap isn't a "real" measure. it's merely the share price x outstanding shares, it's not real money, just speculation. apple's value is probably more robust than googles though.... 156 billion for a web business? did we learn nothing from the dot com bubble????!!!!

    --
    If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
    1. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by neokushan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      A web business that has MICROSOFT shitting bricks.
      If Microsoft had a magical "one-hit-kill" bullet that could eliminate just ONE major competitor, they'd pick Google, not Apple.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    2. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, this "web business" had 10.6B and 16.6B in revenues in the last 2 years (5.4 last quarter), and 3.1B and 4.2B in profits respectively (1.2B last quarter). So what comparison with the dot.com bubble do you want to draw?

      Note that these profits are higher than Apple's.

    3. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      Probably because they own more of Apple.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    4. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by CountBrass · · Score: 2, Informative

      Uhm. You do realise it's 2008 and not 1998 don't you? MS sold those shares a LONG time ago. http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=aapl/

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
    5. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by choas · · Score: 1

      That stock has long been sold.

      --
      I will work to elevate you, just enough to bring you down
    6. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by omfgnosis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They're not a web business. They're a marketing and datamining business, which happens to use the web to capture and distribute their data.

    7. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by Maelwryth · · Score: 1

      You'd be right there. I should have checked.

      --
      I reserve the write to mangle english.
    8. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by Andy_R · · Score: 2, Funny

      ...or possibly their own foot.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    9. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by druid_getafix · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft had a magical "one-hit-kill" bullet that could eliminate just ONE major competitor, they'd pick Google, not Apple.

      And they would be wrong... again!

    10. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by neokushan · · Score: 1

      Only because Microsoft is ALWAYS wrong - even when they're right.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    11. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...If Microsoft had a magical "one-hit-kill" bullet that could eliminate just ONE major competitor, they'd pick Google, not Apple.

      That depends. If Microsoft manages to shit out another Vista all over the corporate carpet with its next OS, Google will be the least of their concerns.

      You lose the OS in the corporate world, the Office suite will be next, especially when you continue to deny ODF.

    12. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by neokushan · · Score: 1

      Office isn't dependant on Windows (Office for mac also exists), so unless Corporations make a mass shift to Linux, I don't think Microsoft has much to worry about there.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    13. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, Microsoft *needs* Apple to keep the "Justice" (extortion) departments of their backs.

    14. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha! Ha!

    15. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by neokushan · · Score: 1

      I'm sure there are more Linux installations out there than MacOS installations. Apple could vanish tomorrow and not make a difference to Microsoft's monopolistic standings.

      --
      +1 IDisagreeSoHeMustBeATrollOrAnAstroturferOrAShill
    16. Re:hardly a meaningful measure by carou · · Score: 1

      If Microsoft had a magical "one-hit-kill" bullet that could eliminate just ONE major competitor, they'd pick Google, not Apple.

      But of course.

      Without Apple, where would Microsoft get their R&D?

  14. I didnt know by ya+really · · Score: 0

    Did miss the memo as to when Slashdot was bought out by The Economist? Maybe it is just a slow newsday. I did like the Dell quote though. Maybe Dell should shut down and give it's money back to the shareholders and customers. Maybe they can buy a real computer with decent tech support with that.

    1. Re:I didnt know by CountBrass · · Score: 1

      Economists can't be nerds? Nothing nerdier than a maths geek. (*ducks*).

      --
      Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
  15. OP flamebait by krkosska · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's ridiculous to report what Dell said OVER A DECADE AGO about Apple. Leave your bias in a reply instead.

    1. Re:OP flamebait by Alioth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No it is not. It puts Apple's current success into context: it shows that it has been a tremendous turnaround of a company that was once - in the estimation of the very successful businessman, Michael Dell - ready for the scrapheap. It shows the turnaround has been so successful that it has even surpassed Michael Dell's own business. Devoid of this context, the current market cap is pretty meaningless to most people who don't follow the stock market.

    2. Re:OP flamebait by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish I could mod you up.

    3. Re:OP flamebait by mgblst · · Score: 1

      Why? Is there some sort of statutory limit on the stupid things people have said in the past? Republicans would sure love that. Is that how your world works?

    4. Re:OP flamebait by MouseR · · Score: 1

      Disclaimer: I'm a moderate Apple fan boy.

      Now, concerning that ever so famous Dell quote, I think at the time he was on to something. Apple was really in a bad shape and it would have taken a miracle to save Apple. Lukilly, and against all odds, Apple has had more than it's share of miracles and thus now it makes Dell look like a fool.

      But at the time, no one could have predicted candy colors would have saved Apple.

    5. Re:OP flamebait by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      If you were to make a measurement on units sold, the number of Dells sold in the world would far exceed the number of Macs sold, bearing in mind Dell produces server-quality PCs as well as desktops & notebooks.

      Plus the reality of the situation is that the average price of a Dell computer is a lot less than the average price of a Mac and I also suspect that due to the nature of the competition in the PC marketplace, there is nowhere near the same profit margin on a Dell PC than there is on a Mac.

      Also bear in mind that Apple also sells phones and music players whereas Dell just sells computers - so it's not really comparing "like-for-like".

      Though I do accept that Michael Dell's Apple comment will go down in history alongside Bill Gates' "640K is enough for anyone" comment.

      Besides which, you like Oolite so I quite like you.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
  16. Really a futures market.... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1
    Even though the stock market isn't technically a futures market, the fact that folks are buying a company's share based on anticipated future earnings makes the equities markets a futures market in practice.

    Which what the parent was getting at...

    1. Re:Really a futures market.... by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's closer a third-order system. People don't buy based on the current earnings of a company. They don't buy based on the anticipated future earnings. They buy based on the anticipation of the anticipation of future earnings. If Apple will, in the future, look like it will look better in the future than it looks now, then it's a good investment.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Really a futures market.... by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      the fact that folks are buying a company's share based on anticipated future earnings makes the equities markets a futures market in practice.

      But this is true of ANY investment.

      You wouldn't buy a house for more than the previous owner paid unless you had some idea that the value would appreciate. When you buy a bond, you don't pay the actually face value of a bond - you pay a premium based on what you think the bond will be worth in the future.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
  17. Error: invalid comparison type by Onan · · Score: 1

    You cannot directly compare a set of per-year values with one absolute, total value.

    1. Re:Error: invalid comparison type by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      P/E is really the only widely used metric we have for such calculations, though. And what should he have done, per your advice?

      Maybe he could have divided by $years_until_company_fails or $years_until_purchased_by_SCO ?

  18. To add.... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well, when you factor in a rapidly growing computer market (for Apple) with lots of growth potential left, a rapidly growing music market with lots of growth potential, a rapidly growing smartphone market, a rapidly growing mobile applications market...

    And so on.

    The thing of it is, Apple can still miss in a few categories and still have tremendous room for growth. They have many legs of stability holding up their table of success (I daresay that's the most awful metaphor you'll encounter this week).

    The market rewards innovation, mindshare, and success. Apple has all three...

    If after that you are still mystified - buy mutual funds.

    Everything the parent said is true. The amount of growth, on the other hand, is anyone one's guess and if they miss a "target" their stock price may get tanked. And I'd like to add, innovation isn't necessarily rewarded. SONY was one of the most innovative companies that has existed. But whenever they came out with a product, a competitor(s) came out with a cheaper one eroding Sony's margins to the point where they couldn't recoup much of their R&D for their products. Now they've pretty much become an also ran themselves. Apple seams to be doing well with their hit hard and fast strategy (create a new product, charge up the ass for it, and then when competitors come out with their own, lower the price but still keep the Apple premium for the brand loyalists.)

    Basically, Apple is no longer a personal computer company: they're an electronic entertainment and fashion accessory company - much more profitable this way and shows the marketing genius of Jobs & Co.

    1. Re:To add.... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I keep hearing this but... their software, especially their operating system, is at the core of their business and of everything they pursue. And their software, especially their operating system, has always been what distinguishes them from the rest of the computer hardware market. Even if it's an artificial distinction, being that the software can technically run on their competitors' hardware.

    2. Re:To add.... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      The amount of growth, on the other hand, is anyone one's guess and if they miss a "target" their stock price may get tanked.

      Apple's stock price regularly tanks - Bloger writes he saw Jobs cough, Apple stock dives; Apple reports better numbers then expected, Apple stock tanks.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:To add.... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Belittling Apple and diminishing their role simply as "fashion accessory company" discredits the rest of your otherwise decent post. It's a tired meme with no teeth. Old-ass, uncool guys like me have a couple iPods and iPhones and a few macs around the house. We are not fashion-savvy, nor do we care.

    4. Re:To add.... by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Everything the parent said is true. The amount of growth, on the other hand, is anyone one's guess and if they miss a "target" their stock price may get tanked

      But my point is they can miss on a few aspects of what they are doing, and the remaining aspects doing well provide enough growth opportunity that they still have large potential for increased future revenue.

      And that is why the stock price is where it is. Because they might miss on a few things, but probably not everything. And just like early Microsoft, competitors seem to be floundering under their own power with no help from Apple.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  19. buy other companies / competitors... by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1
    ... a sane thing to do, only problem is that they don't really have competitors for their market share.

    Well, they could buy Sony I suppose and mop up the consumer electronics market...

    --
    "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    1. Re:buy other companies / competitors... by xenn · · Score: 1

      I remember Jobs saying that Apple aspired to be like sony at a conference in Japan not long after he returned to Apple.

      and, well, perhaps that is still the goal.

  20. Re:Google by omfgnosis · · Score: 2, Funny

    Is that a new feature? I hope it's not in beta...

  21. Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The problem is there's a few things at work there:
    1. Apple seems to have accumulated a cult-like following of people who self-identify with the corporation. It's weird.
    2. Apple only competes in high-margin markets, where they often are price-competitive.
    3. Apple doesn't disclose internal costs like R&D.

    1. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      3. Apple doesn't disclose internal costs like R&D.

      Huh? It's right in their 10-Q under Operating Expenses.

    2. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      I was shooting from the hip ;)

    3. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by databyss · · Score: 5, Funny

      Is "shooting from the hip" a euphemism for "making shit up to sound correct" or "spreading bullshit to suck apples dick"?

      --
      Hmmm witty sig or funny sig? Maybe elitest techy sig!
    4. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since we're shooting from the hip... :)

      In my case, I "root" for Apple for two reasons:
      1. More money means they will have plenty of money to make more cool shit.
      2. I was a Mac user back when they almost folded, and it sucked. I wasn't sure if I'd be able to buy a Mac the next time I needed a computer, and software makers started to abandon the platform. In fact, I bought a PC instead of a Mac during that period because Apple looked done for and the OS had stagnated.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      The former; did you see my first and second points? That's sucking Apple's dick?

    6. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Heembo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Apple only spends $292 on R&D? No wonder all their shit is overpriced plastic crap!

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    7. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by tigersha · · Score: 1

      SO? Why should any of those points make anyone hate Apple.

      They do not owe you anything, except to service the product you bought from them.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    8. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Huh? I'm not even understanding how that's a response to my comment.

    9. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by pixr99 · · Score: 2

      Apple only spends $292 on R&D? No wonder all their shit is overpriced plastic crap!

      Be truthful now. How many consumer electronics companies put as much aluminum and glass into their products as Apple do?

    10. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by jacquesm · · Score: 1

      I think you just soft of karma suicided for the next 3 years or so...

    11. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Funny

      a cult-like following of people who self-identify with the corporation.

      I hereby announce that henceforth I will self-identify with Advanced Machine Parts Co.Ltd. of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    12. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by ThePhilips · · Score: 5, Informative

      With Dell it is always "devil in details."

      Apple has the "attention to details" thing on their product development plan.

      I understand that most geeks only look at specs.

      But I also consider day to day routine important. And for many things Macs with Mac OS X are magnitude better compared to Dell with Vista. Devil in details, so to say.

      Point is, newly bought Mac is ready out of box for average Joe Six-Pack. Newly bought Dell with Vista has to be brought to your geek friend to make out of it something the Joe Six-Pack can use.

      You can't like Dell - because it is albeit useful but only a tool. But you can like Apple products because they are made to be liked. And they are also useful. That's why I can easily imaging that some people might get religious over stuff which "Just Works" (c).

      P.S. To be frank, I have seen the Macfanboism only in US. US is in particular over-religious place. People get there religious over different things all the time. Apple is literally religious about making good stuff, so some people start following: and it is only logical.

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    13. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Heembo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh yea, and can actually play decent games on my under $1k pc. Solid games, like cod4, crysis, etc. F apple.

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    14. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Heembo · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Oh yea, and their new iPhone is a great toy, nice fun! But in the work world where I have a job to do - F the iPhone. It's a great fun toy - but fails to do important stuff, you know, like handle phone calls well. http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_34/b4097000494697.htm

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    15. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by pixr99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No wonder all their shit is overpriced plastic crap!

      I'd rather have a beige box, save a grand, and have better software. (xp, mind you, vista blows)

      So, you're a fan of plastic crap, as long as it's not overpriced?

    16. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Heembo · · Score: 5, Funny

      > So, you're a fan of plastic crap, as long as it's not overpriced

      Yes, indeed! I have a flock of pink flamingos on my front lawn that I got from the dollar store! wooooooooooooo!

      --
      Horns are really just a broken halo.
    17. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have any current Macs or iPhones (just a Shuffle), and I like to tweak the Mac-using friends, and I chuckle at the sight of someone using an iPhone as a fashion statement to proclaim their rebellion against the status quo... But you know, I picked up Apple stock when it was hovering at $24 some years ago. I sank close to my entire savings in it. I can yak about how annoying Mac users are, but Jobs has made me a whole lot of money.

    18. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many people put as much aluminum and glass in their asshole as Heembo does? Not many!

    19. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by stewbacca · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahhhh, you lost me at "real work". Nice try, but the "real people" use "real computers" argument ran dry about 5 years ago.

    20. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do shop at wall-mart once in a while

    21. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by linhares · · Score: 1

      a cult-like following of people who self-identify with the corporation.

      I hereby announce that henceforth I will self-identify with Advanced Machine Parts Co.Ltd. of Fort Wayne, Indiana.

      I have a Zune Tatoo, you insensitive clod!

    22. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a SEC filing from APPL..

      Research and Development (R&D)

      Expenditures for R&D increased 40% or $84 million to $292 million in the third quarter of 2008 compared to the same period in 2007, and increased 41% or $236 million to $811 million during the first nine months of 2008 compared to the same period in 2007. These increases were due primarily to an increase in R&D headcount in the current year to support expanded R&D activities and higher stock-based compensation expenses. In addition, R&D expense for the three and nine months ended June 30, 2007 excluded $26 million and $53 million, respectively, of capitalized software development costs related to Mac OS X Leopard and iPhone. No software development costs were capitalized in 2008. Although total R&D expense increased 40% and 41%, respectively, during the third quarter and first nine months of 2008 compared to the same periods in 2007, it remained flat as a percentage of net sales given the 38% increases in revenue in both the third quarter and first nine months of 2008 compared to the same periods in 2007. The Company continues to believe that focused investments in R&D are critical to its future growth and competitive position in the marketplace and are directly related to timely development of new and enhanced products that are central to the Companyâ(TM)s core business strategy. As such, the Company expects to continue to invest in R&D to remain competitive.

    23. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by linhares · · Score: 5, Funny
      Religion is a known rootkit spreading like wildfire these days. It exploits a security vulnerability of the system, installing itself with numerous goals: (i) to make the user bond with those that also got the rootkit, (ii) to violently throw the user against all users uninfected, in an attempt to infect them.

      The rootkit generates much erratic behavior. Known system calls trigger repeatedly are abstinence(), shutthefuckupandobey(), and, most importantly, iBelieve().

    24. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Jazzer_Techie · · Score: 1, Funny

      Having grown up in Fort Wayne, IN, I am intrigued. Might I subscribe to your newsletter?

    25. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the "usability" argument that Mac users like to trot out died about 13 years ago......

    26. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most of their software stack is open. Only the OS UI and non-OS applications are closed. And as for *radically* insecure? Come on, how much is Bill paying you for making this shit up? It's slightly less secure than the average Linux distro, slightly more secure than Vista, and *radically* more secure than XP. (Don't pretend that security really matters to you and then say you'd rather have XP and that "Vista blows"; the problems with Vista are compatibility issues and resource hogging, not - relative to other MS products - security).

    27. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by speedtux · · Score: 4, Informative

      Point is, newly bought Mac is ready out of box for average Joe Six-Pack. Newly bought Dell with Vista has to be brought to your geek friend to make out of it something the Joe Six-Pack can use.

      Having set up Macs for my family, I have to say: that's a myth. Macs do not come with all the software people need, and finding and installing that software is something "Joe Six-Pack" can't do.

      That's why I can easily imaging that some people might get religious over stuff which "Just Works" (c).

      Macs do not "just work"; that's a marketing fiction created by Apple. They do work a little better than Windows, but that's a far cry from "just work".

      But you can like Apple products because they are made to be liked.

      Yes, that they are. They look nice, they have nice themes, the sound nice, and they are nicely packaged. And Apple has successfully created an association in people's minds that their machines are easy to use and are the right choice for smart people who have better things to do with their time than fiddle with computers.

    28. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by MrMarket · · Score: 1

      You need one more point: 3. I own AAPL. It's a lot more fun to "root" for Apple when you have some skin in the game -- even if its a small position. Open a Zecco account and buy a couple shares.

    29. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Some friends of mine got an iMac a few years ago. They called me to help them get it on the Internet. They where using dial up at the time and I had never used a Mac for any length of time in my life.
      I had used Windows and Linux a lot so yes it took me all of 20 minutes to get it working but that was only because the software Earthlink really sucked.
      So yes they need a techie friend. And not it wasn't that hard or that different.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    30. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      They do work a little better than Windows, but that's a far cry from "just work".

      That's very true - Macs can frustrate ALMOST as much as Windows machines. They are still computers, and in that regard they still suck.

      But they are still easier than the next-easiest, which is Windows. I like Linux, and Ubuntu is pretty darned easy - but still isn't really comparable to ordering a machine online, opening up the box and plugging it in.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    31. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by xenn · · Score: 1

      Aye. More like Joe One-Keg.

    32. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This getting marked "Flamebait" just inspired me to meta-moderate.

    33. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by JudgeFurious · · Score: 1

      What are some of the things that you've run into that people in your family need? I'm just wondering and not trying to torch you over it. I'm a systems admin and I am the only Mac user in my family so the only Macs I've setup were for myself (and a very, very small number of other people, I try to avoid working on other peoples stuff on my own time) and I found that they came with all the software I "needed" to get online and get the other stuff I wanted. Like I said my circumstances aren't exactly "Joe Six-Pack". What's easy for me might not be for them. Still what software did they "need" that wasn't there?

      I'm also someone who has owned two PowerMacs (A Quicksilver G4 and a dual 2.0Ghz G5) and for me both of those machines fell into what I what I would consider a "Just Work" catagory. No, I guess they didn't just set themselves up and make me a cup of coffee but what I did need to do was minimal and I'd say that "Just Works" is accurate within reason. Certianly they're closer to that than any alternatives I can think of.

      --
      Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
    34. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Point is, newly bought Mac is ready out of box for average Joe Six-Pack. Newly bought Dell with Vista has to be brought to your geek friend to make out of it something the Joe Six-Pack can use.

      My parents had no problem with their first computer, running Vista. It was ready out the box - why wouldn't it be?

      That's why I can easily imaging that some people might get religious over stuff which "Just Works" (c).

      The "Just Works" mantra is itself something that stems from the enthusiasm - it's not actually a reason, or any claim which makes sense (why wouldn't it work? Do they think that other PCs don't work?)

    35. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Just like the "usability" argument that Mac users like to trot out died about 13 years ago......

      Spoken like someone who hasn't been to a usability or UI design conference... ever. Apple designed UIs are the gold standard of the industry, including the OS X interface. It sure isn't perfect and experts discuss the flaws regularly, but compared to everything else out there it's not much of a contest.

    36. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Americano · · Score: 2

      And Apple has successfully created an association in people's minds that their machines are easy to use and are the right choice for smart people who have better things to do with their time than fiddle with computers.

      And with the exception of a small (but obnoxiously vocal) minority of computer users, the phrase highlighted above in bold describes the computer-using public. The computer is a tool for most people - a means to an end, not an end in itself. If you're a carpenter, is what you do best described as "building houses"? Or would a carpenter's work be better described as "cleaing, oiling, sharpening, and otherwise maintaining tools needed to build houses"?

      Incidentally, THIS is exactly why Linux struggles for wider acceptance as a desktop OS. The people who want an OS where they can do anything and play around as they see fit aren't primarily concerned with the computer as a tool for accomplishing something else. For them, the computer is an end in itself: learn how it works, play around with it, have fun. It's the difference between someone who enjoys tinkering with & restoring cars as a hobby and someone who just needs a car that runs so they can get to work and go out with friends on the weekend.

    37. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by speedtux · · Score: 1

      What are some of the things that you've run into that people in your family need?

      Well, for starters, you need to install any and all applications that people want. Also, they will pester people at random points with notices about updates. Updates don't just install, they require interaction. Wireless, video conferencing, VPN, and all that are just as complicated as on any other machine. And for a lot of hardware, finding and installing the drivers is an exercise in frustration.

      I'm also someone who has owned two PowerMacs (A Quicksilver G4 and a dual 2.0Ghz G5) and for me both of those machines fell into what I what I would consider a "Just Work" catagory.

      I've owned about a dozen Macs. Yes, you can turn them on and they give you a web browser and maybe find the wireless, but that's true for most other preinstalled machines. And software installation and maintenance is at least as much work and at least as obscure on Macs as on other platforms.

    38. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most recent Apple converts would agree that Apple computers only became appealing about 5-6 years ago, when OS X was launched.
      I myself was a Windows user until OS X, at which point I switched. I don't like using Classic, I don't think it's great. I just think that Apple has been doing generally the right thing for the past few years.
      I remember setting up a dial-up connection on OS X Panther, it was really easy, and really fast...

    39. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by OwnedByTwoCats · · Score: 1

      I sold AAPL (and much of the rest of my stock holdings) in mid-2001 to come up with a 20% down payment for my house. The house has gone up 50K, says Zillow.com (yay leverage). The $1800 in AAPL would now be worth, what $18,000 today.

    40. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by poopdeville · · Score: 1

      I agree. I hadn't owned a computer in a few years when I bought my first Mac in 2003. After using my school's Mac Lab, and doing some research, I decided that I'd get a Mac. That way, I could conceivably run any neat open source software, on top of a slick interface. The OS X development environment is relatively weak compared to Linux's, but only because Apple didn't spend much time tweaking things like .bashrc. (So I copied it over from my work box) Gentoo for OS X is also an option.

      The proposition has become even better now that Apple has moved to using x86 processors.

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    41. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by DrgnDancer · · Score: 1

      You know, it never really occurred to me to think about this. Whenever the Best Buy dude at the sales counter asks if I want to spend an extra [$50, $100, whatever] to have the Geek Squad "optimize" my new computer I've said no without thinking. I can, after all, "optimize" myself (last time it involved downgrading to XP on my wife's new lap top). Now I'm thinking about it... How many people actually consider it necessary to give Best Buy MORE money so that they can actually USE the computer they just spent $500-$1500 on? How may of those people are actually right? What does this say about an industry that an entire second industry exists just to make the first industry's products actually usable by people who just bought them?

      Bright flippin' Gods. This really brings home just how off the PC industry is, and why so many people do like Macs.

      --
      I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
    42. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      It was an OSX box.
      I forget which one but it was OSX which is why I had no problems with it. The point is even OSX sometimes requires a little knowledge.
      If not why have the genus bar?

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    43. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Draek · · Score: 1

      You can't like Dell - because it is albeit useful but only a tool. But you can like Apple products because they are made to be liked. And they are also useful.

      What's wrong with liking a company that's focused on making *useful* tools? fuck, plenty of people (myself included) swear by Thinkpads, specially the older ones from IBM, and they aren't "made to be liked". They're business machines first and foremost, but because of that we get useful features (such as titanium cases) without useless ones (integrated webcams) and at prices we can actually afford (not Apple). And if other people find Dell's different focus more suitable for them, and prefer it over Apple's approach, why can't they like them?

      I guess this is what bothers me the most about Apple fans, their belief that only Apple creates stuff that Just Works (tm), that only Apple creates usable hardware and software, that only Apple innovates, that only features Apple put in their products are useful and necessary, everything else just "random crap meant to look good on the specs". Based on that, it's easy to see why are they called a *cult* instead of "simply" a religion.

      --
      No problem is insoluble in all conceivable circumstances.
    44. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by newgalactic · · Score: 1

      How is this "Score 4, Informative"? It's nothing but suppositions based upon bias. Not a single fact at all. "You can't like a Dell" , "you can like an Apple because they are made to be liked"? I'll tell you what I like, the $1000 I'd save from buying Dell or HP over Apple. Or not spending 3 times market price to upgrade my memory or storage when building a new tower. Apple's are very nice computers. But this entry is written like it's Apple Marketing. Apple "Just works"? That line is just as tired and BS as the "real people use real computers" line of crap. Here's a tip, leave the tag lines to politicians and out of educated discussion.

      Problems I see with Macs: MBAir not having a removable media or more then one USB. iPhone being hardware hobbled via bad Bluetooth stack. iTunes - everything, it's a music black hole for gosh sakes. Someone suggest an alternative that allows me to "own" my music. All Computers - Price. All Computers/iPhone - Architecture, is Jobs going to have a temper-tantrum tomorrow and kick Adobe or Google out of his walled garden? I don't know, and he seems capable of doing such a thing (physically and emotionally).

      Points for Apple: BSD really makes things nice for many reasons. Security through Obscurity is working for now and really makes for a carefree experience. Having 1/50'th the driver base allows for really tight Software Quality Control. They look nice and a MBP is my favorite laptop.

    45. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by mccrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      If not why have the genus bar?

      That's just to handle the overflow from the phylum lounge.

      --
      Hey, Windows users, there is no such thing as "forward" slash, there is only slash and backslash.
    46. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by dave562 · · Score: 1
      Macs do not "just work"; that's a marketing fiction created by Apple. They do work a little better than Windows, but that's a far cry from "just work".

      I took the dive and purchased a MBP because my g/f wanted a laptop for school and I wanted to see what all the noise about OSX is all about. The "just work" meme is the biggest load of crap. They seem to "just work" until you want to use an application on them. CS3 sure as hell doesn't just work. Fonts get corrupted all the time and you need to buy a third party program to manage your fonts. The standard applications work alright, but as soon as you want to step outside of the box you have to download the Developer Tools (1GB+ download), and then install Darwin Ports or do some other behind the scenes wizardry to get access to standard programs (in my case I prefer PuTTY for my terminal/ssh program). If you want to do things the iWay, then everything just works. If you want to put down the Kool Aid and join the rest of the world, it takes a lot of tweaking and jumping through hoops.

    47. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by mollymoo · · Score: 1

      I've found wireless to be much easier on a Mac than on anything else. On XP it's an abomination. Ubuntu is tolerable. Mac OS is trivial. Video conferencing? Umm, yeah. iChatAV comes pre-installed. IIRC it's automagically set up with the account you create when you first set up. You select who you want to talk to and it works. It was much, much harder than that on XP last time I tried.

      --
      Chernobyl 'not a wildlife haven' - BBC News
    48. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      What, because I admitted it?

      Oh well, I don't really care how people on /. view me.

    49. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by nevali · · Score: 2, Informative

      Adobe and Microsoft apps are fairly renowned for being abominations on the Mac, though if you don't pay attention to Mac nerd circles you'd probably find that out the hard way. When Adobe's stuff works, it works better than it does on Windows (IME). Office, on the other hand, is such complete tripe that I'd rather use a Windows machine, or Parallels/VMware Fusion for those rare situations where only the real Microsoft deal will do.

      The developer tools ship on the Leopard DVD (same with Tiger, incidentally).

      I've done just fine without a font manager, though colleagues of mine use Linotype FontExplorer X, which is free (and highly-regarded).

      And, uh, PuTTY over Terminal.app? Are you serious?

      More to the point, Leopard is a UNIX08-certified OSâ"it doesn't get much more standard than that.

      Listen⦠if you want Windows, or Linux, then that's what you should use. If you want an actual UNIX OS with a decent GUI, the ability to run Photoshop and Illustrator and some of the best third-party software on _any_ plaform, run Mac OS X.

    50. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're minimizing the differences. Which are actually dramatic and you know it.

    51. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by DriedClexler · · Score: 1

      Hey, since you asked:

      1) iMovie: No way to change the predefined text boxes when you add titles, help doesn't help for that.
      Dragging one of the titles options to your project (i.e. what it tells you to do) is really flaky about where in the video it puts the text, and takes forever to correct on a trackpad.
      You can't easily extract stills: it will force you to add the still to your video, which you're just going to delete it from anyway (and of course, falsely label your video as having been modified); and it won't remember the name or place you used for the last still.
      When recording video from the builtin camera, it forces you to wait for it to divide up what you gave it each time you hit stop, instead of waiting until you're done inputting.

      2) Mail: it make the background dark for the subjects in the view that lists each email. No way to find how to change this in Help.
      One time when I opened a really long rule list, it spilled over onto the dock, making it IMPOSSIBLE to close. Brilliant Apple, they disabled EVERYTHING you could do to get out: you can't move the window (because the top bar is out of view), you can't scroll up and down, if you try to click on OK then whatever's on top of it on the dock will load instead. You have to turn off the dock to get out. (Go ahead, say it: "But why on earth would you be stupid enough to use mac's software? Use your own mail client or gmail.")
      When I put pics in the body of an email, the person who got them saw them in different places than how I organized them in the email, and there was no way to forsee this by checking a WYSIWIG screen.

      3) iPhoto: HAHAHAHAHAHA! Yeah, I'm going to learn all that just to do basic stuff like upload to photobucket.

      There. Do I need to go on? Macs "just work" at raising your blood pressure.

      --
      Information theory is life. The rest is just the KL divergence.
    52. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've never had problems with CS3, except it being a slow, bloated beast (not much worse than it is on Windows). Font Book didn't work? You've been bitten with bad luck!

    53. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by babyrat · · Score: 1

      rats - too bad you didn't keep the AAPL.

      Then of course the Apple stock doesn't keep the rain of your stuff as well as a house does.

    54. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      > Point is, newly bought Mac is ready out of box for average Joe Six-Pack. Newly bought Dell with Vista has to be brought to your geek friend to make out of it something the Joe Six-Pack can use.

      Where on earth does this myth come from? My mother (about 70 years old) bought a brand new laptop on the weekend, vista pre-installed. She's up and using everything on it. It works *great*. She's doing photos, videos, email, everything. She loves it. (No it wasn't from dell, but I assume that's a place marker for "generic big name supplier").

      For some irony: she found they shipped an XP CD in the box and was kind of baffled by it - "why did they do that? Should I install it?". I thought that was kind of funny but also an interesting demonstration of how out of hand the negative perception of Vista has gotten.

      > You can't like Dell - because it is albeit useful but only a tool. But you can like Apple products because they are made to be liked. And they are also useful.

      WTF? I'll like who and what I want to like. I own a dell laptop and I love it. It does some things I just can't get from Apple (one of which is - it slots into a beautiful docking station on my desk which hooks it up to my monitor and about 18 other peripherals that I use when I'm in power mode in my office). Try as I might I can't find anything that even comes close for a Mac laptop. I love my dell laptop so much I'm probably going straight to Dell for my next one in spite of the fact that I have a desire to develop iphone apps and Apple have rudely locked out anyone without a new mac from developing for iphones. Shame about that - guess I won't be exploring that market for a while. (I may wipe my new Dell and install linux on it, but that's another discussion ...)

    55. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      "Most of their software stack is open."

      Most of their software stack is a mix of open and closed.

      "Only the OS UI and non-OS applications are closed."

      Define "OS UI" and "non-OS applications".

      "It's slightly less secure than the average Linux distro, slightly more secure than Vista, and *radically* more secure than XP"

      It's not even close to as secure as Vista, and probably on par with XP SP2. The number of exploits demonstrating that is artificially low because the target base is lower.

    56. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      "Spoken like someone who hasn't been to a usability or UI design conference... ever. Apple designed UIs are the gold standard of the industry, including the OS X interface."

      As a UI designer, I find this either suspect or an indication of a real lack of insight and ideas in the UI field. Apple does some, possibly most, things better than Microsoft and Gnome/KDE, but that's not saying much.

    57. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by dave562 · · Score: 1

      I completely agree with you that Adobe software works better on OSX than Windows any day. It would be nice if the two environments were more compatible. Even when running CS3 on both XP and OSX, there are issues when trying to move files between the two suites. I ran into problems with Linotype FontExplorer. Now granted the environment I've had to support is one with finicky graphic developers (are there any other kind?) who have hundreds of fonts that they are working with. The issue they ran into was with font corruption, and only wanting to enable a certain subset of fonts at any particular time. To be fair the issues that they are having probably aren't issues that 85% of the OSX using world will ever run into.%r%rI'm coming from the Windows world and I like Putty. I haven't seen a feature with Terminal that allows to me save all of my often used sites in one place like Putty does.

    58. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by tm2b · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? On Slashdot people get modded up more often than not for these kind of inflammatory lies.

      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
    59. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      The usability argument died out thirteen years ago, when it became quite evident with Win95, that even with 13 years to copy the original Macintosh, Microsoft was never going to be able to produce an elegant user interface. 13 years after that (current day), it still holds true.

    60. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by i.kazmi · · Score: 1

      try using kde 4.1 with emerald and compiz and then, tell me about the 'not much of a contest' bit. btw Apple's the one doing the borrowing from open source, wot with the much hyped 'Spaces' in leopard and the use of the khtml in safari, i think its the open source world thats doing the innovations (the apple zealots aint gona be happy i guess :-))

    61. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      I use a pencil, you insensitive clod!

    62. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by stephentyrone · · Score: 1

      The standard applications work alright, but as soon as you want to step outside of the box you have to download the Developer Tools (1GB+ download)

      The full set of developer tools for OS X have shipped on the install disc for every recent OS X version (including the install discs you get when you buy a new system), as well as being available as a free download.

    63. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by multimed · · Score: 1

      After my frustration boiled over today with incredible slowness editing some text and just plain moving around, and I finally completely disabled Aero & set Vista's appearance settings to maximize performance. I now have an OS that visually looks like the bastard child of Windows 2000 and Vista, but at least Flash CS3 runs closer to the speed Flash 8 ran on XP/OS X.

      --
      Vote Quimby.
    64. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by nevali · · Score: 1

      Fonts can be a bit funny (read: bad) sometimes, and although it's rare for the fonts themselves to become corrupted, some applications deal really badly with fonts being activated/deactivated while they're running (unsurprisingly enough, the Creative Suite is one of the worst offenders in this respect), despite only having a subset of fonts activated being a core OS feature since Leopard.

      Although Terminal won't let you save your connections in quite the same way PuTTY does (PuTTY's a combined SSH client and terminal emulator, after all), you can just create one-line shell scripts, or shell aliases or functions for quickly establishing connections. Sticking the line "alias web1='ssh webmaster@192.168.25.43'" into your .profile would mean all you'd need to do to connect would be open a new Terminal and type 'web1'. It won't save your passwords, but in this day and age you should be using public-key authentication for everything anyway :)

    65. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by shish · · Score: 1

      The number of exploits demonstrating that is artificially low because the target base is lower.

      Personally, I care more about "exploits in the wild" than "exploits some guy on slashdot assures me must exist, but has no evidence for"... (Not saying you're wrong, I just don't find your logic very convincing)

      --
      I mod down anyone who says "I will be modded down for this", regardless of the rest of their comment
    66. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      It's not a matter of a number of exploits. The number of exploits (in the wild or in theory) has very little to do with describing the relative secureness of software. Just because OS X is not a target of attacks doesn't make it secure. And its increasing marketshare will eventually lead to more attacks.

      Apple, unfortunately, has not learned from Microsoft's security mistakes as much as they could. Safari, for example, has many unpatched vulnerabilities and an insecure standard configuration even where better security exists. Moreover, while Vista runs IE in a sandbox, which is ultimately its strongest security feature, OS X does not do the same for Safari; in fact, sandboxing is even available but not used!

    67. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Point one is demonstrably true. Here, as an exercise, go read... well, pick your Mac-oriented forum. Tell me how many people you find who, say, for instance, advocate for strategies to make Apple [more] successful. That is self-identification with a corporation; and it's something that doesn't happen with very many corporations either. And it's weird in a psychological and sociological sense; here we have a corporation, which has as its interest maximization of profit. What's to identify with? Why would anyone care at all about their success except if they're stock holders?

      Point two needn't even be demonstrated, it's a point Steve Jobs himself makes.

      Point three is a little off the cuff remark, and while technically untrue, it ultimately raises the question of to what extent the reporting is accurate. How does Apple define research or development? How much of that does it report? Information there is vague, and it's hard to form an educated opinion on the subject unless you work within parts of Apple that get into more detail about where the money goes and comes from.

      I don't know what's inflammatory about the whole thing, and I certainly didn't lie.

      You're right about one thing. Apparently I got modded up more than down. I'm surprised too.

  22. Yes by Colin+Smith · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The stock market is a mechanism by which monetary inflation is captured and transferred to the wealthy.

    HTH
     

    --
    Deleted
    1. Re:Yes by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Nice glib phrase, but not really accurate. Inflation is an affect of money markets which are roughly the equivalent of the stock market where you invest in countries rather than companies. Same game, different players.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Yes by bugeaterr · · Score: 1

      The stock market is a mechanism by which monetary inflation is captured and transferred to the wealthy.

      Yes definitely mod insightful!
      I had no idea that the majority of Americans were wealthy!
      You do know that the majority of Americans own stock either through retirement or pensions plans, right? (thus benefiting from the insidious capture and transference of inflation)

      If not, then please mod me insightful for returning the favour of treasured knowledge!

    3. Re:Yes by bugeaterr · · Score: 5, Funny

      I should add that Boston Market is a mechanism by which saturated fat is captured and transferred to the obese.

    4. Re:Yes by MightyYar · · Score: 1

      You have a better way to value a company?

      Thought not.

      --
      W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    5. Re:Yes by Aaron5367 · · Score: 1

      The stock market is a mechanism by which monetary inflation is captured and transferred to the wealthy.

      HTH

      Much like the government?

    6. Re:Yes by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      Yeah, let's not bother to understand anything, let's just spout meaningless mindless-liberal-sounding phrases to win group approval!

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    7. Re:Yes by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      The majority of Americans are wealthy.

    8. Re:Yes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends what you define as wealthy. With discount brokerages most middle class people with jobs at or slightly above
      the average wage can invest in stocks and in principle, the lower the volume you purchase the easier the trade is to execute at the quoted price.

      The stock market is a mechanism by which monetary inflation plus (dividends minus opportunity cost of bank interest ) plus or minus economic growth/recession in a very average sense over many decades is transferred from people whose expenditures exceed their income and have assets aswell as people who store their money under the bed, to people whose income exceeds there expenditure and possess assets through being either rich or frugal who are willing risk about 50% of the value of their capital in a worst case scenario at any given year.

      This market serves another function, it allows people with profitable business plans to raise the capital necessary to implement them even in the absence of them having to collateral required to secure a large loan from a bank. You are right that inflation effectively serve to coerce people into investing their long term saving in volatile stocks.

  23. I heart CEO's and their Serpent Elixir! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    Wow, my brain is going to explode.

    Apple. Google. Apple. Google.

    I know they are both big corporate Borgs that everybody has been programmed to think is more awesome than the Biblical definition of awesome.

    But Bobdarnit I love my iPod! And iTunes*gasm*!

    I wish I was Steve Jobs, he is so dreamy.

    And it doesnt need Viagra, because it Just Works(tm).

  24. Damn! by mcvos · · Score: 1

    I guess I sold my shares too soon.

    (I bought some when they introduced the first iPod nano. Good investment.)

  25. More... by BitterOldGUy · · Score: 5, Insightful
    If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales. If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales. I think the only folks who would care are the die hard Apple Computer fans - the iPod and fashion crowd wouldn't care.

    How about this....

    What business is Harley Davidson in? Not Motorcycles. They're in the image and fantasy business. Middle aged professionals buy them and pretend to be careless free spirit rebels on the weekends and then on Monday, they're back to being the Sam the accountant or lawyer or engineer. I saw quite a few "bikers" with their Harley Davidson logo'd leather attire (huge business for Harley!) and Rolex watches. Real motorcycle enthusiasts, from what I'm told, prefer BMW or something Japanese: Harleys are junk.

    What business is McDonald's in? Business process. When someone buys a franchise from McDs, they're buying a way to do business and a name for the burger joint that they open.

    Estee Lauder was famous for saying that she was in the business of hope not cosmetics. She sold women the hope that they can look young and beautiful like her models.

    My point is that if Apple were a computer company, they'd be making the crappy margins that Dell and the other PC makers are making.

    1. Re:More... by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      "If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales."

      It really depends on what replaces it.

      "If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales."

      I don't agree.

      "I think the only folks who would care are the die hard Apple Computer fans - the iPod and fashion crowd wouldn't care."

      The vast majority of the people I've talked to who want to, or have, switched to Macs... hate Windows. Rabidly. More than any Apple fanatics I've encountered, save one or three. The iPod people you're talking about just don't even buy Macs, in my experience. Though that may be changing.

      "What business is Harley Davidson in? Not Motorcycles. ... What business is McDonald's in? Business process."

      But if they dropped their respective core businesses, where would they end up?

      "Estee Lauder was famous for saying that she was in the business of hope not cosmetics. She sold women the hope that they can look young and beautiful like her models."

      Well, that can describe every single corporation with a marketing department.

      "My point is that if Apple were a computer company, they'd be making the crappy margins that Dell and the other PC makers are making."

      Like IBM? Define "computer company". Hell, define "computer". This can get interesting.

      Apple doesn't compete in the market segments that have those margins. Dell et al have margins almost identical to Apple's in the segments in which they compete. I don't see how margins define the core business any more than the core product which is sold and around which the rest of the business is centered, anyhow.

    2. Re:More... by cowbutt · · Score: 1
      "What business is Harley Davidson in? Not Motorcycles. ... What business is McDonald's in? Business process."

      But if they dropped their respective core businesses, where would they end up?

      It can be surprising, but some companies have, over the course of their existence evolved into something far different from their original core business. A good example of this is ITT. Sometimes a look at the numbers reveals that a corporation's true core business is completely different from what it's known for. I wonder how Harley Davidson's margins on their bikes compare with those from their merchandise and/or licensing deals, how the margins on McDonald's food sales compare with the profits from the sale of its unwanted real estate and so on.

      "My point is that if Apple were a computer company, they'd be making the crappy margins that Dell and the other PC makers are making."

      Like IBM? Define "computer company". Hell, define "computer". This can get interesting.

      IBM isn't really a computer company either! For a while, that was their predominant business, but if you look over their history, their main business has been consulting and professional services. This shows in their retreat from the manufacture of PCs (now Lenovo) and hard discs (now Hitachi).

    3. Re:More... by silentcoder · · Score: 5, Informative

      >McDonald's food sales compare with the profits from the sale of its unwanted real estate and so on.
      Ray Krog is on record as stating that McDonald's core business is PROPERTY - not burgers. As he put it: everyone I ever met can make a better hamburger than McDonalds- none of them are rich though.
      What McDonalds did so well was to let you finance the cost of the franchise (with it's massive brand recognition and marketing power) by using the bond on the property where you wanted to put it. The result is that McDonalds corporation now owns many of the most valuable street corners in all the biggest cities in the world: and that lets you finance any other investment you care to make. When the franchise no longer works in the region (it became less residential and more commercial as an area) - you can rent or sell out the property you got there at massive profits over the cost of giving somebody a franchise there ones.
      If the franchise never fails, you ultimately end up earning not only repetitive franchise-fees but rent on the property as well !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    4. Re:More... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if they dropped their respective core businesses, where would they end up?

      If you mean Harley Davidson? Probably the same place for the most part. The number of morons out there sporting Harley gear that they pay a premium for but who have never been on a bike is outrageous. Hell, 95% of people you see sporting some form of Harley gear couldn't tell you a Harley from another bike at more than 15 feet. Their knowledge of the product is limited to the brand plate.

    5. Re:More... by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 0, Troll

      Harleys are junk.

      Go tell that to the next guy you see riding one (who's not wearing a rolex)...

    6. Re:More... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you been reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad"?

    7. Re:More... by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

      I was looking through an online KTM catalog a couple weeks ago. The amount of consumer clothing , dog bowls (!), and bar stools was overwhelming.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    8. Re:More... by swb · · Score: 1

      That most Hardley riders don't see it is a tribute to their marketing BS.

      I think some Harleys now come with fuel injection, but that's largely an emissions control issue, not a buyer demand issue. BMW has had it for over a decade. I remember Hondas with dual overhead cams in the 70s, Harley was still a pushrod engine, usually developing half or less the horsepower that Jap bikes with half the engine displacement developed.

      But anyone serious about motorcycle *riding* as opposed to "outlaw biker lifestyle participation" has shunned Harleys for their stone-age design and 1950s technology.

    9. Re:More... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, so that's why lots of scientists like to use them, to look cool in front of all of their friends! Finally that makes sense to me...

    10. Re:More... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Who the heck is Ray Krog?

      There was this other guy, Mr. Kroc who owned the San Diego Padres who are 46 - 74, btw

    11. Re:More... by mini+me · · Score: 1

      If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales.

      I strongly disagree. Nobody cares about Apple hardware. It is only glamorized because it is the outward symbol that you are using better software; the attribute that is really appealing to everyone.

    12. Re:More... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      IBM isn't really a computer company either!

      Cough, Lenovo, cough...

    13. Re:More... by Strudelkugel · · Score: 1

      My point is that if Apple were a computer company, they'd be making the crappy margins that Dell and the other PC makers are making.

      Just to confirm your point, check out this graph of Tiffany (jewelry store) and Apple stock prices since 1988. Apple is part technology and part fashion company. Sure, Jobs has done a great work with technology, but he has done a better job with marketing. Just not as good as Tiffany, though. Of course TIF has a much lower market cap, and it's more difficult to grow a large cap company than a small cap one. But TIF has been by far the better investment for the individual.

      --
      Imagine how much harder physics would be if electrons had feelings! -Feynman, maybe
    14. Re:More... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It sure would be a shame to be separated from that expensive motorcycle for your prison sentence, Internet Tough Guy.

    15. Re:More... by ndykman · · Score: 1

      Harley is studied everywhere in marketing. I mean, how many companies have people tattoo their logo on themselves. Wow.

      Yes, there are Harley's with fuel injection. This happened a few years ago, and yes, they have a engine that doesn't totally suck. But their bikes are very costly for what you get. I mean, the cheapest is about 8400. Hint. Do not buy that bike. There are way, way better bikes for 2000-3000 less. Hell, you get more for a BMW at that price.

    16. Re:More... by swb · · Score: 1

      I'd probably buy another (well, the new one) Kawasaki Concours or a Honda ST.

      My 91-uncrated-in-93 Concours was a great bike. The only problem I had with it was crud in the carbs from rust inside the tank, which was something of a well-known design issue with the huge tank never getting completely drained and allowing moisture to accumulate. An inline fuel filter fixed that completely.

      I put 40,000 miles on it, including a trip from MSP through the Ozarks and a circle tour of Lake Superior and a lot of day trips and commuting.

    17. Re:More... by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      Nn this decade owning AAPL would have been a *much* better move. There's also this amazing (to me, anyway) tidbit: Apple's retails stores have higher sales per square foot than Tiffany's.

    18. Re:More... by ZombieRoboNinja · · Score: 1

      I don't think Apple can be classified as a purely "image-based" brand like you claim Estee Lauder and Harley-Davidson are. I'd say they're closer to BMW : a company that does have high image value, but also has pretty high quality which maintains that image. There are plenty of putzes who ride their Beamers and listen to their iPods just because the BMW logo and the white earbuds are a social status marker, but there are also plenty of people who just like cars/gadgets enough that they'll pay for quality. (And honestly, Macs usually aren't much more expensive than comparable Dells to begin with.)

    19. Re:More... by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      Yes, so have you. What's your point ?

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    20. Re:More... by Scudsucker · · Score: 1

      If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales. If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales.

      Brand loyalty is based on how much consumers like the product, so you don't go changing a successful product willy-nilly and maintain the same level of success. See: New Coke. Or for a better example, Marvel Comics around 1990, when they were the biggest, most profitable comic company. Then the CEO literally stated that talent didn't matter, and that the books would sell themselves. So they stopped paying good money for artists and writers and doubled the amount of titles they put out. So readership plummeted and the company swirled around in bankruptcy until the movies started to bring in the money.

      The problem with the Harley comparison is that while both Apple and Harley are good brands, Apple is also known for their quality. So no, they can't just slap a Mac sticker on a supplier-of-the-week Dell POS Special and expect their customer base to keep buying.

  26. Re:Yes (Mod parent insightful!) by mcvos · · Score: 1

    The stock market is a mechanism by which monetary inflation is captured and transferred to the wealthy.

    It's a shame I've already posted in this discussion, or I'd mod you Insightful.

  27. Oh, my! by zmollusc · · Score: 1

    Hah! You Suck!! The imaginary value that _our_ stockholders, working with incomplete information, has placed on _our_ company is higher than the imaginary value that _your_ stockholders, working with incomplete information, has placed on _your_ company! Losers!!

    --
    They whose government reduces their essential liberties for temporary security, receive neither liberty nor security.
  28. because Market cap is not a meaningful figure. by Kupfernigk · · Score: 1
    The current price of shares is related to supply and demand, like land or oil. Many of the systems used to buy shares - ranging from guesswork through fashion to "buy fortune 100 companies" are not in fact rational. However, they create demand. If not many people want to sell (because they think the price will rise, or because they think their profit will be lower than their future dividends), supply is inelastic and the demand will push the price up.

    Market cap is the current share price multiplied by the number of shares in circulation. Now imagine that simultaneously everybody actually decides to sell their shares. What will happen to the price? It will collapse because everybody will assume the shares are junk.

    In other words, market cap is only a valuation of a company provided you don't try to realise it by selling a significant number of shares. It is a typical smoke and mirrors number used by crooked gamblers - I'm sorry, I mean investment companies - to try and get suckers - I mean investors - to buy overpriced shares.

    The same applies to land. At one time the apparent market valuation of Greater Tokyo was more than the entire United States - because supply was totally inelastic, and yet people thought they must have a presence in Tokyo. As a result, land changed hands for insane prices. The moment the recession hit, prices collapsed.

    Warren Buffet has become one of the richest men in the world through not paying attention to mumbo jumbo like market cap, but focussing on the actual core value of companies and their likely income.

    --
    From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
  29. If Google and Apple closed shop+servers TODAY ... by Lars+Fosdal · · Score: 1

    ... Which one would you miss the most? Apple hardware would still work for a long time without someone to support it, but I (and I guess a tens of millions of others) would REALLY MISS Google search, mail, blogs, translate, maps, etc, etc, etc (sure it can be replaced - but TODAY I would miss Google and give a hoot about Apple. Service > Hardware. Apple's value is overrated.

    --
    Lars F.
  30. Vanity shares by wisty · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Mac products are great value nowadays (for me, at least), but we already know that there are Apple fanboys who would pay twice the price for half the product, just because it comes from Apple. Shares are no different - people invest in attractive companies, or companies with a cult following. Ford, GM, Playboy, Google ... lots of people buy shares at a higher price because they like the company, and it tickles their ego to have a piece of the pie. Sometimes they are right.

    1. Re:Vanity shares by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I think you mistake brand-loyalty with faboyism. Brand-loyalty is earned, whereas fanboyism is an irrational/out-of-proportion affinity for something. If I've had great success with a particular company for a period of two decades, I feel safe in sticking with that company, even for twice the price and half the supposed "value" (value being a completely subjective, hence worthless, argument). BMW comes immediately to mind for me. It doesn't have to be just BMW or Apple Macintoshes, for example. It can be Fords, McDonalds, Dells, Microsofts, whatever. The difference being, some companies force a brand image upon us via marketing, and others deserve a brand-image through years of excellence.

  31. Re:Google by Hes+Nikke · · Score: 4, Funny

    yeah, the beta version has a known bug... it bytes.

    *ducks*

    --
    Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
  32. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  33. Just One Point by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

    Microsoft is currently the biggest IT company there is & most people believe that they got their unfairly for the following reasons:

    1. They lock in the customer to proprietary applications and file formats.

    2. They are a big supporter of DRM.

    3. They do not fix bugs in their software quickly enough.

    4. Their products are overpriced.

    But Apple is doing all of the above also. So why are they any different?

    And, to be honest, why should I care how big a company is when I've never for one moment given even the slightest consideration to buying one of their products?

    Credit where credit is due - I use Google stuff daily & Microsoft were big and bad enough to force me into a situation where I have to use some of their products...

    --
    Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    1. Re:Just One Point by jeremyp · · Score: 1

      1. They lock in the customer to proprietary applications and file formats

      Neither Microsoft nor Apple do this. You are perfectly free to use open source applications and open file formats on their operating systems.

      2. They are a big supporter of DRM.

      Both Microsoft and Apple only do this to keep in with the content providers.

      3. They do not fix bugs in their software quickly enough.

      Nobody does that from the perspective of the person who can't get his work done because of the bug. It's a fact of life in any software that is developed according to a proper methodology.

      4. Their products are overpriced.

      What do you mean by "overpriced"? The fact that neither Apple nor Microsoft seem to have any problems finding buyers for their products tells us that they are not overpriced.

      And, to be honest, why should I care how big a company is when I've never for one moment given even the slightest consideration to buying one of their products?

      I have no idea why you should care. The fact is that you obviously do care because you have bothered to read this thread and bothered to make a post on it.

      --
      All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
    2. Re:Just One Point by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Neither Microsoft nor Apple do this. You are perfectly free to use open source applications and open file formats on their operating systems.

      So why aren't the specifications to the Office document formats and iTunes published openly then?

      Both Microsoft and Apple only do this to keep in with the content providers.

      Yes, so their products can be counted on as DRM delivery platforms for those providers.

      Nobody does that from the perspective of the person who can't get his work done because of the bug. It's a fact of life in any software that is developed according to a proper methodology.

      What about the unfixed holes in Safari & DNS that, as you rightly say, don't stop me doing my work but may allow that work to be tampered with or stolen by persons unknown?

      What do you mean by "overpriced"? The fact that neither Apple nor Microsoft seem to have any problems finding buyers for their products tells us that they are not overpriced.

      Just how many copies of Vista does Microsoft shift as shrinkwrapped boxes from the shelves of computer stores? How many people have actually paid full price for an iPhone rather than getting it discounted within a mobile contract? Why are Nokia and Motorola still healthily selling millions of phones if the iPhone is that great a seller?

      Apple products are marketed as "exclusive" to appeal to a bunch of people who need to feel part of an exclusive club - that means they are priced higher to sell less and meet with what Apple can manufacture in time. And no, please don't quote the "enforced scarcities" of iPods that happened a few years ago - that was just about clever marketing.

      I have no idea why you should care. The fact is that you obviously do care because you have bothered to read this thread and bothered to make a post on it.

      I am making an observation as to how fickle a lot of people are. Why should anyone give a toss what size a company is? The majority of consumers concern themselves with meaningless twaddle - all that matters is that whatever you bought was good value for money or not, nothing more.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    3. Re:Just One Point by ducomputergeek · · Score: 1

      I'll feed the troll:

      With Apple:

      1) I can use Microsoft Office (and do), Adobe et. al. as well as any number of Opensourced tools. That's why I ditched linux on the desktop back in 2002 for OSX. Last time I checked there wasn't any propitary file formats. I could watch videos with Quicktime or VLC or Mplayer or anything else I can install via MacPorts.

      2) If you go back in time to when iTunes started, Apple pretty much had to use DRM in order to gain access to the music catalogs. But guess what, I can still burn and rip the songs back to MP3 and play the songs on upto 5 different computers/devices. Frankly they were the ones that were able to strike a balance between protecting digital rights, which the record companies wanted, and allowing fair use. On another note, I installed the codecs and have no problems listening to FLAC or Ogg encoded files.

      3) While they may have gotten bad press lately over the DNS flap, overall, I've found Apple to have fixes to most critical flaws within days. Frankly they are not any better or worse than other OS's that I've dealt with. (Windows, FreeBSD, various flavors of Linux).

      4) Maybe to you, but my time is worth about $60 an hour. With my Mac's, I'm not wasting time tracking down some linux tweak or running virus scans. If a client sends me a document in .docx, I open it with Office 2008. The time I save easily makes up for the initial cost difference. Where I'm working now were developing an application for Linux. All I will say is that the product versions are being shipped on Macs instead of Linux. When they did the pilot testing, they tried both Macs and Linux. Our target market was smaller businesses. Put everything on the Mac and they were far less weary of it than bringing in a Single Board Computer or PC loaded with Linux.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    4. Re:Just One Point by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      I'll feed the troll:

      My friend, just because you don't agree with my comments, that doesn't make me a troll. If you're not sure, please go read the Slashdot FAQ.

      1) I can use Microsoft Office (and do), Adobe et. al. as well as any number of Opensourced tools. That's why I ditched linux on the desktop back in 2002 for OSX. Last time I checked there wasn't any propitary file formats. I could watch videos with Quicktime or VLC or Mplayer or anything else I can install via MacPorts.

      Just because you can play a format on the MAC does not mean it is not proprietary. Off the top of my head, I can think of three Apple proprietary formats - Quicktime, MP4 (AAC) and the DRM used for iTunes.

      2) If you go back in time to when iTunes started, Apple pretty much had to use DRM in order to gain access to the music catalogs. But guess what, I can still burn and rip the songs back to MP3 and play the songs on upto 5 different computers/devices. Frankly they were the ones that were able to strike a balance between protecting digital rights, which the record companies wanted, and allowing fair use. On another note, I installed the codecs and have no problems listening to FLAC or Ogg encoded files.

      Okay, so in order to gain access to music catalogs & to make money, Apple sold their soul to the devil - just like Microsoft did. Good comparison.

      You can still burn and rip songs back? Nice & all in two processes. But I can buy an open format CD and just rip it to MP3 or Ogg - one process, cheaper & I can play them on an many devices as I like. (Oh, and please don't get me started on music downloads, legal or illegal. They're killing music, I'm sticking to CDs and that's a whole other debate.)

      As for DRM, so you pay for your music & as an honest music buyer (as I am) you're just going to roll over like a little puppy & play dead are you? "I accept DRM because Apple say it's cool so it must be okay." Please don't even go there - DRM extracts more money from honest people like you and me, that's why it's evil.

      4) Maybe to you, but my time is worth about $60 an hour. With my Mac's, I'm not wasting time tracking down some linux tweak or running virus scans. If a client sends me a document in .docx, I open it with Office 2008. The time I save easily makes up for the initial cost difference. Where I'm working now were developing an application for Linux. All I will say is that the product versions are being shipped on Macs instead of Linux. When they did the pilot testing, they tried both Macs and Linux. Our target market was smaller businesses. Put everything on the Mac and they were far less weary of it than bringing in a Single Board Computer or PC loaded with Linux.

      I'm a senior security consultant for a telecoms company - I earn a good salary, let's not talk hourly rates. It's irrelevant & I'll just show you up.

      I can't argue with anything else in the paragraph. It's a statement of irrelevant fact that has no bearing on the point I've made. If you want, I'll tell you that in my company where telecoms systems are moving from proprietary platforms to servers, Linux successfully provides the underlying server OS, Windows does the client integration & desktop stuff, OS X doesn't even figure except for a few bits of Softphone client software on our web site.

      But again, that's irrelevant because what I was talking about were comparisons between Microsoft and Apple, not their market penetration.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    5. Re:Just One Point by PipsqueakOnAP133 · · Score: 1

      So the funny thing is ducomputergeek and pandrijeczko seem to be approaching each other's conflicts from two perspectives.

      pandrijeczko is apparently against "proprietary" formats from a idealistic ("proprietary == bad") standpoint.
      ducomputergeek is approaching the battle from a usability ("does it hurt me?") standpoint.

      I really don't have any questions for ducomputergeek since, well, he's apparently okay with proprietary technologies as long as they're transparent, so there's little conflict.

      But pandrijeczko, you give examples of two formats which I consider proprietary (Quicktime and FairPlay). (I consider MP4/AAC/H264 as proprietary OggVorbis, which isn't that much.)
      I gotta ask. Why does it matter if proprietary data formats exist on a particular platform, if they're not used for lock-in AND there is an option to use non-proprietary formats?

      Are you okay with the fact that the most common video container format used on Linux is AVI? Or do you not have any AVIs?
      (Keep in mind, AVIs are a container format just like Quicktime, and in fact Microsoft got sued for stealing code to make VideoForWindows, which is the origin of the AVI format.)

  34. Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=1600894&start=375&tstart=50

    We're all trying to get the word out where ever we can. Apple has been silent and unhelpful with reguard to this issue. Many iphones have been locking up since the 2.0 software update. When the iPhone locks up, it must be unlocked by docking it with your pc that contains itunes. This means no 911, no phone calls until you get back home to fix it. You lose all of your data in the proess.

    This has happened continuously. Well over 16 times for myself and many others. It is now becoming a daily practice to take an hour to restore the iphone from its "bricked" state.

    Please help get this word out. Apple is getting away with murder.

    1. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you severely misunderstand the meaning of the word "murder".
      They used an unproven 3G chipset - and you paid for it. Deal with it.

    2. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by mk2mark · · Score: 1

      Agreed, but bear in mind good business does not necessarily mean producing the best, most reliable product that makes the most customers happy. Good business is about making as much money as you can.

      Take our own Ryanair airline for instance. Everybody hates them. They have a strict policy of no ticket refunds for any reason, the planes don't have reclining seats, the windows have no blinds, even the employees aren't allowed charge their phones with the company's electricity. However, people continue to come back to them because they're the cheapest.

      Likewise, people don't buy apple products because they're functional - if they did the iphone would have mms and removable batteries. People buy apple products because they're chic and the thing to have. Like Michael O'Leary proved people want cheap flights, Steve Jobs has proved that some people prefer gadgets with style over substance. Apple may be getting away with murder, but it's also getting away with good business, as this topic shows.

    3. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by tm1rbrt · · Score: 1

      Not bricked!!!

    4. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This has happened continuously. Well over 16 times for myself and many others. It is now becoming a daily practice to take an hour to restore the iphone from its "bricked" state.

      Why did you feel the need to use the term "bricked", even though it's not bricked?

    5. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by moracity · · Score: 1

      OMG!! A computer that locks up!!

    6. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by JD-1027 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Can we seriously learn what the word bricked means, please?

    7. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by MattW · · Score: 1

      Dude, take your phone to an Apple store and the genius bar ppl will swap it out for you. No need to be a martyr.

    8. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by maestroX · · Score: 1

      (..) restore the iphone from its "bricked" state.

      Please help get this word out. Apple is getting away with murder.

      Why? You're the one tossing the brick.

      It's behavior like this requiring me to wade through manuals with disclaimers like, "Do not unmount motorcycle when driving", "Do not insert child into oven", and "May contain peanuts".

      Thanks.

    9. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Read the thread. This is not a hardware issue.

      Many folks have swapped their phones at apple stores, some even as much as 4 times... the problem remains. It is not specific to iphone 3G, it affects all iphone versions. It began for everyone with the release of iphone 2.0 os and apps.

      For the most part, everyone knows exactly what causes the problem. It has to do with the app install process, removal process, app store on the phone itself, and very hard app crashes.

    10. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Its behavior like what? Try reading the entire thread. Oh i'm sorry, am we all supposed to enjoy our iphones that become useless on the road? The multiple silver apple logo's of death that prevent us from calling, receiving calls... and making 911 calls? The same fucking problem that that SHUTS down our phone... a phone that we are still paying for service for?

      Ok sir. Salute the flag and shut up... I get it...

      We'll all keep paying our monthly contracts, while our phones dont work. That makes perfect sense doesnt it? Thank you for your wisdom.

    11. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1
    12. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dugg at: http://digg.com/apple/The_iPhone_s_Number_One_Problem

    13. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by anethema · · Score: 1

      I understand it must be frustrating, but I have an iPhone and this has never happened. While this bit of anecdotal evidence does not mean much, I also browse the apple forums quite a bit and howardforums extensively and this issue does not seem nearly as widespread as many other issues the phone is having. It does seem more serious though.

      You cannot reboot the phone by holding the power and home buttons until it restarts?

      --


      It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
    14. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      I appreciate your response, and the tone. Im all for talking about the issue.

      I'm curious as to what your user habits are with the iphone. This will help me, and others perhaps understand where we differ in experiences. To answer your question, the problem many of us are having, is that it can not reboot at all. The phone stops working in every aspect and gets stuck at the apple logo. This renders the phone useless while away from home. The only solution is to restore the phone at home, on the computer you have itunes installed on. This is a pretty lengthy process, 2 hours at least. Often if you restore from a back up, it will take 3 hours or more. The worst part is that backing up the phone takes about 2 to 3 hours as well, so many are canceling the backup process when they sync their phone.

      This comes to my question for you. The long back up and restore times are due to apps, and the number of them. For example a lot of apps are 300KB, and they can take 5 to 10 minutes to install each. App's like Texas Hold em from Apple, which are 128MB, take longer. The more apps you have, the longer it takes obviously.

      My question to you is, how many applications do you have installed? There is a theory that the more apps you have, the more likely this serious problem will occur. Many of us are finding that specific steps will cause this problem. If you want, you can try them. However this again may be related to some kind of uninstall/install corruption that is occurring when a large number of apps are installed.

      So if you have a few apps, then perhaps you may not see it. I can personally, and i will speak for others in the thread, that if you baby the phone, and tip toe around the problem, you can avoid it. However its not completely avoidable because in order to avoid it, you kind of need to use the phone differently than intended. For example, not installing apps through the app store on the phone and never uninstalling an app through the phone itself.

      One specific set of steps that i've found cause this problem is to go to do the following:

      Do the following on the iPhone itself. (not on a pc/mac itunes)

      - Launch App Store (on iphone)
      - Install an application (Pick any free application)

      (The icon now appears on your iphone desktop, and it should be showing the install progress bar)

      -As it is downloading (progress bar still moving), launch the app store again.

      (At this point the Apps store should launch, but hang at some point)

      The iphone will freeze, and you will be forced to reboot it. However the iphone never reboots. It should be dead at this point.

      Now with these steps i've managed to cause the problem 3 times. You can see that this is a kind of "multitask" workflow. The iphone doesnt multitask well. So this isnt something you generally do, but you could do it in a hurry, by mistake or just simply not knowing. Now i'll be the first to say that it may not trigger the bug everytime, but other "multitasking" like user inputs while installing an app can trigger this serious problem.

      This problem is not specific to this process, but this is a way to simply see the situation. This entire "Apple logo of death" problem is related to apps, the installation, removal, and serious hard app crashes. Apps crash every so, but sometimes they'll go down hard and take the phone with it.

      Now to give you an example... Today i had to restore. This isnt bullshit, i wouldnt waste my time writing this if it were. It is a frustrating situation and i want it resolved. Anyways, today i was installing an app. I launched the apps store on the iphone, downloaded an app on the iphone, and installed it. During the isntall process, it froze. I had not tried to force any kind of multi task. I let the phone sit and do its thing. The iphone never booted up again.

      I had to restore it. That took 3 hours today this morning. I actually took a nap while it did.

      Now i've had the reverse. I've installed an app through the iphone app store... (Again none of this is th

    15. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1
    16. Re:Apple ignores serious iPhone bugs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Bricked" means it's about as useful as a brick, which pretty much describes an iPhone that has locked up and you don't have your computer handy. Actually, a brick may be more handy, as I could use it to smash the face of douchebags like yourself, without worrying about cracking my screen.

  35. Why I hate Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I hate Apple because:
        Every product I have owned, or belonged someone close to me, have failed within two years.

        Apple does not respect or honour Norwegian consumer laws. You are required to provide 2 or 5 years of warranty at no additional cost beyong the initial investment in the product, but Apple insists on 90 days.

        Apple is all about silos and locking in the user. Look at the iPod, iTunes and the iPhone for the best examples. It's a good business strategy for the mass market, but I prefer other vendors.

        Hypes. Accompanied with fanboys.

    1. Re:Why I hate Apple by ktappe · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I hate Apple because Every product I have owned, or belonged someone close to me, have failed within two years. Apple does not respect or honour Norwegian consumer laws. You are required to provide 2 or 5 years of warranty at no additional cost beyong the initial investment in the product, but Apple insists on 90 days.

      Yes, Apple should honor Norwegian law if they want to sell products there. But 90 days? Every (non-refurb) Apple product I've owned has had a 1 year warranty. Do they really reduce it in Europe? I find that difficult to believe. Also, why would the Norwegian gov't not pursue them for warranty law violation?

      That, plus your other claims have me verging on calling shenanigans. Apple products are MORE reliable than the competition. The internet is rife with people using Macs after 6, 8, even 10 years because they just won't die. But the question is, what products are you referring to? I suspect they are iPods, and a lot of people do not realize that the expected lifespan of an iPod is only 18 months. The devices, after all, do get carried around, subjected to fluids, bumps, scrapes, drops, crushing, etc. And I suspect your sample size is two--you had an iPod and a friend did too. I'm sorry they failed but without more info, I'm not sure your post tells us more than we knew without it.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    2. Re:Why I hate Apple by falcon5768 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the OP is confusing AppleCare phone service (which is 90 days) with their actual warranty which is 1-3 years depending on if you buy the AppleCare plan. And as anyone who buys a Apple product knows, you ALWAYS buy the Protection Plan contrary what is normal practice for other electronics. I have gotten 2 brand new laptops out of that extra 200 bucks you pay since they will go through hoops to fix things even if its not entirely their fault.

      --

      "Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."

    3. Re:Why I hate Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The internet is rife with people using Macs after 6, 8, even 10 years because they just won't die.

      The Internet is also rife with people using PCs after 5, 8, and even 10 years. A Gateway I purchased in 1993 still runs fine. I still use the Cybermax I purchased in 1998 on a daily basis. The Dell I purchased in 2000 is still running fine. The fact is, any decent computer, Mac or PC, will run for many years. Macs are not special because they still work after 6 years. The only thing I might expect after that time period is the harddrive to fail, and Mac harddrives are not imbued with some special property that makes them superior to PC harddrives -- they're the same.

    4. Re:Why I hate Apple by Tubal-Cain · · Score: 2, Funny

      I hate Apple because:

          Every product I have owned, or belonged someone close to me, have failed within two years.

      A generic holy relic like a Mac cannot prevail against the darkest and most maevolent evil aura like the one surrounding you, Dark Lord Ballmer. To overcome that we need the Glorious Turtleneck. /joke (I shouldn't need this, but the mods just aren't recognizing satire these days)

    5. Re:Why I hate Apple by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      I hate Apple because: Every product I have owned, or belonged someone close to me, have failed within two years.

      Oh great an anecdote from an anonymous coward. Who modded this up? Even if it is is true, what does it matter? Consumer Reports (whose independent testing I trust a bit more than an anecdote from an AC) says they are among the best in the industry for hardware reliability.

      Apple does not respect or honour Norwegian consumer laws. You are required to provide 2 or 5 years of warranty at no additional cost beyong the initial investment in the product, but Apple insists on 90 days.

      Umm, they're breaking the law and the cops are ignoring it? Is that your claim?

      Apple is all about silos and locking in the user. Look at the iPod, iTunes and the iPhone for the best examples.

      Okay, I will. The iPod came out and played the standard MP3 format. It also played the standard MP4 format, but with DRM added... but it was the first company to convince the RIAA to allow them to burn a standard audio CD as a backup of DRM'd music as a way to allow you to move that music to another format. That sounds like the opposite of lock-in to me.

      I guess while Apple does a lot of shit I'm not happy with, none of the items you've brought up bother me at all with the exception of breaking the law. I'm very skeptical on that one. Can you provide a citation or evidence?

    6. Re:Why I hate Apple by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the OP is confusing AppleCare phone service (which is 90 days) with their actual warranty which is 1-3 years depending on if you buy the AppleCare plan. And as anyone who buys a Apple product knows, you ALWAYS buy the Protection Plan contrary what is normal practice for other electronics. I have gotten 2 brand new laptops out of that extra 200 bucks you pay since they will go through hoops to fix things even if its not entirely their fault.

      Which Apple are you talking about? The Apple laptops that I have seen sent to service (the extended service plan was purchased) were repaired and sent back with a bill or saying that the damage was outside the coverage of the warrantee and nothing was repaired. This has happened 6 times (6 different laptops) in the last 4 years.
      Why they broke/Apples response

      two were dropped/ not covered

      one the power adapter broke off inside the laptop/ this laptop was abused so not covered (this was before the magnet ended chargers but still had over a year left on the warrantee)

      another a DVD got stuck in the drive (have no idea how this happened but I did watch the user put the disk in it was not forced)/ Apple said the disk was forced causing it to jam in the drive not covered

      the last two the hard drive died / Apple said that since we had opened the case to upgrade the RAM the warrantee was voided. These were powerbooks changing the RAM, remove battery, remove 3 screws holding little plate in place (not near hard drive) change RAM, put stuff back.

      I am glad it worked for you. But Apple service record around me is not looking so good. And one more thing, I went to an apple store to pick up a replacement cord for my ipod. The ipod worked fine. The genius person there wanted to show me something on my ipod (I only use it for music he said I was under utilizing the ipod). He messes with it. He pluged it into an powerbook he had at his desk. Wiped out all my music since he synced it. Easy to get my music back but annoying. Ever since that day the ipod locks up every 3-4 days. I need to do that reset thing on it to get it to work. The thing is not new, but the timing is very odd.

      Sorry for going against all that is golden with Apple but my personal experience with Apple service is not too good.

    7. Re:Why I hate Apple by Free+the+Cowards · · Score: 1

      I must disagree. AppleCare can occasionally be worth it, but it is by no means the obvious choice you make it out to be. I've purchased AppleCare on, I believe, two PowerBooks. In neither case did it come anywhere close to pay off. On the second PowerBook, the HD failed about three months after the extended warranty period ran out. No benefit there.

      For machines like the Mini or the Mac Pro, AppleCare makes even less sense. It can be good for the portables since they cost so much to repair if you have to pay for it yourself, but even then I'm still not sure if it's worth it in the end.

      --
      If you mod me Overrated, you are admitting that you have no penis.
    8. Re:Why I hate Apple by prelelat · · Score: 1

      Do you have any statistics on how long a typical computer is suppose to last for compared to apples? My grandmother was still using my 486 until Christmas when we gave her a new laptop. That was only so she could go on the internet and check email on a decent OS. The thing still runs like a son of a bitch. I have only ever thrown out one computer because of the motherboard caps blowing, I've had about 6 computers. My parents are still using the same 1ghz duron I built for them about 4-6 years ago.

      The ipod should have a longer life expectancy, my zen vision has lasted me about 3 years and is still on the original battery. My wifes cousins kids jumped up and down on that thing one time when I had it in my jacket pocket on the bed at her grandma's it didn't get dinted or scratched(not to mention the number of times I dropped it) still works awesome, and the battery is now just starting to not work great but I can buy a replacement.

      I hear people saying apples products work longer than anything else they are built better and all that junk, but really are they really the best? I'm thinking they are just PC's with a very nice OS. Their life expectancy might be better than some cheap ass dell or HP but thats why I buy a Think pad(probably costs a much as an mac). I got a second hand dell laptop that lasted 3 years and that thing went through a beating. I think they are over priced, if you want to spend that money on an OS thats not mainstream go for it, I'll probably run some form of *nix over having to buy some over priced computer without a second mouse button(I know you can use any mouse for a mac but their laptops frustrate me especially if you dual boot).

      I'm not bashing Apple I don't think their products aren't worth something to some people I just think that the iPod should last more than 18 months and their computers shouldn't be worshiped.

    9. Re:Why I hate Apple by RogerWilco · · Score: 1

      What I have the feeling from colleagues around me, who've owned Mac notebooks for a long time, is that Apple makes more effort to have their new OS also work well on old hardware, which means that you can much longer keep using an old machine as your main production machine without feeling the need to upgrade.

      It means that it will not only technically keep running, but I have the feeling it takes longer before the average Apple gets moved to the attic.

      Partially this is due to the fact that they are quite high end expensive machines when first purchased, so if in the long run it's means you get better value for money, I'm not sure, but OSX and general Apple UI design might make you a slightly happier user if you can afford their hardware.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    10. Re:Why I hate Apple by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Let me see if I got this straight. You have had two laptops fail while under extended warranty and you still buy equipment from that company?
      My philosophy on extended warranty/protection plans is: I'm betting that company X makes good equipment when I lay out the money to buy it, buying an extended warranty is betting that company X makes bad equipment. If I believe the latter enough to lay out the money for the extended warranty, I believe it enough to not lay out the money to buy from them in the first place.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:Why I hate Apple by theolein · · Score: 1

      I support a company with 45 Macs. I have never,ever had a problem with Apple Care (or Adobe, or IBM/Lenovo support or Samsung or anything, for that matter). It's because I'm patient enough to wait for the technical support on the phone, and I do my homework before calling them up. "ZOMG, my Mac's like, not working, fix it!" will generally only waste their and your time. Find out as much as you can yourself, and zero out as many possible problems before calling and your experience will generally be a positive one.

      I have one user who treats his Mac Book Pro like shit. It has a dented case and twisted lid. The guy wanted me to get it "fixed" with Apple Care. I gave a copy of his Apple Care booklet, and told him to read it.

    12. Re:Why I hate Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple products are NOT more reliable than the competition. Sites like macfixit have actual stats on this. Some models are very reliable, some really stink (like 40% failure within 1 year), and it averages out around industry average. You see plenty of people online with 6, 8, or 10 year old Macs because the ones that died can't get online! I've seen scads of 6-10 year old Dells too, this just isn't a big deal.

  36. Quite... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    When did you last time Apple something? Or iPoded/iTuned as song? Or iPhoned someone?

    Yet.. we Google all the time.
    I don't recall anyone Yahooing something even when that marketing campaign was at full speed.

    Google has outgrown the "household name" and has become a verb a few years back.
    Considering that the company didn't exist 10 years ago - THAT is something.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  37. Simple solution... by denzacar · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Buy a Nokia.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Simple solution... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm right there with you. I was very happy with the entire idea of apps... and i liked my iphone despite its shortcomings but this problem has remained unfixed. Apple has released a 2.01 update but it did not solve any of these issues. These bugs are all based around the installation of apps through the iphone, crashing of apps, the app store itself on the iphone, and interrupted installs. For example while installing an app on the phone, entering the app store on the phone at the same time "bricks" the phone. I say "bricks" because you can restore it, but you must be home to do it, and its an hour to 2 hour process. Yes itunes is that slow at restoring your phone to a previous backup. That is if you bothered to let itunes back up the phone, because the back up process can take 3+ hours.

      The entire iPhone 2.0 experience was really exciting but the truth is, its been a huge disaster for many of us iphone users. Our iphones are not stable anymore.

      The last thing anyone wants is an unstable cell phone.

    2. Re:Simple solution... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because Googling for "Nokia lock-up" sure doesn't get any hits.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:Simple solution... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Results 1 - 30 of about 226,000 for iPhone lock-up.
      Results 1 - 30 of about 149,000 for Nokia lock-up.

      Sounds to me like the interweb believes that Nokia is about 35.8% better.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    4. Re:Simple solution... by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      No, Nokia users are just so used to it that they don't complain - Apple users are not used to the pain like you guys are.

      Interesting however that the second hit is an Apple Knowledgebase article where they don't ignore a problem like they are supposed - bad Apple, bad! Where is the first hit where Nokia admits their phones may at some point actually lock-up? And no, "discussion.nokia.tld" does not count.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  38. Value of Stock != Value of Company by AP31R0N · · Score: 1

    Has someone mentioned that yet?

    If the value of the stock exceeds the value of the company by too much, it can cause problems for the company, stockholders and the rest of the market. i'm not claiming to know what Apple is worth. Just don't want to see people take a bath if Apple tanks.

    --
    Utilizing the synergization of benchmark e-solutions to pre-workaround action items!
  39. Good more power to 'em by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    I have pretty much spent my professional career using Window$ and when I needed to do development, I used Linux. I pretty much just disregarded Mac as cultish until I took over as the IT Director of a sports publishing company that was all MAC. I drank the Kool-Aid and shaved my head because MAC was doing what the Linux people were hoping that Linux would do: provide an alternative to Windows that actually worked.

    For as much as I love the idea of Linux on the desktop, it won't work because even today it's just too difficult to make it work out of the box and that's what needed. Mac actually does it. It IS a superior experience.

    That being said......

    Apple is a publicly traded company and as such here's what's important to them.....

    Making money for their stockholders.

    That means sweatshops for iPods and doing things like heading down the dangerous path of closing off the Darwin source for development so that OSS geeks can't find a way to make OS X work on commodity boxes.

    Apple is going to do what is best in their corporate interest. Surprised? Don't be. It's business

    The real question in all of this is how is Apple going to be after Steve Jobs leaves (whether voluntarily... hahahahahahaha or via cancer). No CEO is more tied to his company than Jobs, except maybe Berkshire Hathaway and Warren Buffett.

    1. Re:Good more power to 'em by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      I drank the Kool-Aid and shaved my head because MAC was doing what the Linux people were hoping that Linux would do: provide an alternative to Windows that actually worked.

      What UTTER UTTER drivel!

      Tell me something - why would a "Linux" person be using Linux on the basis that it did not do at least some of the things he/she needed it to do? This may shock you to know but an operating system is a *tool* meaning that helps you get stuff done as easily possible.

      I am a Linux person and a Windows person. Yes, I'd dearly love for one or the other to be capable of doing everything I want to do with a computer but I'm happy with second best - namely both of them doing all that I need to do without my once ever having to consider the merest notion of buying anything by Apple. And all that after at least a quarter of a century working and playing with computers.

      Sorry, my friend, but you even write like what the rest of here believes a stereotypical Apple-worshipping fanboi to be - to top it all off for us, how about ending your posts with "Welllll, the sixties were such a blurrrrr, man!"

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Good more power to 'em by mini+me · · Score: 1

      Yes, I'd dearly love for one or the other to be capable of doing everything I want to do with a computer but I'm happy with second best

      I used Linux for several years, but eventually switched over to a Mac because it is capable of doing everything (that I need). Something that neither Windows or Linux were able to do exclusively.

    3. Re:Good more power to 'em by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Macs don't even appear on my radar because for the apps and games I need to run, what Linux can't handle, Windows does.

      We're going round in circles, we have different needs, neither is wrong or right.

      But my point serves to show that for as many people singing Apple's praises, there are equally as many who have no need for their stuff.

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    4. Re:Good more power to 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Macs don't even appear on my radar because of the games I need to run

      Games are for kids. Macs are for adults.

    5. Re:Good more power to 'em by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there, Slashdot readers, is the exact reason why non-Mac users think Mac users have their heads up their own asses.

  40. 2006 news? by ashraya · · Score: 1

    Am I the only to note that this happened in Jan 2006? The Wikipedia article linked in the summary says so. No one else has commented on it. What gives? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Dell - The last line in this article says this happened in 2006. Ashraya

  41. Well, Apple should start acting like a big company by Ilgaz · · Score: 0

    I paid $160 or something for OS X Leopard family license and the default browser of OS X (which is really good on 10.5) still comes with Google search as default without ANY easy or safe way to change it. It also sends ?safari type of string to Google which is perfectly acceptable for a company like Opera or organisation like Firefox which covers their costs. The idea is, when I paid for OS X and Apple hardware, I have already paid for Safari and Webkit development. I don't have to use a search engine which displays either worms or viruses for my search terms/my area.

    Now , as 10.5.4 is somewhat stable, I dared to hack Safari (it is good, I repeat) via Input Manager Inquisitor which was acquired by Yahoo (guess why!) and used its option to my favorite search engine, Yahoo search. I am not very impressed with new fashion "search as you type" etc. stuff, it is just installed to change Search engine via good code rather than binary hacks.

    I was especially mad when I run IE 7 and IE 8 beta on my junk Virtual PC. Microsoft actually ASKS "What to use for search?". Microsoft! The owner of MSN!

    Apple isn't a struggling company which has great inventions being ignored by general public anymore, they are on rocket rise and became de facto standard in some scenes. Having Google search forced to users doesn't really make sense and it is really looking amateur. It is also unsafe since some black hat guy may popup and say "I coded search engine chooser", you know the result when users got used to hack system binaries.

  42. Stock Value is a meaningless measure of value by BraksDad · · Score: 1

    I hate discussions about share value that ignore the fact that the share value is set by people somewhat arbitrarily. It has no direct link to the value of the company or its products/services.

    I understand the interest in the numbers. It does surprise me that Apple is worth so much, but given the loopy attitude people have towards Apple products that seems independent of their actual product, it makes some sense.

    Personally, I see stocks like baseball cards, minus the pictures and the sometimes interesting statistics.

    Of course baseball cards are much more difficult to move, but in essense they are the same thing. They sell at market value. The market value is simply set by what someone is willing to pay for it, ot what it is worth to someone in terms of concrete savings or value. Building a business case on the purchase of baseball cards or stock is completely speculative. It is not like you can say, you will make money for sure.

    --
    Slowly waving my hand - "This is not the sig you are looking for."
  43. So?... by whisper_jeff · · Score: 1

    My question is this - besides a measure of how much their shares are worth, what does that mean? Not trying to be a smartass. Quite the contrary, in fact - I'm a dumbass when it comes to economics and the like so I literally don't know what this sort of thing means, in practical terms.

  44. Dell vs Apple by pythonhacker · · Score: 1

    Also, Apple is now worth 3 times the value of Dell Computer, despite Dell's founder and CEO declaring over a decade ago that if he ran Apple, he'd 'shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.

    Clearly Mr.Dell is not the best man at predicting the fortune of tech companies. Best example of this - Dell itself.

    If I ran Dell, I would shut it down right now and give the money back to the shareholders, so that they can buy more Apple shares with it.

    That is, if there is any money to give back...

    --
    If you don't succeed at first, try again. If you still don't succeed, try harder. If nothing works, try reality shows.
    1. Re:Dell vs Apple by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Sorry, remind me. When was the last time people queued up outside a Dell stockist for 24 hours in anticipation of getting hold of getting the very latest Dell laptop?

      You fail to consider the fact that because most of we "great unwashed" consider a computer as a tool to do a certain job without any great regard for brand loyalty, this creates the perfect environment for Mr Jobs and Apple to appeal to a certain small proportion of the populace who need computers that are also fashion accessories and allow them to become part of an elitist little club.

      Look in *ANY* marketplace and you will see precisely the same thing - Rolls Royce amongst car manufacturers, Gucci amongst shoe manufacturers, etc. etc. In *ALL* cases, those items are about showing off the brand and the logo first, price is secondary and they exist because most people just buy the common, cheaper stuff.

      Apple's very existence *DEPENDS* on the fact that HP, Dell and Lenovo are selling the computers that MOST people buy...

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    2. Re:Dell vs Apple by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're still stuck on this brand name thing.

      Look in *ANY* marketplace and you will see precisely the same thing

      NO, you're generalizing too much. *ANY*, *ALL* ?? You're just asking for trouble with those kinds of thoughts.

      Where do you draw the line? How about Porsche, BMW, SUN SPARC, IBM pSeries/zSeries, HP PA-RISC, I could go on forever with products/manufacturers that are undervalued by those who misunderstand them. Hell, even Microsoft has a place in this list.
      Are Porsche or BMW owners elitist? Mainframers are elitist? RISC owners are elitist? If I pay for software, I am elitist?
      No, and if you honestly think so, then you've horribly underestimated the value of the above products/companies.
      Apple, and Rolls-Royce are very much in the above group.

      I'm not about to stand up and defend actual fashion accessories, those are not utilitarian and actually are bought largely because of the name. I do want to stand up and defend whole other classes of products that you classify as merely fashion accessories with little/no other value than the brand name. Moreover, there is nothing wrong with anyone else buying actual fashion accessories, just because I choose not to buy them.

      Look, I used to be just like you. I bought all my clothes at Walmart because I thought $50 for a pair of jeans was highway robbery. You know what though? I succumbed to peer pressure, and bought a damned $50 pair of jeans one day. They looked fucking fantastic. I didn't look like a damned cowboy anymore. They didn't look like my Dad's jeans. That was one time though, buy that shit on clearance. I started taking care of my clothes better, no more mixing everything together at once in the washer/dryer. Turned my jeans inside out to wash, etc. My stuff started lasting longer, and didn't look like shit.

      I don't want to judge every single thing I buy on price alone anymore. Often, I don't need to, maybe that's a luxury in itself. I think anyone can at least go buy some top shelf toilet paper and enjoy the luxury of not sandpapering your ass off. I mean, we can ALL splurge SOMEWHERE.
      Maybe you don't care how nice something looks. Maybe you don't care to know all the technical details, or engineering behind what you buy. Some people do care, and they pay the premium. So what?

      Those are extreme examples... Apple is clearly much more accessible to a wider audience.

      Apple's very existence *DEPENDS* on the fact that HP, Dell and Lenovo are selling the computers that MOST people buy...

      Be careful here. Do brand name clothes exist because Walmart sells $10 jeans? If Walmart went away, would people stop buying clothes at the mall? Oops.
      On one end you're competing on price, and the other, features and looks. Neither one NEEDS the other.

    3. Re:Dell vs Apple by pandrijeczko · · Score: 1

      Dude, you're still stuck on this brand name thing.

      Have a bit more intelligence than starting your reply with the word "Dude" because you're already fitting into the stereotype of Apple user that I have defined. We've moved on 30 years beyond surfboards & The Beach Boys - & at least 10 beyond Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle speak...

      How about Porsche, BMW, SUN SPARC, IBM pSeries/zSeries,

      I have no idea, you tell me. I doubt you'd get Porsche or BMW drivers to remove the brand logo from their cars, if that's what you mean. Therefore the fact that the logo is displayed publicly has some significance (as it does with Apple products). Therefore those items are part fashion accessory as an outward display of allegiance to a particular "club" - a club made elitist by virtue of the minority of people being in it.

      As for Sun SPARCS? Who knows? I've certainly never seen anyone posing in a coffee shop with a SPARC on his lap.

      Moreover, there is nothing wrong with anyone else buying actual fashion accessories, just because I choose not to buy them.

      I absolutely 100% agree with you. Like you, I enjoy capitalism and freedom of choice & being a consumer. But "brand loyalty" means "having to display a logo" which in turn means "I need to feel I belong to an elitist club because I am slightly insecure."

      I succumbed to peer pressure, and bought a damned $50 pair of jeans one day.

      Well more fool you then. You should buy stuff because it's worth the money, not because insecure people pressurize you into doing so.

      My stuff started lasting longer, and didn't look like shit.

      Good on you. And maybe $50 for a pair of jeans is value for money in your eyes, that's great. If you're wearing them most of the time and they wash well and you have them for a year or two, then I can't argue that.

      But if I, for example, only wear jeans once a week to do the gardening in, then I might feel $50 is too high a price.

      I don't want to judge every single thing I buy on price alone anymore.

      And with all respect, if you believe I'm doing that they you've totally missed my original point. I'm not talking about lowest price, I am talking about value for money.

      I think anyone can at least go buy some top shelf toilet paper and enjoy the luxury of not sandpapering your ass off.

      Yes, and you'll be pleased to know that I do the same thing myself. But at the same time, if it suddenly becomes fashionable to buy green toilet paper, I shall still go on buying an appropriately soft toilet paper at the best price without giving a damn as to what colour it is.

      Maybe you don't care how nice something looks. Maybe you don't care to know all the technical details, or engineering behind what you buy. Some people do care, and they pay the premium. So what?

      Yes, I care how something pleases my eye but probably less so than it's technical specification. But what I don't give a damn about is buying something purely because I want to show it off to everyone else. I have enough faith in my own decision making process to not need reassurance or bolstering from others.

      Those are extreme examples... Apple is clearly much more accessible to a wider audience.

      And your point is what?

      As I said previously, a big thing about owning an Apple is the fact that you become a member of an elitist club. That is part of the reason why some of the money you pay goes into the design of the item and the clearly viewable Apple logo on it.

      Yes, I'm sure Apple has done a much better job of component quality control than your average Chinese PC component builder - but if I asked you to permanently remove or hide the Apple logo on your device, would you do so? No, of course not. Therefore the logo is important to you, not *just* the technical specification.

      Be careful here. Do brand name clothes exist because Walmart sells $10 jeans?

      I'm in the UK so I'll take "Walmart" to mean "general superma

      --
      Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
    4. Re:Dell vs Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey I'm sure you're secure enough to walk around in your shit-stained gaunchies, smelling like a fucking rose, with snot caked on your overgrown 'stache, and week old boogers caked to the legs of your grimy overalls, while your proud as fuckin' squat generic laptop with the broken "z" key happily impresses your circle-jerk buddies with it's pure *nix blowjob beauty, while you point your crooked nicotine-stained finger with the nail chewed the moon at those laughable fashion accessory dopes with their fancy brands and expensive jeans, because there is really no point worrying that the joke is on you.

  45. In this situation... by Eideteker · · Score: 1

    I put on my robe and my market cap.

    --
    sic
  46. Gotta love Apple fanboys... by denzacar · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Who else will mod you down for merely suggesting buying a product NOT made by Apple.

    Sacrilege! Blasphemy! Madness!

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  47. Re:Well, Apple should start acting like a big comp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is English your native language? I ask because your post is nearly incomprehensible.

    It also sends ?safari type of string to Google which is perfectly acceptable for a company like Opera or organisation like Firefox which covers their costs.

    Uh... So what? I fail to see anything objectionable about this. The only objectionable thing to me is that this seems like a waste of a few bytes; Google is already perfectly capable of checking your browser's user agent when you use it.

    I don't have to use a search engine which displays either worms or viruses for my search terms/my area.

    Google is the default because Google is commonly accepted as the best, safest general search engine. What kind of things are you searching for that worms and viruses come up...?

    Now , as 10.5.4 is somewhat stable, I dared to hack Safari (it is good, I repeat) via Input Manager Inquisitor which was acquired by Yahoo (guess why!) and used its option to my favorite search engine, Yahoo search. I am not very impressed with new fashion "search as you type" etc. stuff, it is just installed to change Search engine via good code rather than binary hacks.

    If you had bothered to search Google, you would have easily found a Safari extension named Inquisitor X, which adds more functionality to Safari's search ability and lets you change the engine. No binary hacks required.

    Apple isn't a struggling company which has great inventions being ignored by general public anymore, they are on rocket rise and became de facto standard in some scenes. Having Google search forced to users doesn't really make sense and it is really looking amateur.

    No, it makes perfect sense. Apple is all about presenting users with the single, best option rather than giving them multiple choices, and Google is the best option for 99% of users.

    It is also unsafe since some black hat guy may popup and say "I coded search engine chooser", you know the result when users got used to hack system binaries.

    What does this sentence even mean?

  48. This just in... by OneSmartFellow · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... Apple stock price bears no relationship what-so-ever to the present or future value of the company.

    News at eleven.

  49. Poor old Mike... by argent · · Score: 1

    He's never going to live that one down.

    1. Re:Poor old Mike... by ISoldat53 · · Score: 1

      Dell's prediction is not nearly as bad as the Dell VP I had lunch with at Microsoft in one of their new buildings when he looked around and said "This will never last."

  50. I don't hate Apple, I hate their fanbois by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Informative

    Such as people who claim that Apple has raised any sort of bar in technology. When has Apple ever innovated anything, or raised any bar? Apple is good at two things: dressing up other people's technology so it looks like Apple made it, and selling other people's technology once it looks like Apple made it.

    As for raising the bar, which bar did they raise? Aside from prices, nothing was really raised at all. Their hardware is equivalent to what I am using, and their software can only compete on looks -- for those of us trying to get real work done, Mac OS X is just another expensive proprietary Unix. Yes, proprietary, take a look at the license agreement before you take a look at whatever source code Apple has released. What real value is there in OS X that isn't in...RHEL? *BSD? Minix? I can think of something that RHEL has which OS X does not: an EAL 4 certification (to be fair, OS X 10.3.6 did receive an EAL 3 certification, but there are legitimate and meaningful differences).

    --
    Palm trees and 8
    1. Re:I don't hate Apple, I hate their fanbois by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1

      Such as people who claim that Apple has raised any sort of bar in technology. When has Apple ever innovated anything, or raised any bar? Apple is good at two things: dressing up other people's technology so it looks like Apple made it, and selling other people's technology once it looks like Apple made it.

      I remember when peripheral makers were all ready to go with USB, but few wanted to dip their toes in to those waters. Sure - they were all chomping at the bit. But nobody wanted to produce the hardware and the associated drivers needed. You see - Windows97 was going to have drivers after all. Why bother until then?

      Then comes the iMac. It insists on USB and nothing but USB for any and all peripherals. Oddly enough, there follows a sudden surge of USB devices with candy colored casings that were distinctive to the iMac.

      Now... one has to stress that USB isn't Apple's tech (it's Intel's). And the industry was already really wanting to move forward with USB. Win98 finally hit the market and made USB devices truely mainstream - which fed Apple's market as well. So all things considered, the success of USB was likely due whether Apple existed or not.

      But at the same time, credit where it is due, Apple is the one to set that bar and get everything moving in that direction. It's not a huge win. But the whole delay pattern around Windows and the explosion of the market due to Apple's actions makes an interesting study on how competition benefits the consumer. And Apple deserves a small slice of credit for that.

      That's not to say I don't understand the idea of Apple taking (or at least being given) undue credit for tech. I find the iPod an excellent example. So many people see the iPod as the definition of an MP3 player. However, most /. readers probably know better. Indeed, I have to agree with CmdrTaco's initial reaction to the iPod as "lame" compared to other MP3 players that predated it. Apple shouldn't get credit for the general concept of the device.

      But "lame" or not - the iPod is a slick little device. Apple's iTunes store is well (enough) packaged and has become a force in both consumer electronics and content industries - enough to force major content houses to adopt policies they don't particularly like. So SOME kind of credit is due there. It just gets misplaced.

    2. Re:I don't hate Apple, I hate their fanbois by MacOSXHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      What's raising the bar? Ummm on the open source front: WebKit, Bonjour, Darwin, Objective-C, contributions to GGC, BSD, LLVM, SproutCore, JavaScript, and the list goes the list goes on.

      On the proprietary front, Core Video, Core Audio, Core Animation, Cocoa, iPhone SDK, App store (which is the best thing to happen to small developers ever).

      On the hardware front, great industrial design, great laptops, the iPod, the iPhone.

      All of these thing have made Apple incredibly successful and I am sure we will see much more of this kind of innovation that forces all competitors, whether its Linux or MSFT or Dell, to become better.

      If you cannot see this, you are living on another planet.

    3. Re:I don't hate Apple, I hate their fanbois by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      You're kidding, right? Bonjour is just Apple's implementation of zeroconf, which is in no way innovative and doesn't raise the bar one bit (I've been using zeroconf for a long time, to help wen dealing with people who don't have a technical background). Darwin? You mean the system that is a somewhat tweaked BSD? Objective-C, the somewhat tweaked version of C with some smalltalk features? Javascript, which came from Netscape? Where is Apple raising the bar in any of this? Next you'll tell me that Apple invented the mouse? The list of things people falsely attribute to Apple is what goes on and on.

      As for their hardware, all I've seen Apple do is dress up their systems to be more visually appealing. Great for marketing, but how is it raising any sort of bar? It looks nice, that's all. I suppose that it raises the aesthetic bar somewhat, but from a technical perspective, it isn't that exciting.

      What makes Apple successful is a brilliant marketing campaign, and the slow but steady buildup of a user base that is so devoted to Apple that it makes Scientology look tame. Their music players are popular, their portable video players are popular, and they've convinced everyone that the personal computer industry is divided into Apple and "everyone else." I'll give them credit for their marketing prowess, and I never denied that their marketing department was brilliant. They do not, however, represent an innovative technology company that is "raising the bar," and if you think they are, then you are living on yet another planet.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    4. Re:I don't hate Apple, I hate their fanbois by MacOSXHead · · Score: 1

      You need to learn what the facts are. All of the open source projects I mentioned, Apple contributes back to.

      Apple is contributing to Javascript with their SquirrelFish project making Javascript run much faster.

      You obviously despise Apple and no amount of information is going to educate you. You need to open your mind to things that are obvious to most people.

    5. Re:I don't hate Apple, I hate their fanbois by Darundal · · Score: 1

      Well, I have to agree with betterunixthanunix, in that none of their open source work "raises the bar." However, as you said, they do contribute actively, but merely contributing is not "raising the bar."

    6. Re:I don't hate Apple, I hate their fanbois by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      WebKit is an open source application framework that provides a foundation upon which to build a web browser. WebKit was originally derived from the Konqueror browserâ(TM)s KHTML software library by Apple, Inc. for use as the engine of Mac OS Xâ(TM)s Safari web browser, and has now been further developed by Apple, Nokia, Google and others. The framework is now used by Omniweb, Shiira, iCab, Adobe AIR, mobile phones (including the iPhone), Nokiaâ(TM)s Series 60 browser, and Googleâ(TM)s Android platform. Although WebKit is included with Trolltechâ(TM)s Qt 4.4, the underlying framework for KDE,[1] the KDE project will use its original version of KHTML for the near future.[2]

      From Wikipedia

      Oh yeah, raising the bar, riiiight....

      Bonjour, an implementation of the Zeroconf protocol?

      does Darwin have any serious userbase outside Apple? No? It might as well be propitary, then.

      Obj-C? C++ -- more popular, more feature full. If you insist on run0time desicions, use Java.

      GGC -- WTF?

      BSD, LLVM SproutCore, JavaScript, ... OK, I'll give you that, still until every little bit of OS X is FSF-certified, I dont plan to shut up.

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  51. So what? by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 2, Informative

    Every dollar Apple makes, whether its revenue or profit, is a dollar that doesn't go to Microsoft.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:So what? by grub · · Score: 1


      Every dollar Apple makes, whether its revenue or profit, is a dollar that doesn't go to Microsoft.

      DId you know every +1, Informative mode a false dichotomy gets is a +1, Funny mod this post won't get?

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:So what? by kesuki · · Score: 1

      so when is apple launching a video game console to kill off the xbox (j/k) they've killed zune, mac PCs have made a major comeback, and are gaining on market share every year. itunes still rocks while Microsoft's attempts at online music delivery are Dead. Vista can't even beat out windows XP much less be Microsoft's 'answer' to mac osx.

    3. Re:So what? by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      And a dolar that doesn't go to Canonical. Your point?

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  52. no research to speak of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of course, what Apple calls "research and development" is largely development; the company does no research to speak of, instead preferring to cull the best ideas from the market place.

    1. Re:no research to speak of by grub · · Score: 2, Insightful


      Of course, what Apple calls "research and development" is largely development; the company does no research to speak of, instead preferring to cull the best ideas from the market place.

      Yes, Apple copied the Rio but dropped the 32 MB of memory and put in a hard disk, omitted the clunky buttons, left out the slow transfer speeds, increased the display side by probably 10x... hell put a Rio and an iPod side by side and I bet you can't tell the difference.

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    2. Re:no research to speak of by kesuki · · Score: 4, Interesting

      do you have any idea of how many companies had tried to put out 'rio' style portable music players? literally hundreds, so why has apple sold 150 million or more ipods? because they got it right, and they combined a sleek sexy music player with a cheap source of music, through the itunes store. I've explained to countless people they can make mp3's from most audio cds, and in general instead of learning a new program they ask ME to do the leg work of encoding their music. it takes money to use itunes, but it's easy to use.

      and now, the ipod brand is more famous than the walkman brand was in the 80's.

      the iphone is a huge printing press for money as well, they get money from the sale of it, and even more from the contract with at&t. jobs coming back to apple, and as the CEO really worked out great, so far. although i think even apple will start to feel the pain that so many tech companies are feeling from the global economic downturn that seems to be happening.

    3. Re:no research to speak of by iamwahoo2 · · Score: 1

      Rio devices with 32 MB of memory must have been roughly 4 years old by the time the iPod came out. Apple may have had the best product the day that the iPod first hit the shelves, but other companies had similar products already in the development pipeline and have quickly caught up and in my opinion, quickly surpassed the iPod in terms of overall quality and value.

    4. Re:no research to speak of by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was praising Apple and being tongue in cheek :)

    5. Re:no research to speak of by RogerWilco · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where the iPod won it from the competition was ease of use.
      Something like an iRier might have more features, and better specs, but have you ever tried to use one? I have.

      I got my first Mac a year ago, but the first time I used one was in 1997 and after that I knew I would end up on a Mac eventually.

      It was the time of win3.11 and win95, winNT4, (and I think Mac system7). I was at university and helped a lot of people with their computers. I was used to first having to "figure out" someone's computer before I could help them.
      I also did some DTP work. At one point my computer couldn't handle what I was doing, and I ended up finishing my project at a professional DTP firm, who happened to also have QuarkXpress but on a big powerful dual head Mac. I was productive from the get go, and if I needed something, it would just be where I'd expect it to be and work intuitively, even outside the software I had experience with on Windows. At that point I understood that Apple is just miles ahead of the competition in UI design.

      They are just very good in removing all things from an UI that you don't really need. Some rarely used options and a reduction in choice comes with that, but I'll do without an optic output for my digital music player if it means I have an interface that is easy to use.

      --
      RogerWilco the Adventurous Janitor
    6. Re:no research to speak of by jscotta44 · · Score: 1

      Good for you and your opinion. It just seems that many millions more tend to disagree with you.

    7. Re:no research to speak of by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      ... they combined a sleek sexy music player with a cheap source of music, through the itunes store. I've explained to countless people they can make mp3's from most audio cds, and in general instead of learning a new program they ask ME to do the leg work of encoding their music. it takes money to use itunes, but it's easy to use.

      While having the store to buy from is important to the iPod's success, realistically most of the music on iPods does not come from the iTunes store. According to industry research only about 15% of iPod owners have ever bought anything from the iTunes store and it accounts for less than 2% of the music on the average iPod.

      A big factor in the iPod success story is Apple's iTunes software making it easy for the average person to rip their CD collection. I know smart people who downloaded the program solely for that purpose because they could not figure out how to do it with WMP or whatever shipped with the player they bought. Remember, when the iPod came out, WMP ripped to DRM'd WMA by default, adding DRM to music from CDs that did not have any to start with and resulting in a lot of people who ripped their collection and then could not get it to work on their portable player.

      It took simple hardware, easy to use software, and an easy store with DRM that did not significantly get in the user's way to make it happen. That's where Apple really excels, in putting together solutions that address all of a customer's workflow and needs. It's working for the smartphone market too.

    8. Re:no research to speak of by Lord+Flipper · · Score: 1

      and now, the ipod brand is more famous than the walkman brand was in the 80's.

      I am not arguing or disagreeing, because I don't know what the case is. But is this verifiable from a survey or something? The only reason I ask is that I grew up during 50s/60s/70s and the Walkman was like Kleenex. I mean, I know the chemo is messing up my memory/recall to a degree, but I seem to remember the walkman as being synonymous with portable music devices back in the day. Sony was criticized heavily for having so many versions of it. I think their showroom in Tokyo had hundreds of Walkmans, that were all in production. Back in teeny-bopper Japan days (when people used these things called pens and pencils to make marks called 'drawings' and 'writing'), you could hit the Big Time, and become a has been, in about 8 days.

      Sony did their level best to stay abreast of the styles etc coming up from the street. Apple, more accurately reflecting modern American marketing, imposes upon, rather than draws from, in order to keep costs down. That's how it appears to me. iTunes 7x had a fatal I/O operation with an external drive several days ago here at home, while my ten gig first gen iPod was plugged in, and totally destroyed the booting/reading/recognizing of my old iPod, for good.

      iTunes, the app, is what... a file manager on the file side, a database on the lib side. And the stupid HFS+ incompatible with Unix-like systems file system looks its worst running with iTunes. If I was the guy who decided to keep the Finder 8 years ago, I would fucking kill myself, as a favor to the whole world. I've been an Apple client since '79, and I absolutely despise these people.

      They turned it into a toy store, and destroyed NeXTSTEP, for no extra charge. At least they had the decency to drop "Computer" from the company's official name.

      My clients buy me a new apple laptop every couple years. I stopped buying their shit when the Powerbook 150 was 'new'. Fuck those guys. I only use it because of Adobe. (and, yeah, fuck them, too)

  53. Re:Well, Apple should start acting like a big comp by Ilgaz · · Score: 1

    Are you a racist who thinks only Americans live on this planet? I ask since you seem to understand my post very good in fact, automagically defending Apple against one Anti Apple foreigner (!) who paid $160 for family license I bet you have never thought of paying.

    Now the reply to your post:
    "If you had bothered to search Google, you would have easily found a Safari extension named Inquisitor X, which adds more functionality to Safari's search ability and lets you change the engine. No binary hacks required."

    It is a code injection hack, if OS X had a real antivirus instead of snake oil sellers, it would jump up and down. Wonder why it is injected or input manager needed? Because there is NO mechanism to actually change that "ein" search engine "für alles".

    "No, it makes perfect sense. Apple is all about presenting users with the single, best option rather than giving them multiple choices, and Google is the best option for 99% of users."

    If we think that way, Windows is the best option for 92% of American market and 98% of real World market. So perhaps Apple should give up shipping OS X and become a Windows reseller.

    ""It is also unsafe since some black hat guy may popup and say "I coded search engine chooser", you know the result when users got used to hack system binaries.""
    "What does this sentence even mean?"

    It has only 1 "green underlining" so it is grammatically correct but somehow, sort of weird sentence which is designed to make the point but not to give ideas to some script kiddie idiots. As far as I can tell, it worked. ;)

  54. Android by DustoneGT · · Score: 1

    I guess I wasn't the only one that couldn't wait for android to come out.

  55. Growth by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 1

    What is really shocking about this is many stock analysts view Apple's stock as significantly undervalued.

    http://seekingalpha.com/article/88230-replacing-p-e-in-valuing-apple-stock

    Of course if Steve Jobs were run over by a truck tomorrow it would dive hard.

    1. Re:Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course if Steve Jobs were run over by a truck tomorrow it would dive hard.

      Meaning that due to a period of mourning, Slashdot would be bereft of smug fanbois for a few days.

      We can but hope...

    2. Re:Growth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hopefully we would lose some stick-up-the-arse anti-apple fanbois as well.

  56. here we go again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I know this has been covered a thousand times before, but people still don't seem to get it. "bricked" implies that the device is completely non-functional AND CANNOT BE REPAIRED.

    Your iPhone is not bricked if you can fix it by simply attaching it to your PC with a USB cable.

    Someone needs to coin a new term for a device which is temporarily incapacitated. Maybe something like "stoned" :)

    1. Re:here we go again by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      I put the word bricked in quotes. This is a grey area situation. Because by all definitions the iphone is bricked until you go home to fix it (Which is a 4 hour process)

      It is essentailly bricked until you get home, meaning you cant do a single thing with the iphone. You cant call, you cant call 911, you cant receive calls. The entire phone is broken. The OS is currupt, the apps are currupt, it is a brick.

      Yes you can restore it, but you really need to see the situation for what it is... the iphone for many of us, is spending more time in the usb dock being restored than it is in service as a phone.

      I said "brick" using quotes, to show that it is useless as a... until you restore it. The problem is so bad though that we are all hitting this bug multiple times... 20's 30's... we're all up there in restores, sometimes multiple times a day!

      So for the most part, i think the term brick applies... in that it is "useless as a brick"

  57. Full disclosure: I'm a Mac hater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    This whole Mac VS PC thing is stupid and childish. I don't buy Apple products because I am cheap, and I would rather spend my time making things work the way I want them to than letting some 'Genius' make them work for me.

    Peroid. End of story.

    1. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac hater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      The "I'm cheap" may be accurate, but the idea that you'd "rather spend your time" messing around with a computer just to make it usable is absurd. That's like saying "I'd rather buy a cheap house with a leaky roof, fix my roof and repair the water damage inside than purchase a house without a leaky roof and not have to worry about it." If you weren't cheap, and you could afford it (and you were sane), you wouldn't buy the house with the leaky roof.

        I'd rather use the computer to do something productive or entertaining rather than waste my time getting it to work the way I want it to.
      (Note, I'm not commenting on Macs vs. PCs here, just the idea that one would "rather spend their time" getting something to work rather than actually using it).
       

    2. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac hater by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      The "I'm cheap" may be accurate, but the idea that you'd "rather spend your time" messing around with a computer just to make it usable is absurd. That's like saying "I'd rather buy a cheap house with a leaky roof, fix my roof and repair the water damage inside than purchase a house without a leaky roof and not have to worry about it." If you weren't cheap, and you could afford it (and you were sane), you wouldn't buy the house with the leaky roof.

      I'd rather use the computer to do something productive or entertaining rather than waste my time getting it to work the way I want it to. (Note, I'm not commenting on Macs vs. PCs here, just the idea that one would "rather spend their time" getting something to work rather than actually using it).

      Mod parent up.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    3. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac hater by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, he said: I would rather spend my time making things work the way I want them to than letting some 'Genius' make them work for me.

      This says to me that he'd rather get his computer working the way he wants himself, than drag the thing into a shop and look like an idiot in public. Seems pretty reasonable to me, actually.

    4. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac hater by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd rather spend 15 min. from website to ready desktop on ubuntu than $1500 more for an optical drive of all things (without fiddling, of course).

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    5. Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac hater by rthille · · Score: 1

      Bad analogy, because you can buy a "fixer" house, do some work and sell it at a large markup. That's unlikely to be the case with a computer, as no one is going to pay a big markup for your "used" computer with your customizations that make it work well for you. Also, for most people, the house is the end, not the means, and the computer is the means, not the end.

      However, your points were still valid, even if the analogy was not.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
  58. yes, let's be honest by speedtux · · Score: 1

    They have contributed much to the open source community.

    Apple is using a lot of open source code, and they have released some open source code themselves. But what have they actually contributed to the open source community? I can't think of any significant piece of Apple software that runs on any Linux distribution.

    They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

    With what? Quartz, HFS+, Cocoa, Darwin, and XCode do not "raise the bar" on anything. Apple fans like to point to USB, OS X, Bonjour, Quicktime, and similar technologies, but Apple's contributions there were either to adopt an existing standard that was coming anyway, or to take an existing technology, tinker a little with it, and release it under their own name.

    They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.

    Any code you develop using Apple's native APIs for OS X will only be useful for OS X. That makes it a nice platform for Apple to tie developers to their proprietary platform, but it doesn't make it a nice platform for open source.

    They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.

    You're right: independent developers can charge ridiculous prices for their apps on iPhone. Whether that's going to be a long term viable market remains to be seen.

    I guess Apple is bad because they make money.

    No, Apple is bad because they keep doing things that are bad for consumers and they keep lying.

    For example, with the iPhone, they have created a platform that is far more restrictive than any carrier phone ever was; kudos to their PR department, who managed to misrepresent the iPhone as some kind of rescue from carrier restrictions.

    They pulled a similar stunt with DRM: just as DRM was dying naturally, Apple and iTunes firmly established it in the market place.

    Apple is outsourcing like crazy overseas; if all US computer companies were run like Apple, there wouldn't be any jobs to speak of.

    Apple has a long history of doing sleazy and deplorable things; that's why anybody with half a brain should "hate" them.

    1. Re:yes, let's be honest by OldeTimeGeek · · Score: 1
      You're right: independent developers can charge ridiculous prices for their apps on iPhone. Whether that's going to be a long term viable market remains to be seen.

      For what values of ridiculous? Developers can charge anything from gratis to $10. Some of the best applications at the App store are free - and that's not "best because they're free", it's "best because they're good". Developers are free to charge up to $10. Unless you want to charge more, where's the problem in this?

    2. Re:yes, let's be honest by jht · · Score: 1

      I'll call you on three of these points:

      iPhones are not far more restrictive than any carrier phone ever was. Palm and Windows Mobile have been open to all comers. Everything else has had some form of restriction or another, and carriers in general have been very restrictive about what is and is not allowed. What Apple did was make development easy, but introduce a central clearinghouse for apps. Even then, you're free to develop your app however (so long as it meets carrier requirements), and you can charge what you want - including $0. I really don't see how that is an issue. If you want a 100% open phone, buy an OpenMoko and play with it to your hearts' content. If you want a phone with a closed OS but the ability to develop software as you like without restrictions, get a Treo or a WinMob phone.

      If you want a phone that's not 100% open but fairly easy to develop for and that gives you a really effective clearinghouse to get your app out to the public, get an iPhone.

      The other point you make is that DRM was dying before iTunes. Horsepuckey. There were no widespread online music stores before iTunes. MP3.com was selling a handful of unencumbered files, and they continue to do so, but they weren't that popular then and remain fairly obscure - they have a lot of small labels and indy music but not much mainstream stuff. I think Rhapsody was around then with their subscription model, but only just. Apple was the first mainstream music store, and they managed to get a relatively loose form of DRM for their music. As their market share increased, labels realized that their only hope of breaking iTunes' control was to give other stores something that iTunes lacked - so that's what started the trend away from DRM. And as they've been allowed, iTunes has been putting up tracks with no DRM, as well.

      Finally, as far as outsourcing goes, Apple's not too much different from every other company. Nobody manufactures their own stuff anymore - it's not worth it, Including Apple. Apple has the vast majority of their support and engineering staff here in the US, and minimal resources elsewhere. They are probably a little better than most comparable firms when it comes to keeping core business function here, but manufacturing is gone and it's never coming back.

      Look, for reasons of religious purity you may well feel the One True Path is to have an Ubuntu desktop built from the finest hand-picked components and syncing to an OpenMoko phone that you wrote all the code for. Most people don't. They don't want to do that, and they couldn't give a darn if you do. What they want is a computer that works pretty well, isn't too expensive, and runs the programs they want. Can be a Mac, usually going to be Windows, never going to be Linux. And they want a swank mobile phone that does cool stuff for them and impresses people when they whip it out of their pockets. Hence iPhones. Apple is good at that stuff, and therefore their company is perceived by the market to be extraordinarily valuable.

      --
      -- Josh Turiel
      "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    3. Re:yes, let's be honest by speedtux · · Score: 1

      iPhones are not far more restrictive than any carrier phone ever was.

      Oh, yes, it is: Apple has introduced a number of restrictions that no other smart phone maker has done to this point.

      The other point you make is that DRM was dying before iTunes. Horsepuckey. There were no widespread online music stores before iTunes.

      So, before Apple: no mainstream DRM store, after Apple: the dominant music store uses DRM.

      Finally, as far as outsourcing goes, Apple's not too much different from every other company.

      If you look at their financials, they are quite different.

      What they want is a computer that works pretty well, isn't too expensive, and runs the programs they want.

      And that is why they should not buy a Mac: Macs are too expensive, come with very little software, and are about as much work to install and maintain as Windows computers.

      And they want a swank mobile phone that does cool stuff for them and impresses people when they whip it out of their pockets. Hence iPhones.

      Yes, nothing says "I am rich" like the iPhone... except, perhaps, the $1000 "I am rich" screen saver.

    4. Re:yes, let's be honest by HuguesT · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm not much of a fanboi, but Apple contributed a few interesting things to OSS, used today in most Linux distributions :

      - the Objective-C front-end to GCC, essential to GNUStep
      - Bonjour (aka Rendez-Vous), although most distributions have switched to Avahi.
      - Lots of patches to konqueror's back end (the same as Safari)
      - Darwin, by itself quite significant and in particular allowed the development of the hfs+ driver in Linux.

      There are other examples.

    5. Re:yes, let's be honest by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apple is using a lot of open source code, and they have released some open source code themselves. But what have they actually contributed to the open source community? I can't think of any significant piece of Apple software that runs on any Linux distribution.

      Apple has made very significant contributions to what is now Webkit, to zeroconf, to the shared BSD subsystem, etc. But you have a very real point. When Apple invents something from scratch and contributes it (like LaunchD) it is occasionally cloned, but rarely do developers take Apple's code and run with it. This is important, but ties into your next comment.

      They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

      With what? Quartz, HFS+, Cocoa, Darwin, and XCode do not "raise the bar" on anything. Apple fans like to point to USB, OS X, Bonjour, Quicktime, and similar technologies, but Apple's contributions there were either to adopt an existing standard that was coming anyway, or to take an existing technology, tinker a little with it, and release it under their own name.

      Apple has raised the bar. They took many rough standards and turned them into powerful and usable tools (zeroconf). They introduced innovative UIs (dock and expose). They took old and crufty parts of UNIX and redesigned them (LaunchD, basic directory structure, ACLs). They introduced powerful technologies that are all their own (OpenStep, signing framework, system services).

      Despite all this and despite their popularity, the OSS community has a lousy track record of adopting those technologies and ideas. Their still isn't a dock clone that has all the functionality of Apple's. There still isn't a major Linux distro that ships with a dock or expose working by default. None of the Linux distros I've used have successfully cloned Apple's ubiquitous application of zeroconf. No Linux distro has yet copied OpenStep or even tried for compatibility with OS X. If you talk to Linux on the desktop users (people who should know what the competition does) 99% of them don't even know what Apple's system services are and if you explain it, they eventually agree it is really cool, but way too much work for them to try to clone.

      There are a lot of reasons for this state of affairs. In some cases Apple has not played as nicely as they could, with licensing issues and their culture of secrecy. In many cases Apple makes sweeping changes to optimize OS X for the desktop and there is no central authority in the rest of the OSS community to mandate the same or even develop a real consensus. In many cases, Linux developers are a lot more interested in Linux as an appliance or server and specifically don't want to make changes that will help for a desktop but may add bloat for other uses. In some cases the OSS community is simply ignorant of what Apple does because they don't use Apple products due to philosophical differences or simply because Apple is not as common as Windows.

      Whatever the reason, my perspective is Apple gives and takes from the OSS community about as well as many other mixed contributors, but because they are working in the desktop OS space and because of the reasons above, their contributions are ignored by Linux on the desktop developers (which is the only relevant market they're innovating in). Apple has been pretty good about adopting useful stuff from Windows and Linux (virtual desktops, filesystem improvements, misc code) but while their are projects to try to clone some of Apple's new tech, for the most part those are small projects and they are not integrated into mainstream Linux distros. That's one of the reasons why gOS's adoption of the dock was both encouraging (yay OS X feature parity) and disheartening (poorly done with only a little bit of the functionality).

      In short I think you're right that the OSS community is not benefiting much by what Apple has been doing, but I think that is largely the fault of the OSS community for not takin

    6. Re:yes, let's be honest by speedtux · · Score: 1

      - the Objective-C front-end to GCC, essential to GNUStep [gnustep.org]

      Apple (NeXT) released the minimum necessary, and only after legal threats from the FSF. GNUStep has had no impact.

      - Bonjour [apple.com] (aka Rendez-Vous), although most distributions have switched to Avahi [avahi.org].

      I don't think Apple's code was ever used, and as you point out, it's not used today.

      - Darwin [apple.com], by itself quite significant and in particular allowed the development of the hfs+ driver in Linux.

      Almost nobody uses Darwin, and HFS+ is only significant for being able to read Mac media. Darwin, of course, itself started out as an open source project.

      - Lots of patches to konqueror's back end [kdedevelopers.org] (the same as Safari)

      True, but Konqueror is a minority browser, Apple didn't have a choice, and they made it hard to actually use their changes.

      There are other examples [apple.com].

      Yup, Apple releases open source software; most of it, however, is either tied to their products or largely useless.

      When you can think of something actually valuable and useful that Apple has released open source, let us know...

    7. Re:yes, let's be honest by speedtux · · Score: 1

      In short I think you're right that the OSS community is not benefiting much by what Apple has been doing, but I think that is largely the fault of the OSS community for not taking what Apple has done and running with it.

      There's a lot of stuff that the FOSS community cannot run with because they'd have Apple's lawyers on their asses. And for a lot of other features, when it comes down to it, they aren't being adopted because they are bad features and don't stand up to scrutiny.

      They introduced innovative UIs (dock and expose).

      There's nothing "innovative" about either of those.

      They took old and crufty parts of UNIX and redesigned them (LaunchD, basic directory structure, ACLs).

      There were several init replacements before LaunchD. LaunchD was so poor that people didn't adopt it.

      Apple moved a lot of directories around, but there's no evidence that their structure is any better.

      ACLs have been in Linux and UNIX for years; they have been widely rejected by users and administrators because they are a bad idea.

      They introduced powerful technologies that are all their own (OpenStep, signing framework, system services).

      OpenStep is derived from the Smalltalk libraries and it's 20 year old technology. System services is an obscure gimmick for geeks. Other platforms have signing frameworks.

      Apple's platform is restrictive, but it is restricted by Apple (who has a lot of leverage in dealing with phone companies) as opposed to restricted by the phone company, who are the ones that have kept phones crippled in the past.

      US carriers have supported unlocked, unrestricted phones for many years.

      I think you have had too much of Steve Jobs's magic Coolaid.

    8. Re:yes, let's be honest by jht · · Score: 1

      To join the argument full-tilt:

      - There are three other smartphone makers. RIM, Palm, and Microsoft. In the case of RIM, they make all their devices and are quite restrictive. They also enable admins to lock them down even further via policy. I manage a few Blackberry servers for clients of mine - they work great, but you can in fact lock them down aggressively and a lot of admins want them to do so.

      - Microsoft has no such automatic restrictions, but they seal off the OS from entry. You can at least port apps from Win32 and adapt them, and the APIs are well-documented.

      - Palm has no real restrictions at all, but the OS is still closed.

      - None of these offer an easy way for non-technical users to download and install applications on their phones.

      - With regard to DRM, you're making my point for me. There were no stores because the labels were insisting on draconian DRM measures and all strongly supported subscription music. Apple broke the logjam with a reasonable compromise and the market responded by giving Apple a dominant market share. Labels finally noticed and began lifting DRM requirements and Apple's been fully behind that movement. When available, tracks with no DRM are priced the same as tracks with DRM. Apple has a lot of leverage, but they don't make the rules. The labels do. Apple's supposed to stay out of the marketplace because they can't measure up to your ideological purity test?

      - Outsourcing/offshoring: no, they aren't significantly different. They have some engineering and support resources overseas. They have the vast majority in the US. They also are a global company, selling and supporting products in almost every country. That's life. I've seen the financials as well, and most of the other companies I am interested in or invested in. They are, if anything, less outsourced than any of their major competitors (Microsoft, HP, Dell...)

      The original Mac factory that was built in 1983 was famously described by Apple as a place where they just about trucked in sand and produced Macs. Those days are over. Forever.

      - As for those final couple of points - no point in arguing the "user experience/price argument" again here. It gets done enough on Slashdot. Suffice it to say that there is likely a reason why Apple's market share over the last several years has been growing faster than the rest of the industry's. And also probably why Apple had sold so darned many iPhones in the last 13 months.

      It indicates that either the market as a whole likes what Apple is doing and the view that Apple is evil is silly, or it indicates that your position on Apple is the One True Belief (facts be darned), and all the people buying them are mere sheep who are blinded by cute TV ads.

      I'll cast my vote with the masses. Is Apple perfect? Of course not. But they do a pretty good job of making computers and devices that are easy for the masses to use, work well (usually better than the competition), and provide a minimum of real-world encumbrances.

      --
      -- Josh Turiel
      "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    9. Re:yes, let's be honest by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

      o, before Apple: no mainstream DRM store, after Apple: the dominant music store uses DRM.

      More like: before Apple, all music stores selling more than 10 songs a week use DRMed WMA, after Apple: the dominant music store sells millions of songs, many of them not DRMed.

      --

      Lars T.

      To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

    10. Re:yes, let's be honest by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      There's a lot of stuff that the FOSS community cannot run with because they'd have Apple's lawyers on their asses. And for a lot of other features, when it comes down to it, they aren't being adopted because they are bad features and don't stand up to scrutiny.

      Nine years ago Apple introduced system services in OS X. It allowed all applications to have spellchecking, using the same dictionary (only had to train it once). Nine years ago you could drop a third-party service in your services directory and instantly add grammar checking to all your applications, without the developers of those applications having to do any work. For all this time we've been able to add arbitrary global functionality with a simple drag and drop. Language translations, dictionary/thesaurus lookup, text manipulation scripts, etc. Do explain how that technology, now nearly a decade old, is a "bad idea" and doesn't stand up to scrutiny. I think you're full of it and I think the popularity of OS X and the exodus of people from Linux on the desktop to OS X on the desktop is fair evidence that most people agree.

      They introduced innovative UIs (dock and expose).

      There's nothing "innovative" about either of those.

      Wow. Should I even bother continuing to read your reply? You seem hopelessly biased. Apple (and Next who took over Apple) were the first real, mainstream implementations of these technologies that I've ever heard of. If they're not innovative, why haven't they made it into mainstream Linux disros yet? Why are Linux implementations of them so immature and poor?

      There were several init replacements before LaunchD. LaunchD was so poor that people didn't adopt it.

      Really, because right after Apple released it I saw a lot of discussion of it and it seemed that it was not adopted at the time because of of uncertainty over Apple's weird license. How many LanchD projects that are not making their way into other OS's and distros were started within those six months?

      Apple moved a lot of directories around, but there's no evidence that their structure is any better.

      Sure it's better, if only by virtue of being the most common, de facto standard structure. The argument for years against rearranging them in BSD was that people knew the current system best so change would cause confusion. OS X's structure is now more common than any other because so many more people use and work on OS X than any other.

      ACLs have been in Linux and UNIX for years; they have been widely rejected by users and administrators because they are a bad idea.

      Yes, ACLs have been around a long time, but Apple did a great job of adopting code from TrustedBSD and making it workable. As to your assertion that ACLs are a bad idea, well I think that's a load of crap. I've been working in the security industry for many years now and not once have I heard any security expert claim ACLs were a bad idea. The arguments have always been about how to implement them and where they are needed and when.

      OpenStep is derived from the Smalltalk libraries and it's 20 year old technology

      Who cares what it evolved from. Next and Apple have made it into a great way to have drag and drop application packages that can run without installation and be transferred easily. They are easily extendable for new uses and provide unprecedented functionality. Functionality no one else has managed and yet no one has bothered to copy it.

      System services is an obscure gimmick for geeks.

      My girlfriend may not know why she can use her grammar checker in her text editor, e-mail, word processor, and presentation program, but she sure as hell does use it. System services is why she can. Your assertion that it is just for geeks is a load of crap. I'll tell you what, why don't you whip up a way for me to use a grammar c

    11. Re:yes, let's be honest by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Most of the code in question is tremendously useful for running Linux as a server in a mac client environment. This is not trivial or insignificant to my mind.

      Regarding Apple's contribution with Objective-C, they did much more than the bare minimum. It is easy and recommended to replace the Apple compiler with the stock GCC version. Objective-C in gcc is well-maintained and AFAIK Apple is still contributing.

      Your assessment of Apple's outsourcing politics is correct up to a point : all US companies are also outsourcing like crazy. As if Google, Microsoft, IBM, etal weren't doing it :-) I think there are still jobs in the US.

      Like it or not, IT in the US or West in general is slowly but surely going the way of heavy industry. At the more global scale, there are very positive side-effects to the whole world getting richer rather than a selected few, such as more peace and less hunger to start with.

    12. Re:yes, let's be honest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But what have they actually contributed to the open source community? I can't think of any significant piece of Apple software that runs on any Linux distribution.

      It's not Apple's responsibility to make sure that the code they release under the APSL or BSD license gets picked up by any Linux distribution. It's the responsibility of the maintainers of those distributions to pick up Apple software when it is superior to their gnu/whatever counterparts.

      Does Apple sit and wait for Linux developers to push their changes onto Apple's servers? No, they go out and do the work to bring in worthwhile contributions. Why should Linux maintainers expect that Apple do their job for them?

    13. Re:yes, let's be honest by speedtux · · Score: 1

      I think you're hopelessly biased against anything from Apple and I think you left unaddressed a great many points I made about

      Yes, I am "biased" against anything from Apple, because of what the company has done and said over the past 20 years. I am "biased" against them as someone who has used their machines since the mid-80's. As for your "points", you haven't made any; you simply repeat Apple's marketing fictions.

      If they're not innovative, why haven't they made it into mainstream Linux disros yet? Why are Linux implementations of them so immature and poor?

      Let's turn that around: if those are such great ideas, why haven't they caught on? Doesn't Microsoft have the resources to clone each and every Mac feature? Almost every Mac feature exists in open source form, yet Linux distributions choose not to ship it--why? I'll tell you why: those features are marketing gimmicks that don't work well in the real world. It's not that people can't clone the Mac, it's that they don't want to.

      Don't take my word for it, take Tog's.

      Unlike you, apparently, I actually use both Linux and OS X regularly and can realistically assess where each is ahead of the game.

      That's another wrong assumption on your part. In fact, I am writing this from a Mac. My dislike of the platform is based on using it and developing for it.

    14. Re:yes, let's be honest by speedtux · · Score: 1

      Most of the code in question is tremendously useful for running Linux as a server in a mac client environment. This is not trivial or insignificant to my mind.

      It's self-serving, in the sense that it supports Apple's business interests and nobody else's.

      Regarding Apple's contribution with Objective-C, they did much more than the bare minimum.

      Really? Like what? They haven't even released their core Objective-C runtime, let alone any useful libraries.

      Objective-C in gcc is well-maintained and AFAIK Apple is still contributing.

      Apple doesn't have a choice in the matter. Furthermore, Objective-C is largely useless to anybody on other platforms.

      Your assessment of Apple's outsourcing politics is correct up to a point : all US companies are also outsourcing like crazy.

      Apple isn't just outsourcing like other companies, they are in a class by themselves. Look at their financials and compare them with companies like HP or IBM.

    15. Re:yes, let's be honest by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

      Damn, I just wrote pretty much the same post... Great minds think alike, huh?

      --
      I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
    16. Re:yes, let's be honest by prockcore · · Score: 1

      - None of these offer an easy way for non-technical users to download and install applications on their phones.

      The providers do. Alltel has the Axcess store which is just like the iTunes store, selling ring tones, themes, and apps/games.. only the Axcess store has been around for over 5 years now.

  59. alternatively... by commodoresloat · · Score: 1

    If you had bought it in the early 80s when things were looking good and sold it all in the 90s when all seemed hopeless, you'd be too broke to buy any now.

  60. I this means... by grep_rocks · · Score: 1

    SELL!!!

  61. More cash by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apple should have a larger cash reserve than Microsoft by the end of the year too.

  62. time for a windfall tax? by moracity · · Score: 2, Insightful

    anyone?

    how dare a company make record profits!!

  63. Sell? by CopaceticOpus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I had Apple stock, I would sell. They have executed amazingly well over the last decade, but they also got lucky. With portable music players, Apple was at the right place at the right time and got out ahead of everyone. Will there be another chance like that? The iPhone is doing well, but it faces heavy competition from companies that are much more prepared this time around. With the Air and Apple TV, they're trying to stay ahead, but not gaining much traction.

    Apple's use of slick looking devices and clean, optimized UI gives them an advantage and allows them to mark up prices. However, other companies are going to learn to do these things nearly as well, and then Apple will have to compete more on price. They aren't going anywhere, because they have cash reserves, faithful customers, and they do make fine products. But I think they've peaked.

    Then again, perhaps I'll look back at this post in 10 years and laugh, as Apple's valuation approaches $1 trillion and they buy out an ailing Microsoft...

    1. Re:Sell? by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      If I had Apple stock, I would sell.

      If you weren't in it for the long term you should have sold when they spiked at over $200 last year. A lot of people did.

      They have executed amazingly well over the last decade, but they also got lucky.

      Turning around their Mac business with OS X was the first one. The iPod was the second. The iPhone is pulling the cash in again. How many times do they have to get "lucky" before you suspect maybe they have a good team and a repeatable strategy for selling tech?

      The iPhone is doing well, but it faces heavy competition from companies that are much more prepared this time around.

      The iPhone looks on track to grab 1% of the market and BestBuy just announced they'd start carrying them, with most analysts figuring that will push them well beyond. I don't think there is a lot of doubt that smartphones are a big growth segment of the cell phone market and Apple is almost certainly going to grab a good chunk of that. Mac sales are slowly and steadily increasing as well and also pulling in the cash. I side with the analysts on this one, Apple is going to keep going up for a while here.

      Apple's use of slick looking devices and clean, optimized UI gives them an advantage and allows them to mark up prices. However, other companies are going to learn to do these things nearly as well, and then Apple will have to compete more on price.

      I'd like to think other companies will manage to put together teams that can consistently focus on overall workflow and making things "just work" but historically it hasn't happened much. People focus on only one of a few of the vital elements and they fail. Many will focus on a clean UI and industrial design, but neglect the optimized services, or lose focus on keeping the applications within acceptable parameters. Many more will focus on bullet point features and price as has been the traditional case. Some will neglect proper marketing and some will fail to place themselves where they have enough leverage to keep the phone companies from undermining them.

      It takes a certain genius to put everything together in one package and still be agile enough to avoid being crushed by the cartels and monopolies who will present you with short term gains at the cost of long term viability, and realistically most executives (especially americans) these days don't care about the long term.

      But I think they've peaked.

      There will be peaks and troughs, but it will take a real change to prevent Apple from continuing to grow. Jobs retiring, or MS or the RIAA pulling the rug out from under things, or some other major change or disruptive technology. It certainly could happen, but Apple seems a good bet for growth for a while yet, IMHO.

    2. Re:Sell? by jessedorland · · Score: 0

      Well, my Babylon 5 friend you are not wrong in your assessment. If you think about it, apple is rising for one reason only -- iPod. Apple represent their products as "fashionable" now problem with fashion is they fade away in near future. sooner or later people will get sick of everything label with "i". Now right now they are like Sony version of Walkman, sooner or later they will lose just as Microsoft is losing its customers over Vista.

      --
      Even veals have more autonomy!
  64. Re:Nine year old by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    iMac? can't even update flash, or anything else.

    Everything you say in your post has no merit, based on this one line. Yeah, so tell me, a professional Flash developer, how I'm not able to update Flash on a Mac? Speaking of not being able to update "everything else", maybe it's time you updated your rhetoric?

  65. Apple is no longer a computer company by blair1q · · Score: 1

    Apple is doing well because it is no longer a boutique computer company.

    It now uses Intel CPUs and Linux operating systems, and it sells cell phones.

    Apple has grown by becoming a different company.

    Essentially, Steve Jobs shut Apple down, gave the money back to the shareholders, then asked them to invest in a new company with the same name and address.

    1. Re:Apple is no longer a computer company by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Apple is doing well because it is no longer a boutique computer company.

      Apple turned its fortunes around long before they started selling anything other than Macs. First it was focusing on the home market with the iMac, then OS X and things really changed. Apple has since diversified into iPods and iPhones, but Macs still bring in most of the money and are still a growing business for them, not a shrinking one.

      Apple has grown by becoming a different company. Essentially, Steve Jobs shut Apple down, gave the money back to the shareholders, then asked them to invest in a new company with the same name and address.

      I disagree. He took what they had from Apple and what they had from Next and combined them to play to their strengths. Then he evolved that in whatever way he thought would bring in the dough in the long term. It worked and along the way the iPod was a happy success they managed t duplicate for the cell phone.

    2. Re:Apple is no longer a computer company by peektwice · · Score: 2, Informative

      BSD based operating systems, like OS X and Darwin are not Linux.

      --
      Other than this text, there is no discernible information contained in this sig.
  66. Who else will win / who could you live without? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But who will supplant them? They've been the best since around 2001, and that's a long time in the online space. Do you use any other websites from 2001? For me it's only google, cnn, and slashdot that survive from that era, and slashdot definitely isn't top dog in the discussion space anymore (base solely on eyeballs). There's an endless parade of "google killers", and every single one fades into obscurity, because they universally suck. Yahoo is the only one to really compete, and they don't have the resources to make a push for #1. The only way I see google getting supplanted is if microsoft buys up a search company with better tech (not yahoo), and uses their resources to push it up to google's scale and speed, and maintains a lead long enough for many people to switch. It's possible, but I'm not holding my breath.

    An interesting experiment btw: Go a week without using any apple products, or a week without using a google products. The latter would be *way* harder for me.
    * I used to have a mac laptop for work but it died at less than a year old, so now I'm back to more reliable thinkpad hardware (at least for me in my 10 years of using them). I didn't buy an iPhone because I'm waiting for a truly open phone (openmoko, android, or something), and in the meantime I'll use something that's small and good as a phone. My mp3 player was bought back with apple's products had inferior sound quality (nothing marketing couldn't overcome), and it still works fine.
    * On the other hand, I use google and gmail many times every day. Any time I dabble with another search engine (cuil anyone?) I'm reminded just how good google is. I've given up an any other webmail due to spam. It's hard to live without those products. I also use scholar a fair amount.

    Of course, comparing these companies is very much and apples-and-oranges thing, since one is a consumer electronics company (I doubt apple computers don't make nearly as much profit as the ipod/iphone), versus a web service and advertising company.

  67. Hilariouser... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    ...and hilariouser. XD

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  68. Mkt Cap Today: GOOG 159.1B AAPL 158.8B by essinger · · Score: 1

    I am the only one who noticed this story isn't even accurate anymore???? Maybe the editors could just cut and replace the company names in the headline.

  69. Yeah let's be honest not Wintel zealots... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The "overpriced Apple laptops" meme is so 1990s. Today they are the new (non-Lenovo) Thinkpads. You really are getting what you pay for. (And OS X on top of that although I use Windows on my Macbook for work.)

  70. WTFBBQ by MattW · · Score: 1

    I can't imagine what someone is thinking when they moderate this tripe as insightful. No one can "make" wealth? Wealth is value.

    What is more valuable to you: food, or a pile of carbon/nitrogen/etc atoms? When we grow food, we're just using tools and knowledge to "move reality around", so we're not really "making" anything, right?

    Wrong, obviously. This is the very nature of "value added". Wealth is not a zero sum game. They "moved stuff around" to make computers 40 years ago. And it was more stuff. Were those rooms filled with hot, vacuum-tube using computers better because they had more "stuff"?

    And to top it off, the Second Law of Thermodynamics only applies to closed systems, which the planet is not, and no one has shown the universe to be either.

  71. noob. by MattW · · Score: 1

    3.5B ending in the trailing 12 months ending september 29, 07.

    But in the 3 quarters since (ending 12/29/07, 3/29/08, 6/28/08), Apple has already made 3.7B, and they still have a quarter to go.

    That type of profitability with that type of growth comes at a premium, especially when people see upside. That's why XOM (Exxon-Mobile) has a 400B market cap despite over 40B in profits in the last year - because people see Apple's star rising and see the possibility that Apple will supplant Microsoft-based PCs as the de facto computing choice, and the possibility that Apple could devour huge amounts of market share from Nokia and RIM with their phone, and continue to grow their media empire as the place of choice to sell digital content.

    On the other hand, people look at XOM and see a bloated giant, dependent in many ways on leases it holds in a myriad of foreign countries, selling a product which has clearly jumped the shark. It's not a question of if the world moves away from oil, just when and how fast. It's the same reason VCs aren't funding oil services companies but are pouring money into green tech - because we know how this ends. If there is to be anything left of civilization, it won't have XOM in it. (At least, not as an oil company of any size)

  72. How about... by denzacar · · Score: 1

    iPhoned?

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
  73. RE: Dell by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well it's easy to see why Dell would make that comment: Dell is primarily a PC vendor. At the time that statement was made... Apple was a collosal failure in serious danger of going under.

    Even now, how much of that market cap can be attributed to their computer sales? I would say most of that market cap is due primarily to iTunes, which itself was due to them leveraging their monopoly powers in the MP3 player market... to say nothing of Apple violating the terms of their long-ago court settlement with the Beatle's Apple Music.

  74. There is something to Apple's UI by theolein · · Score: 1

    I'm a Mac user. I'm on a Mac right now (Mac Pro tower dual quad core, and I love this machine). I have a Lenovo T61 with Ubuntu 8.04 and XP next to me, and I dual boot on my Mac to play games in Windows. I also work all day on Windows.

    Today at work, I was testing a CalDAV syncing software to sync Outlook with Apple's iCal server. The $45 application was written in VB by someone who thought that having things like 14 tabs in the interface and switching views form one tab to another by selecting a checkbox would be good ideas.

    It is an example of many Windows shareware apps that simply don't follow any worthwhile guidelines. I have yet to see a Mac shareware as bad as this.

    1. Re:There is something to Apple's UI by E+IS+mC(Square) · · Score: 1

      I have yet to see a Mac shareware as bad as this.

      Try Quicktime.

    2. Re:There is something to Apple's UI by slarrg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like quicktime on the Mac quite a bit more than I like Media Player on a Windows box. Quicktime on Windows is just a clash of different cultures.

    3. Re:There is something to Apple's UI by rhyre · · Score: 1

      Open Source, by itself, doesn't guarantee usability, or reduce code bloat.
      I've found that most companies producing extremely usable software have a culture that supports it, combined with staff members dedicated to usability efforts. In Apple's case, it helps that Steve Jobs is very focused on usability.
      But usable software has to be publicized.. What software reviewers call out usability in a separate rating alongside other factors such as performance, features, and documentation?
      MacWeek did this 15 years ago, but then got absorbed into a series of mergers, never to been seen again.
      Amazon still has separate ratings for toys, based on fun,durability and educational value

  75. Dell by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    It's amusing that Apple now has just about enough cash on hand to be able to cut a check for a controlling interest in Dell.

  76. Re:Well let's just be fanboys here by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    - They attract wimpy fanboys like you to 'lecture' people.
    - They censor their own forums.
    - They create incredibly crappy hardware.
    - They create increasingly crappy software.
    - They deny serious issues.
    - They say things like 'behaves correctly' and 'works as designed'.
    - When people know they're full of shit.
    - Years later they silently tacitly admit they were wrong.
    - They are secretive when it comes to security.
    - Their security response times are the worst in the industry.
    - AppleTalk is a joke and an engineer's nightmare.
    - Finder is the most pathetic file manager ever seen.
    - HFS Plus is the most ridiculous file system ever seen.
    - The Woz says Apple make the crappiest software he's ever seen.
    - They are only hype. That's all.
    - They took a totally brill system (NeXTSTEP) and ruined it.
    - They did this because they have your mindset.
    - They did this also because they are colossally stupid.
    - Their 'Mac OS X' system today is a total mess.
    - They're incapable of fixing what they've messed up.
    - They muzzle all their employees.
    - You don't see Apple employees blogging or talking to the press.
    - They did a bait and switch on iTools.
    - They censored anyone complaining about that bait and switch.
    - Their iTunes 2.0 hosed people's complete hard drives.
    - It did this because Apple didn't even test their install script.
    - They didn't run it a single time.
    - They couldn't have - it would have hosed their computer.
    - Their first Safari (build 48) hosed people's computers too.
    - They've never owned up to this but the users know - they have proof.
    - They snuck a new 'build 48' onto people with a different MD5.
    - They never said a word. Hyatt has his muzzle on.
    - Safari is the stupidest browser ever.
    - Their software crashes with the dumbest bugs because they don't test.
    - They totally dick their customers - don't honour warranties.
    - They tried to hide design flaws in laptops - the Danes found them out.
    - They have a horrible corporate cult.
    - They don't play well with the rest of the industry.
    - They don't share.
    - They insist on a hardware lock-in.
    - They put limericks in their kernel begging you to not steal. That's pathetic.
    - They have the most unpleasant fanboys in the world.
    - They have the likes of John Gruber and John Siracusa. Barf.
    - John Gruber is hated by the security community.
    - John Siracusa is embalmed.
    - They totally dicked over David Maynor and Jon Ellch.
    - This was outright character assassination.
    - They count on you being stupid and not knowing any of this.
    - They don't create great user interfaces - they get them from others.
    - When they get the interfaces from others they ruin them.
    - Sir Tim Berners-Lee did NOT choose a Macintosh to invent the web.
    - They dicked over all the third party NeXT software developers.
    - They leave security craters open for years and just ignore them.
    - It's easy to hack Apple because nothing is ever up to date.
    - The iPhone runs everything as root.
    - Apple were given Unix and on the iPhone reduced it to Windows.
    - That takes a special caliber of stupidity and arrogance.
    - Steve Jobs surrounds himself with sycophants.
    - These sycophants are such butt lickers they even dress like him.
    - And wear two day beards like him.
    - They try outright to look like him.
    - That's the 'free thinking' in the land of 'think different'.
    - Apple: the most fascist company in the world.
    - They dicked people over with the iPod battery until the Oneistat brothers...
    - They dicked people over who had Bridget Riley lines.
    - Their initial Intel laptops are the worst the industry's ever had.
    - They have the world's most repulsive blogosphere.
    - They don't even try to sell to the enterprise.
    - They say they won't turn enterprise clients away. Wow how big of them.
    - But they will not encourage enterprise clients or offer them special support.
    - That's stupid.
    - They survive only as long as th

  77. Apple large % of NDX by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not the the Nasdaq 100 is that great of an index, but I wonder how much of the run up in Apple's stock comes as a result of a positive feedback loop of people trying to replicate that index. The problem is that Apple is a disproportionately large percentage of the index - 13.1990% as of yesterday.

    http://www.nasdaqtrader.com/Dynamic/PublicIndex/IXNDX_dnld.txt

  78. Apple's King Midas by extract · · Score: 1

    Steve Jobs is Apples King Midas, almost everything he touches turns to gold: iMac, iPod, iPhone MacIntel, Final Cut, iTunes Store and in fact most everything, he rarely sets his foot wrong and when he does, as with Cube, he learns from it. iPhone 1.0 wasn't a runaway success, but v. 2.0 is a resounding success. The Apps store selling software to iPhones, yet another perfect hit. Bottom line is, without Steve Jobs, Apple would at worst be bankrupt today and at best be as little worth as Dell! Bottomline is, that Steve Jobs makes all the difference, of cause aided by very talented people like designer wiz Jonathan Ives, but Jobs is a visionary genius, who excels in so many areas and under his leadership Apple has moved out of the little Mac niche and into niches such as MP3 players, smartphones, digital music and film downloads, it all contributes to Apple's bottomline and the continued health of Apple.

  79. no NPV please! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I walked out of the Corporate Finance final exam and got on the GO bus. Opened Slashdot to clear my mind and lol this article is full of stocks, dividends and NPV! Tough luck.

  80. Re:Google by rootooftheworld · · Score: 1

    *fixes aim acordingly*

    --
    I know full well that tobacco is bad for you, so I smoke weed with crack
  81. Econ 101 by johnnymar · · Score: 1

    Why all the fuss? It's Microeconomics 101. People buy products they like and value according to their tastes and preferences, subject to the money they've allocated to those scarce resources (re: the money they have to spend). With all the Apple haters and "profit-monger haters" below, take a lesson in simple economics. It may sound like a syllogism, but if Apple weren't meeting the needs of consumers, they wouldn't continue to post record earnings. Score one for the free market.

  82. Dell is Linux Friendly by jessedorland · · Score: 0

    Can we say same about apple? I install Linux on my Mac, and it couldn't even read ext3 format even those it is running on unix kernel. Go figure.

    --
    Even veals have more autonomy!