Slashdot Mirror
Apple Becomes the First $1 Trillion US Company in History (reuters.com)
Apple became the first $1 trillion publicly listed U.S. company on Thursday, crowning a decade-long rise fueled by its ubiquitous iPhone that transformed it from a niche player in personal computers into a global powerhouse spanning entertainment and communications. Reuters: The tech company's stock jumped 2.8 percent, bringing its gain to about 9 percent since Tuesday when it reported June-quarter results above expectations and said it bought back $20 billion of its own shares. "Apple's $1 trillion cap is equal to about 5 percent of the total gross domestic product of the United States in 2018," David Kass, professor of finance at the University of Maryland, told The Washington Post. "That puts this company in perspective." The company's fortunes were turbocharged by the launch of personal gadgets such as the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone in 2007. Since then 18 different iPhones have been launched and more than 1.2 billion of the devices have been sold.
Brad Stone, writing for Bloomberg: As critics enjoy pointing out, the company under Cook has failed to come up with another iPhone-type hit. But that's like saying da Vinci never came up with another Mona Lisa-type painting. The release of the iPhone is up there with the founding of Standard Oil as one of the greatest business moves of all time. And while the iPhone has altered daily life so much that no one remembers life before it, Apple has also persuaded customers to embrace other inventions they never knew they wanted, such as connected watches that buzz and beep (to cure the distraction of the phone, Apple says) and wireless dongles that hang ridiculously from their ears.
Apple isn't alone on this mountaintop. Amazon.com, Alphabet, and Microsoft are likely at some point to pinwheel across the $1 trillion finish line, too, and they're almost as good as Apple at manufacturing customer desire. No one told Amazon they needed a speaker they could talk to, or Google a self-driving car, or Microsoft a ... OK, it's been a while since Microsoft has driven civilians wild with desire.
Brad Stone, writing for Bloomberg: As critics enjoy pointing out, the company under Cook has failed to come up with another iPhone-type hit. But that's like saying da Vinci never came up with another Mona Lisa-type painting. The release of the iPhone is up there with the founding of Standard Oil as one of the greatest business moves of all time. And while the iPhone has altered daily life so much that no one remembers life before it, Apple has also persuaded customers to embrace other inventions they never knew they wanted, such as connected watches that buzz and beep (to cure the distraction of the phone, Apple says) and wireless dongles that hang ridiculously from their ears.
Apple isn't alone on this mountaintop. Amazon.com, Alphabet, and Microsoft are likely at some point to pinwheel across the $1 trillion finish line, too, and they're almost as good as Apple at manufacturing customer desire. No one told Amazon they needed a speaker they could talk to, or Google a self-driving car, or Microsoft a ... OK, it's been a while since Microsoft has driven civilians wild with desire.
does NetCraft confirm it??
We can now say, "No one ever got fired for buying Apple iPhones."
...Everyone knows Apple is going out of business (71 predictions of Apple's demise)
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Pretty amazing accomplishment!
Maybe this will quiet the anti-Cook faction.
Oh, nevermind; who am I kidding?
From the MacRumors article (emphasis mine):
Apple has officially become the world's only trillion dollar publicly traded company, in terms of market capitalization, which is simply the company's number of outstanding shares multiplied by its stock price. [...] As with most milestones of this nature, however, Apple reaching exactly a trillion dollar market cap doesn't have too much significance, beyond the vanity of it.
Pretty much sums it up.
Just in case you were wondering...
Strange. I see it listed as having a market cap of $957B with a share price of 206.28 when I Google it. The number shifts slightly as the stock changes price, so it's not just old data. I wonder what Google is missing? Is there another $50B in another class of shares that isn't being taken into account?
That predominantly services the upper class is the most valuable company in history. There's something not right there. It's just not sustainable...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Apple became the first US company to hit the ridiculous $1 trillion mark. An non-US oil company hit the trillion mark about a decade ago but has sense gone way below that.
It's amazing what years of tax evasion can do for a company.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Yes, it should and does serve its user, not data miners and malware authors, and that is why it's so successful. Deal with it, nerd.
As always: Fuck Apple
43.5% ROE. 21.94% ROI. 40% Earnings (Profit!!) growth.
Selling at over 7x BV :-(
And to think that many of us left it for dead back in the 90s! But Steve raised it from the dead.
See kids, Apple is a well run company. Great management. Great capital structure. Great marketing. Great manufacturing. Great supplies chains.
Kudos to Tim Cook and his management team.
When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, Michael Dell famously trashed the company with a killer quote. When asked what he'd do with Apple if he were in Jobs' shoes, Dell said:
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
One could imagine
Pump it to the Moon!
Amazing what profits you can do with high margins on sub-par hardware. Thanks to Apple fan boys that will never hold Apple accountable, and consider "rounded corners" to be a form of innovation
And they can't make new Mac Pro.
Your thinking works in an ideal world.
But we live in a world where only Apple controls the OS of its phones. If you buy something Android, it's up to the company or even the carrier to update your OS.
And then there's the security problems because again we don't live in a perfect world and there's a lot of assholes out there that are out to just cripple your device and steal your personal information.
#DeleteFacebook
What about World History? Did another Corporation somewhere else in the world beat them to a Trillion market cap? Second and more importantly, if Apple who makes some of the most innovative and trendiest electronics products for all of us consumers is now bar-none, the highest valued Corporation in the whole entire world; how do we reconcile this fact with the idea that Corporations are evil and do nothing good for people or their communities?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Obviously, the subject should have been $1 trillion, not billion.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
While impressive, there have been far more valuable companies in history - the Dutch east india company (VOC, the first publicly traded company in the world) had an inflation-adjusted market cap of over 7 trillion at its height.
But that's like saying da Vinci never came up with another Mona Lisa-type painting. The release of the iPhone is up there with the founding of Standard Oil as one of the greatest business moves of all time.
Give. Me. A Fucking. Break. You. Hack.
To keep being successful.
And while the iPhone has altered daily life so much that no one remembers life before it
Just because you were still in diapers when the first iPhone launched, doesn't mean the rest of us don't remember a time before it.
Microsoft is driving me wild with desire for ummm... the best of 35 years! Just one desire: Microsoft, please... shrivel up and die.
And oh, BTW: Amazon, Google, Apple and some others in that bunch. Pretty please.
Agreed. And from the Slashdot synopsis:
"Apple's $1 trillion cap is equal to about 5 percent of the total gross domestic product of the United States in 2018," David Kass, professor of finance at the University of Maryland, told The Washington Post. "That puts this company in perspective."
No it doesn't. Market cap is perceived company value. GDP is revenue. They are completely different things. Basically, something happened in the market and everybody wants to say something important about it, but there isn't really anything to say.
"They are the most successful company in history (at this exact moment)." Tomorrow may be different.
Actually, I would say Standard Oil would take that title. It was at a unique time in our country's and the world's economic development and I don't see any company in existence today anywhere in the World that could ever match its success.
But I would also point out that Apple's valuation isn't unreasonable like Amazon's or Tesla's (Both are priced in bubble territory). Apple is MUCH more profitable than either of those companies and more than likely stay that way. If Apple was valued like those two, it would have a market cap of about $1.5 trillion.
[...] And that's very sad, that such a money-making personal computer happens to be so horrifically crippled and locked in.
Um, HOW is the Mac (you said "personal computer"; so I assume you mean Macs, not iPhones) either "horrifically crippled" or "locked in"?
"Locked in"? To WHAT?!? You can literally legally run more OSes (and even conveniently switch between them using the Mac's built-in Bootloader) on Macs than ANY other computer. You can purchase Applications from anywhere on the planet, and even write your own with Apple's FREE IDE (a Developer License only costs money if you want to submit Apps to the Apple App Store). So, where EXACTLY is the "Lock In"?
"Horrifically Crippled"? Well, since you didn't mention any specific models, it is impossible to know what was in that little pea-brain of yours when you vomited out that Apple-Hating bile; but here's some examples:
1. iMac Pro: Released in December, 2017. Pretty damn nice specs, if a bit pricey (but price != "crippling"). Up to 18 core Xeon CPU (that wasn't even really released when they started taking orders for the iMac Pro; so it doesn't get any "fresher" than that!), with a AMD Vega 56 or 64 GPU that was released about a month before the iMac Pro was released. Up to 128 GB of ECC RAM And with a built-in 5k display, with USB-C/TB3, USB-A and 10GigE ports, plus analog audio.
2. MacBook Pro: Last updated about 3 weeks ago. Up to a 6-core i9 CPU. Up to 4 TB of SSD (the fastest in any laptop!) and 32 GB of RAM. AMD Radeon GPUs that can drive up to TWO 5K external displays, PLUS the internal display. And don't forget the whopping 80 Gb/sec I/O Bandwidth, which can be easily and inexpensively (and non-Apple-specifically!) broken-out into up to FIFTY TWO Simultaneous Ports(!!!), in any one of a myriad of combinations (according to the USER's needs; not Apple's whims), and which can even be changed as the User's needs change. This is REALLY unique. Yes, other laptops have USB-C (and some even TB3); but NONE have Apple's FOUR full-speed USB-C/TB3 Ports. Oh, and don't forget, with the recent Refresh, Apple even doubled the number of cores AND the number of full-speed USB-C/TB3 Ports on the 13 inch MacBook Pro; further "UN-crippling" it... Oh, and I almost forgot: The TouchBar and TouchID (an Application-Configurable, unique touch input/display device, which provides a modicum of Touch control without stealing Screen real-estate) and the convenience and security of Apple's excellent Fingerprint sensor. How is ANY of that "Horrifically Crippled"?
Please explain rationally. I'll wait...
You're on Slashdot, not your Apple fansite. Fuckoff, guy.
So vivid. It's like you were there!
iOS is the personal computer operating system that I was referring to. The specific PC models are the iPhone and iPad (and iPod touch, if that's still a thing).
Though Macs aren't quite as good as they used to be, they still don't suck and more importantly, Mac OS X isn't totally evil like the consumer-hostile OS that Apple puts on their much smaller "mobile" PCs.
What's funny is Apple still pretends to be a computer company. They are not and haven't been for a while. They're a consumer electronics company that also makes a few computers now and then. The near-total innattention paid to the Apple Mac line of computers is proof positive of this. Without the iPhone, iPad, and iTunes, Apple would have died long ago.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Trashcan mac is a nightmare to expand or service.
Apple doesn't have parts for the iMac pro
New Macbook pro has soldered storage, so it's a service nightmare again
Apple has no idea what "pro" means
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Amazing, the power of convincing the dregs of society that your products indicate wealth...
That's a good point. There may be some readers who, for whatever reasons, aren't familiar with what exactly "market capitalization" and "gross domestic product" are.
Gross domestic product, or GDP, is basically the amount of stuff the country produces *in one year*. Apple sold about $22 billion of products in the America's last year. If they made all of those products in the US, that would contribute $22 billion to the US GDP. Most of what Apple sells is made elsewhere, though, so they account for only about $2 billion of US GDP. Remember that's a per-year number, and it's what they produce, not their profit.
Market capitalization, or market cap, is what people refer to as the "size" of a company. It's called size because for mature companies, it roughly represents all of the value that has been built up over the entire life of the company - all the equipment the company owns, etc. It's basically how much people would have to pay to buy the entire company. Contrast GDP, which is how much is added per year. The computation of market cap is simply how many shares there are multiplied by how much each share costs. That's the total value of the company, based on how much investors pay to buy a percentage of the company.
So if I buy a factory for $10 million, and each year it produces $2 million of stuff, minus $1 million for materials brought in, "size" of the factory is $10 million, the GDP of it is $1 million.
I mentioned market cap represents the size for *mature*. companies. For trendy new companies, investors, speculators, and fans buy the stock bases how big the company *might* become in the future. The best current example is Tesla. It's market cap, how much people pay for Tesla shares, make it the "largest" car company in the world. In terms of actual production, the company is insignificant in the auto market. Shanghai GM alone produced about 2 million cars last year, Volkswagen 11 million, Tesla 0.1 million. So their market cap (stock price) is ahead of the actual size of the company by a factor of 100X.
You do realize malware authors write stuff for macOS, right? The only difference is that there are fewer targets than Windows users, plus the average data you'd find on an Apple device wouldn't be worth the effort to break in.
The parent post was about iOS. Learn to read.
nuff said
We really could have declared a victor a long time ago in this age-old debate of "Apple vs. Slashdot"--but $1T is a nice round number so now's as good a time as ever:
It has now been definitively proven that Apple understands technology better than all the Apple-critics on Slashdot (and around the world). Steve Jobs was smarter than you. Deal with it.
Next up. Elon Musk is in the midst of destroying the Tesla haters on Slashdot.
Can we finally dispense with the notion that Slashdot is a pro-technology website? It is so consistently on the losing side of every technology revolution.
Thanks, Steve
Different AC. I was once a PC bigot, but woke up about 5 years ago. The Apple Mac today is the best desktop/laptop available from a user and developer perspective. Its a UNIX OS and offers full development tools of high quality for free. Total cost of ownership is low compared to PC. As a user I only pay for an app once and can then install it on all of my systems. The available apps are outstanding an largely error free, compared to 15 years of experience with buggy Windows. I could say more, but why, macOS is awesome.
Just checked Google Finance and it tells me AAPL has a market cap of $960 billion. A lot for sure but about $40 billion short of $1 trillion. Also looking back the stock hasn't had any recent dips so its currently at its highest. Where is Reuters getting the trillion dollar market cap from?
Say millions upon millions of Americans with no money to spare at all..
Do a bit of background change on the Bay Company and the Dutch East India Company. They in the past were worth more then 9 Trillion so 1 trillion is nice but not a stunner.
History is being repeated, are you ready?
(.)-(.)
But, in the specific, under Cook Apple is mostly just rolling out slow improvements to things they already had, and taking the pointless decision to remove ports and the like. All the while letting other products stagnate.
You mean just like pretty much every other gigantic company out there? How many $100+ billion ideas do you think are out there? And how easy do you think it is to capture them even if you recognize one? When Apple released the iPhone in 2007 they had revenue of about $24 billion. Last year it was about 10X that amount, most of that thanks to the iPhone. That sort of success is usually once in a lifetime and Apple's done it several times and somehow is expected to do it again which is probably unfair.
People talk about Apple not being innovative when if another company released the products they do and sold them in the numbers they do they would be described as a massive success. Take the Apple Watch for example. They sell millions of these things and if it was some small startup we'd think they were changing the world. But because it doesn't really move the needle on Apple's revenue percentage-wise we (wrongly) call it a failure.
Think of it this way. For Apple to grow just 5% next year they are going to have to create more new business than Tesla's entire revenue in 2017. Nobody is accusing Tesla of not being innovative but Apple makes more new business than Tesla's entire revenue and somehow they aren't innovating? Innovations aren't just in the big flashy things. They can be in the smallest of details and improvements.
I'm not sure anything they've done under Cook can be counted as 'innovation', just straight up evolution of a product.
I doubt even Steve Jobs would have an easy time coming up with another idea big enough to really make a difference at Apple's current size.
The universal definition of technology is "a composition of existing concepts into something useful that makes peoples' lives easier or better".
The Slashdot definition of technology is "a set of concepts which are mystifying to normal people but which I personally enjoy; thus forcing those normal people to pay attention to me and providing me with a measure of self-esteem".
Do you think engineers who design bridges sit around complaining that they had to "dumb down" their bridges so idiots could use them without even understanding how they stay up? Nope, in the rest of the world technology is there precisely to reduce effort and cognitive burden on users--but among Slashdot community that's heresy.
The rest of the world is right. You're wrong. You'll need to find another reason for normal humans to interact with you. Maybe start a band.
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The universal definition of technology is "a composition of existing concepts into something useful that makes peoples' lives easier or better".
The dictionary says "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"
It doesn't have to be to make lives easier or better. It can just be to make money, for example. Sometimes you make money through technology by making lives better. Sometimes you just do it through legislation, or marketing.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
That's actually good, except people keep upgrading when their devices work fine.
The 1976 Chevy Impala I drove in high school "worked fine" but sometimes it's nice to get something that is better than what you had before.
They need a new hit, not to try to keep wringing excess profit out of a stable source of income for decades to come.
Do they really? Coca Cola has been selling the same formula for sugar water for a century and they're doing alright. And how many $100 billion ideas do you think Apple can realistically make happen? For Apple to grow just 5% next year will require generating more new business than Tesla's entire revenue in 2017. Realistically they don't actually need a hit product. What they need is for their existing products to remain relevant and in a leadership position in the market. That by itself is going to be a difficult trick to pull off. And if they really get in a pinch they have enough cash to buy Ford, GM and Tesla together and get into a completely different industry if they wanted to.
Even Microsoft is starting to learn this a little bit with Office and Windows 10 - don't ruin something people like or they won't buy it anymore.
You are aware that Microsoft is making more money on those products than ever before right?
Apple is selling addiction. It's not too hard to sell junkies what they're addicted to.
I don't respond to AC's.
And where does commercial viability or popularity come into the definition of technology? Nowhere? Then in what ways does Apple "understand technology better?"
A company that builds a working launch loop also understands technology better than one that builds a playground swing, even if the playground swing is far more popular and the launch loop company goes bankrupt the day after they finish.
Reducing effort and cognitive burden is also not a vital function of technology. If effort and cognitive burden are reduced by limiting function, that can be counterproductive - like forcing a pilot to walk because the cognitive burden and greater peak effort of flying a helicopter is seen as too great. Similarly, this can cause a greater expenditure of effort overall depending on the size of the task.
Personally, the very existence of Apple hardware and software makes my life harder. Its widespread incompatibility with non-Apple technologies makes each Apple device a perpetual problem generator. I dread ever having to interact with any of it. From my point of view, Apple's technology is some kind of bizarro anti-technology.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Universal definitions simply don't exist. The English of 500 years ago and English of today have less in common than Portuguese and Spanish.
You are guilty of being ignorant and spreading ignorance for the sake of hate. A drain on the people you have contact with.
A personal computer should serve its user and do whatever they want, not obey its manufacturer to work against that user. And you disagree with that statement? Fine, you disagree, but this is the type of disagreement where I have to say Fuck You. You're the problem and you should be ashamed. Your attitude is why people are considered to be just things. Yes, it's just a PC, but even so, it's anti-humanist and you're a dishonest person if you claim it doesn't matter.
What if you have more than enough "personal computers" to care for and to play with and just want something for carrying in your pocket that for a change somebody else cares for? What if you think that life is too short to hand-hold every bit and every line of code in your life?
Do you knit your own sweaters? All of them? If not, isn't this "anti-humanist and you're a dishonest person if you claim it doesn't matter"? Or what? Do you bake your own bread? Every day? Come on, tell me.
Poor Gamechild can't deal with diversity is seems.
I bet, like most steaming Leftists, he wants to tell other people what to do.
I bet, like most steaming Leftists, he wants to eliminate those things/people he doesn't like.
You cock sucking Leftists are so predictable.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Aramco
Apple is filthy rich because stupid customers are the best customers.
Don't get me wrong, I am not making jokes about apple. They are cool and simply squeeze every moron for his last cent.
It is theirs customers I am making jokes about.
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair
That's true. I mentioned that "investors, speculators, and fans" can push up the stock price, based on potential future growth (and other reasons).
Part of Steve Jobs great success is that he made people fans of Apple. He turned customers into fans. Fans do things that aren't necessarily mathematically sound, so they drive the stock price higher than logic would justify.
An additonal important reason that I didn't clearly state is that the "future growth" thing can end up compounded by fans and speculators. Many people invest in a trendy company because they anticipate future growth. They think "I think the company will do well, so I'll buy the stock." What they often forget is that "many people invest in a trendy company because they anticipate future growth" - other people have already done the same thing. The going price for the stock ALREADY factors in the growth that other buyers anticipate. The correct question for these kinds of speculative purchases therefore is not "do I think this company is going to do well?" You should buy only if you think everyone else is underestimating the company (or at very least, not overestimating).
Additionally, you shouldn't buy at that price if you think other people have forgotten to compensate for the non-rational purchases by others. In other words:
Investor C is considering a purchase.
Investor B already bought because the think the company will grow.
Investor C takes into account that the purchase by B pushed the price up.
That's good so far.
BUT:
Fan A bought before investor B did.
The purchase by fan A pushed up the price that B paid.
B forgot to consider the effect of A, therefore, B overpaid.
C forgot to consider that B didn't consider A, therefore C also overpaid.
Because Apple has a lot of fans, they have a lot of people buying without into consideration that the expected future profits are already built into the stock price. That means that even investors who DO recognize that can often overpay for Apple stock, if they forget to consider that other buyers didn't consider that.
One way an investor can avoid these traps is to buy based on the fundamentals, rather than assuming that future changes to the stock price will have any relationship to the company's performance. That assumes that the CURRENT stock price, the basis, is related to company performance. In the case of trendy companies, there may be little relation.
if they hadn't built that $1 trillion dollar valuation on the backs of overworked and underpaid Chinese factory workers living and breathing in the pollution from said factories...
Yeah, yeah, I'm a hypocrite because my devices were made by the same abused labor. I get it. But Motorola was manufacturing phones profitably in the United States with the EPA making sure they did it clean and only stopped because it was cheaper to do it in China. At some point if us hypocrites don't speak up nothing will ever improve. Plus I can guarantee that our corporate overlords are eyeing the high salaries of Americans. Global race to the bottom you know...
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I swear I remember reading a headline a couple years ago saying that Walmart had crossed the $1 trillion market cap on one day.
Trashcan mac is a nightmare to expand or service.
Apple doesn't have parts for the iMac pro
New Macbook pro has soldered storage, so it's a service nightmare again
Apple has no idea what "pro" means
Mac Pro was an experiment. Didn't work out so well. Some of that was Apple's fault; some of it was Intel's fault; some of it was the industry's fault. Dead issue. Next Mac Pro will be "modular", according to Apple.
Apple didn't have parts YET when the dumbass blogger DELIBERATELY ruined his iMac Pro about a month after it debuted. It is pretty normal for service parts and documentation to not be available at the same time as a new product launch. Now, if that is STILL the case (which I doubt) that's another matter.
Other laptop computers have soldered RAM and some even soldered SSD, too. It's an industry trend. Get over it. HOWEVER, any decent repair depot these days should have an SMT rework station (heck, you can even buy one on Amazon starting around $60 bucks!), and should be able to swap out a defective RAM chip or SSD module in about 5 minutes.Buy ANY piece of electronic gear made in the past TWENTY years, and more than likely, all or some of the components will be soldered-in SMT versions. Especially as the complexity of the component goes up.
Apple doesn't have any idea what "Pro" means? That's about a damned laugh, and your OPINION, besides! For example: Name another laptop with more I/O expandability than the MacBook Pro. I'll wait. It's not all about the beige tower computers of 1990, ya know.
iMac Pro: Released in December, 2017... Up to 18 core Xeon CPU
That's the best they could do? 32 core Epycs were already out.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
New Macbook pro has soldered storage, so it's a service nightmare again
Good grief.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Other laptop computers have soldered RAM and some even soldered SSD, too. It's an industry trend.
I can see it for cheap shit Chromebooks and the like, but for something called "pro"? It just brings to mind what they say about products called "pro".
Upgrading RAM and SSD is a god given right of the PC enthusiast, sorry. A high end laptop that can't do it is a steaming pile of shit.
Get over it.
That arrogance...
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
> it's been a while since Microsoft has driven civilians wild with desire.
Genuinely curious: If the author calls MS customers "civilians" in this context...what are customers of the other companies mentioned supposed to be?
Methinks someone may have unintentionally revealed what he thinks of the rest of the world.
You have your head very throughly in the sand if you think Face ID is "straight-up evolution".
This is an extremely compact, extremely low-power time-of-flight sensor integrated into a handheld communications device. The implementation is both very ambitious and technically accomplished, not to mention several years ahead of any other company, and it has opened and shoved a metaphorical foot into a door that will be thrown wide over the next few years: AR and VR telepresence, to a degree of ease accuracy that it will thoroughly change the way much work is done across many white-collar industries.
Apple didn't have parts YET when the dumbass blogger DELIBERATELY ruined his iMac Pro about a month after it debuted. It is pretty normal for service parts and documentation to not be available at the same time as a new product launch.
Not for a professional product. Those parts should be available before the product even hits the market. Anything else would be unprofessional.
Other laptop computers have soldered RAM and some even soldered SSD, too. It's an industry trend.
Yes, in cheap crap consumer electronics. Not in professional models, which sacrifice svelte profiles for durability and maintainability.
Apple doesn't have any idea what "Pro" means? That's about a damned laugh, and your OPINION, besides!
That's how they're behaving, and I'm going to judge them by their behavior, not their advertising or the yammering of their fanboys.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
iMac Pro: Released in December, 2017... Up to 18 core Xeon CPU
That's the best they could do? 32 core Epycs were already out.
That's comparing Intels and AMDs. Apple doesn't do AMD for CPU
Apple doesn't do AMD for CPU
So that's lame then. Upcoming: 32 core Threadrippers at 12nm. These home built boxes will be way better than Apple's product. For what, less than half the price? Only an idiot would buy Apple.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I'm really curious, it could be really important!
Who cares if some monetary record is broken? It's got the same impact of the first billion dollar movie turnout. Not news or important, in any way.
There's more people and more money from labor, every day.
This isn't some achievement, it's an eventuality. SMH
Personally, the very existence of Apple hardware and software makes my life harder. Its widespread incompatibility with non-Apple technologies makes each Apple device a perpetual problem generator
I'm sure life would be easier for bridge designers if they built their bridges out of balsa wood--but life would be a lot harder for the people who need to cross that bridge. Do you understand this at all?
*You" don't matter. For every hacker wannabee like you there are 10,000 grandmas using an iPad to Facetime with their grandchildren. They have the numbers and the purchasing power--which is why they matter and you don't.
Your tiny little brain can't process Apple's success so your response is to blame it on mass hypnosis. Yawn.
Thanks!
> These home built boxes will be way better than Apple's product.
> For what, less than half the price?
> Only an idiot would buy Apple.
Only an idiot would think people buy Apple because it's a hardware bargain.
Only an idiot would think people buy Apple because it's a hardware bargain.
So right. Apple hardware just isn't worth it, and the software is crap too, especially the kernel, which sucks for both performance and features vs Linux.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Zimbabwe says $1tn is a pretty good price for one apple.
"Everybody's naked underneath" -- The Doctor
Only an idiot would think people buy Apple because of the kernel.
Only an idiot would think that the kernel is not a major part of performance, smoothness and responsiveness.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Mac OS may have lower benchmarks than Linux (honestly I've never had to look) but every Linux machine I've used has had worse responsiveness and smoothness than MacOS.
As for performance, I'll happily trade a small amount for not having to deal with Linux configuration and maintenance headaches.
My MacBook Pro runs Mac, Windows, and Unix software. It's like having three computers in one. It's worth the money for that reason alone.
The kernel affects a lot more than just performance, stability, memory efficiency, disk performance etc. It is also about hardware support, a serious issue for Macs. And the Linux network stack seriously kicks the tail of FreeBSD. Apple fans should really consider what's under the hood when they buy into that shit, just like a car don't you think?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Since MacOS is rarely used for servers, the throughput of the network stack is largely irrelevant for most users.
XNU is a mature, stable, well-engineered kernel compared to the constantly-shifting mess that is Linux.
Since MacOS is rarely used for servers, the throughput of the network stack is largely irrelevant for most users.
So Mac users don't use networks? Sad.
Now I understand why Apple keeps removing ports: BSD doesn't have drivers for the things that attach to them anyway :)
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
MySpace were big once. Look what happened to them. Same with Microsoft and IBM. You get your 15 minutes of fame in the tech world and the m something new comes along.
You have no hope of curing your ignorance, if you can't fucking read!
Of course you understand that wifi is a network, right? The internet is a network? Or you are one of those one-button minds? (rhetorical question)
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
There is nothing wrong with the Mac's network performance for most uses. Kernel throughput is not the limiting factor for wifi or Ethernet, but you know this.
Kernel throughput is not the limiting factor for wifi or Ethernet
It can be, it depends on protocol and situation. For example, how efficiently does the kernel handle incoming ICMP? That determines how easy it is to take you offline with a DoS attack. TCP stalls are a real problem. I've had an iPad suffer from lengthy stalls on a home network while the Android tablet right next to it kept running smoothly. Some issue with name service? Some packets got dropped? Who knows, but Linux stack has orders of magnitude more engineering work invested in it, issues that come up are tracked down and fixed by hordes of devs. But in MacOS they can live on for years, or forever. Never underestimate the importance of a solid and featureful kernel, or its effect on the user experience.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
I don't think either side is "right" or "wrong".
If some slashdotters need to put others down to bolster their weak self-esteem, that's up to them.
What about:
Abuse of existing popularity in return for profit today at expense of tomorrow?
Microsoft was behemoth and is fallen down when comes competition. Same WILL happen to Apple, just not as fast as most of us would want to.