However, over the last 4 years, Apple has grown it's assets roughly 50% per year. Exxon has grown it's assets by about 15% per year.
So, in about 3 years, Apple will over take Exxon for most total assets. Obviously assuming that they grow roughly the same over the next 3 years. Which people have been arguing Apple can't do for at least 5 years now.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, you're not spoiled, are you.
So, >90% of amercians can get >3Mpbs.
How is that failure?
Velociraptors?
Shut up, you stupid, justified shill of a troll.
Did you even read all 4 sentences of the summary?
Specifically the second one.
Hint, airlines don't "screen and question" passengers.
Way to miss my point.
My point was that >90% coverage is not failure.
I'm not sure if you're a troll, or just ignorant.
I'd have to go with hipster.
Well, then the US is covered.
19M people is less than 10% of the nation.
Said the guy who's mom didn't take Thalidomide.
Just FYI, market cap and revenue growth are not the same.
Sometimes numbers can have different meanings!
The only thing that really seems to matter to Apple's share price (because Wall Street can't seem to value it any other way) is cash.
Basically, AAPL = 5x cash.
http://yfrog.com/ese58hp
Fortunately their market cap has grown at about 100% per year for 4 years now.
They'll catch MSFT's inflation adjusted peak before Christmas.
Pretty sure people were saying the same thing 4 years ago. Can't continue to grow that fast, that big, blah blah blah.
IF THEY GROW THEIR BUSINESS AT ZERO PERCENT, THEY'RE STILL MAKING A FUCK TON OF MONEY EVERY YEAR.
Fortunately, they've been growing their business at about 50% per year for the last five years.
True:
XOM's total assets: $329B
AAPL's total assets: $162B
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=XOM
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL
However, over the last 4 years, Apple has grown it's assets roughly 50% per year. Exxon has grown it's assets by about 15% per year.
So, in about 3 years, Apple will over take Exxon for most total assets. Obviously assuming that they grow roughly the same over the next 3 years. Which people have been arguing Apple can't do for at least 5 years now.
It's not that hard to name them, is it?
http://www.ea.com/executives
Actually, sales of iPhones, iPads and Macs are about 80% of gross revenue. US is about 40% of gross revenue.
So, technically, they're trying to ban 32% of Apple's revenues, or about $15 Billion dollars per quarter.
Seems a bit excessive.
Numbers = Sales revenues of iPhones, iPads, Macs
Use of aggressive? The GGP.
Ironic that you're teaching me how to attack when you don't know what you're doing.
Google's personality is one where it doesn't agressively go out to destroy the other party
They just want to take away 90% of Apple's revenue. Not 100%, so that's not aggressive. Right? Right????
How about "tough shit, you didn't plan for the previous 50 years of your life. You don't have a problem, you're just a fucknut."
Is that good enough?
Not sure where this trial is being held, but the first link when googling jury pay in california says $15 per day.
That's less than minimum wage in the 1974 (assuming 8 hr day).
Why? You summed it up nicely.
There's no short term guarantees in the stock market. If you're 70 and need cash, you shouldn't be in the stock market.
irrelephants are the greatest new animal ever.
No, that's the country that will be underwater in 25 years.
I wish I could anything I wanted in broad daylight.
College would be so much more fun.