111–120 of 352 posts
"A $600 phone?! Who's going to buy a $600 phone?!" -Steve Balmer
"... and it won't appeal to business customers because it doesn't have a keyboard"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but an investment in XEM or XRP (Nem or Ripple or Stellar Lumens) None of those is an investment in something with inherent worth. Hence, I'd not call them an investment, but pure speculation.
The worth of a share is what someone will pay you for it.
A "cryptocurrency" is merely worth what someone else is willing to pay (hence speculative).
Good for it. Becoming a trillion dollar company selling quality products people love. Not data mining everything about your life and using it for advertising (Google), ruthlessly destroying competition (Microsoft), or destroying the environment (Exxon). How old fashioned.
We can still complain about their walled-garden approach to software distribution, particularly the extortionist 30% fee and handicapping of non-native apps. Or their kowtowing to the Chinese censors.
And what exactly is the alternative option for them there? They can either follow the rules in China or completely lose all of their business. That is on China, not Apple.
This will be very controversial, especially in HN, but market cap doesn't mean shit. Apple has roughly $50B in revenue and $120B in equity. Most of it's products could be replaced in less than 5 years by a competitor. Market cap is a measure of public trust among other things but not actual worth or value to society.
I’m not sure how you are calculating equity but they have $240B in plain cash. They have so much in IP, and extremely low interest loans.
Market cap does mean something, it’s literally the most meaningful value the world puts on a company
Everyone talks about Apple as the best possible investment, but an investment in XEM or XRP (Nem or Ripple or Stellar Lumens) in early 2017 surpassed all of Apple in its 30 year history. My money is on Google, Facebook or Amazon eventually surpassing Apple though
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We can still complain about their walled-garden approach to software distribution, particularly the extortionist 30% fee and handicapping of non-native apps. Or their kowtowing to the Chinese censors.
The 30% fee is not baseless. Steam charges 30% to be on its store. Same with PlayStation and Microsoft Store. Seems like it’s the standard distribution fee.
I said it was extortionist, not baseless. Of course they deserve a fee. But it's extortionist in the sense that you have no choice, if you want to sell to worldwide mobile users with deep pockets. Apple also forces as many payments as possible to go through their network, and bans apps that try to take payment outside the store if the app does not provide sufficient justification. In fact, they could just probably charge 50% and developers would keep paying them...
> Steam charges 30% to be on its store
Pretty sure Steve Jobs didn't set the 30% price point by looking at the Steam store, lol. More likely it was the other way around and Steam is 30% because the App Store is 30%...
Good for it. Becoming a trillion dollar company selling quality products people love. Not data mining everything about your life and using it for advertising (Google), ruthlessly destroying competition (Microsoft), or destroying the environment (Exxon). How old fashioned.
Sorry to rain on your paradise, but is there something old-fashioned about using "Double Irish"[1] arrangement to evade legitimate taxes too?
[1] https://www.irishtimes.com/business/apple-s-cash-mountain-ho...
"A $600 phone?! Who's going to buy a $600 phone?!" -Steve Balmer
I worked in Windows Mobile at the time. He was just quoting what the best market researchers had told him. We were given a LOT of market research papers with in-depth customer surveys where lots of people said, repeatedly, that they would "never pay money for a phone". If you think back to then, phones were "free" with a 2 year contract. The idea of getting someone who was used to free to switch over to $600 overnigh…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The worth of a share is what someone will pay you for it.
A share is fractional ownership of the underlying company and all it's assets - that is what gives it value. A "cryptocurrency" is merely worth what someone else is willing to pay (hence speculative).