"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…
Apple becomes the first $1T company
161–170 of 352 posts
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
NT has a lot of VMS roots.
Probably a coincidence, but a lot of noticed that "WNT" is one letter on from "VMS". Mind you, HAL is one letter behind IBM.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hardware_abstraction#Microso...
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
There's a Henry Ford quote that's pretty popular at Apple - “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.”
"If you asked Porsche owners what they'd like to improve in the car, they'd all say more leg room, a bigger trunk, and better safety features. Congratulations, you just designed a Volvo."
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#164Avoided the most taxes in history too!
It's legal to find ways to reduce your tax burden.
Many things are legal. This doesn't mean they shouldn't be illegal. Artificially changing the place where taxes are paid is one of the things that Apple is doing and should be illegal.
Companies like Apple not only use the system but they support it as well. If you want to fix the tax evading think that you will have to fight against Apple along with many other big corp and on top of that with all kind of rich, shady individuals.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, that was a real howler. I really hope he was somehow misquoted, because the comparison literally does the opposite of put something in perspective.
Well, I think it accomplishes that. You need USA to put aside 5% of what it can make in a year to buy Apple. That’s a ton of money!
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#166Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess you missed where that infographic says "inf. adjusted". Regardless of inflation adjusted or not, Dutch East India shouldn't be considered given their rampant use of slave labor. doing a lot of business off of slave trade (pretty easy to make money when you're kidnapping people and sailing them across an ocean then selling them), having a nearly absolute monopoly, and uh... being government backed.
Kind of arbitrary to exclude a company because it uses slave labor or other immoral practices. Your list of giant multinationals would be very short indeed. No textile producers for example except for some tiny boutique shops. No petrochemcial companies at all. No agribusiness. Modern society is built on the suffering of the poor and disenfranchised.
No it is arbitrary to say "nuh uh this company back when was worth a trillion dollars, if we adjust for inflation". Apple is literally the first worth a trillion United States dollars, a currency that did not even exist for the first 190 years of the Dutch East India company.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#167My grandparents bought and still own Apple stock from their IPO. Seems like good news for them.
http://blog.pmarca.com/2013/03/26/unshackle-the-middle-class...
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Apple was the first to lead with this egregious fee. They should be forced to unbundle the fee into optional components, e.g. five components of 6% each, minimum 2 components must be chosen (12%). That would subject each service fee component to competitive quality/demand forces within Apple, e.g. app search, trials/CRM workflow, app distribution. Developers and users can both exert choice on the subset of fees appli…
Before that carriers had much higher fees when you sold J2ME apps on feature phones through thier store.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#169"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…
It should have been a red flag back then if market researchers and the people that hired them didn't see this as a convergence of music player + phone markets; it was the point of the keynote! I remember people complaining then that they had to carry both their phone and their iPod around back then.
The smartphone market was also growing then, and devices like Blackberries and Treos were popular and cost $200+ on contract. I had been using a Treo since 2005, and remember the pain of getting apps on it and getting it to play mp3s or use GPS maps. When I saw the keynote, it was clear it was just the next logical step.
It's weird that Windows Mobile didn't see these trends. Perhaps it was a case of underestimating the general market interest, though iPod's success should have been a strong hint that consumers really wanted devices of this type and were willing to pay. iPods were more popular than Windows Mobile devices even then.
Finally there's just the 'sit down and use it' factor that the iPhone had. Once you played with it, it was hard to deny that it was the future. The fluidness and straightforwardness of the UI was so far ahead of everything at the time. Best I can think of as a comparison is sitting in a Tesla Model S after getting out of your Honda - it's not a question of if, but how much.
At $599 the iPhone was definitely expensive for the time, but any reasonable businessperson could conclude from watching literally the entire history of technology that component prices are always on a steady decline, and there were other levers to lower price like carrier contracts. When the iPhone went down to $399 a few months later it's success was a foregone conclusion - after all, that was just a bit more than an iPod but with way more capability.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#170https://twitter.com/ampressman/status/1025033219803103232
$AAPL needs to be $207.0425 to be $1T company