Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple becomes the first $1T company

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 352 posts

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#221

Post by maym86 »

pliny wrote: post #56

>“Apple’s $1 trillion cap is equal to about 5 percent of the total gross domestic product of the United States in 2018,” said David Kass, professor of finance at the University of Maryland. “That puts this company in perspective.” The comparison would be Apple net income (~$50B) vs. GDP, not market cap (which has units of USD) vs. GDP (which has units of USD per year).

It does put it in some perspective. It's a lot. He didn't say they were directly equivalent. You need 5% of US GDP to buy Apple.

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#222

Post by trentmb »

pliny wrote: post #56

>“Apple’s $1 trillion cap is equal to about 5 percent of the total gross domestic product of the United States in 2018,” said David Kass, professor of finance at the University of Maryland. “That puts this company in perspective.” The comparison would be Apple net income (~$50B) vs. GDP, not market cap (which has units of USD) vs. GDP (which has units of USD per year).

A particular years GDP isn't a per year unit, is it?

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#223

Post by xoa »

chatmasta wrote: post #120
losteric wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

No, what gives a share value is that someone else is willing to buy it from you for a certain price. The fact that it represents fractional ownership is why someone is willing to pay a certain price to buy it from you. But fundamentally, the value only exists as long as there is a counterparty.

>No, what gives a share value is that someone else is willing to buy it from you for a certain price.

What the heck? This is absolutely wrong. The fundamental basis of the value of a share is that it results in gaining a portion of the company's profits. The company makes money and then pays some of that out to shareholders. Even companies that make zero money now have shares valued at least in part on expectations of what money they might make in the future.

Sure, humans are obviously not perfect at anticipating and researching and calculating all this by any means. We are not homo economicus either. There is room for irrationality, for misjudgements, etc. But even with all that shares are just that, shares. The actual ownership of a public company is about shares (yes, there can be different classes in some cases). They represent power and returns, even if it's decentralized.

So a share does in fact have an innate value in terms of the actual cash it can spin off for a shareholder and the input to the company it gives them. Multipliers will vary based on risk and future projections and such, but it's perfectly possible to hold a lot of boring stocks that may not grow much but just print money, consistently, year after year with minimal management. This is not at all the same as cryptocurrencies or any pure asset, where what you ultimately get from it depends purely on what someone else will pay you for it.

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#224

Post by Keyframe »

notimetorelax wrote: post #110
crazygringo wrote: post #90

Earlier 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!

Or one USA to build 20 Apples in a year.

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#225

Post by haaen »

Paul Graham in 2015:

It would have been a good deal for Apple's board to give Steve 95% of the company.

Market cap when he came back: 1.73b.

5% now: 33b.

https://twitter.com/paulg/status/674760647767285761

Today, 5% of the company is 50 bilion. Jobs became de facto chief after then-CEO Gil Amelio was ousted in July 1997 (wiki). So that would make an annualized AAPL gain of 17.3 percent, excluding dividends. Even more impressive.

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#226

Post by kodablah »

xenostar wrote: post #114
chatmasta wrote: post #78

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.

> 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.

At least letting us know that they don't like it so at least I know it's against their principles and they might push back in other cases when asked. That they seemed so willing to do it should be the fear, not that they had to (and by the way, they didn't have to, losing all of their business is an option for principled companies).

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#227

Post by com2kid »

scarface74 wrote: post #148
com2kid wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is incredibly true, a huge lesson from the iPhone is that consumers can not tell you what they cannot imagine. Creating entirely new markets takes vision.

They should have learned that lesson from the iPod - “No wireless, less space than a Nomad, Lame”

Don't forget iTunes. Part of why iPod succeeded because it allowed stress free easy access to a giant % of the world's music, all at one constant price.

The iPod wasn't revolutionary in any respect, it was a perfectly executed version of what other people were already doing, that had a huge, incredibly well done, marketing push behind it, with even the smallest detail given attention.

Also the white ear buds were genius. Everyone who used them was advertising the product.

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#228

Post by themihai »

KSS42 wrote: post #38
benologist wrote: post #3

Avoided the most taxes in history too!

Apple is also the largest tax payer also? (according to Apple!) https://www.apple.com/ca/newsroom/2017/11/the-facts-about-ap...

So the mere mortals should be thankful for the little Apple gives them, right? Small businesses competing with Apple should be just fine as well I guess even if they don't have the same tax advantage.

Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company

#230

Post by brandall10 »

coldcode wrote: post #187
mrtksn wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you tell us a bit more about the morale and employees opinions back then? Was there a prevalent theory about what's wrong and how to fix it?

Best thing the CTO did (Ellen Hancock) was to kill the Copland OS project, which then led to the ultimate decision to buy NeXT, which led to Steve coming back, which lead to $1T. Props to her for doing the right thing.

Back in '96 I was an assistant admin for a network of some 100 Macs in a biotech lab.

My supervisor was a die-hard Apple lover, had a Newton, and a fair bit of Apple stock. They could do no wrong in his eyes.

I was a Mac fan (had a Duo 280c, encouraged my folks to purchase 603 clones) but pessimistic about Jobs return. In my view at the time, he had done damage to Apple with the Mac intro and had failed w/ NeXT, even though I was huge fans of the hardware of each. I just didn't think he had the ability to scale a hardware company. I was hoping for BeOS to be the savior.

Nonetheless, it was exciting to see him return as the interim CEO. My supervisor bought a bunch more stock, think it was something like $7/share, and I gave him alot of grief for being foolish. I'm sure he's living in paradise right now, lol.

Post reply on HN