PetroChina was the first for a brief period back in 2007.
Apple is the first trillion-dollar company in the United States, though.
Apple becomes the first $1T company
241–250 of 352 posts
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#242Earlier 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…
The phones were actually free back then. There was no BYOD discount on any of the major networks. The most I've ever spent on a phone was $200 for a Motorola Razer after damaging my first one before it was upgrade time. Now I use a Moto G4 Play, and it's great. Why anyone would spend more than $200 on a phone unless there is a business requirement (ie, it makes you money) is beyond me.
> Why anyone would spend more than $200 on a phone unless there is a business requirement (ie, it makes you money) is beyond me.
Are you also surprised that people spend over 50000€/$ on a car? The answer is simple: because it turns out that having nice things is nice.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
the tax system should be made simpler... no loopholes (I know it is probably not easy to accomplish, but worth a try) ... because middle class can't afford to avoid taxes like the rich does it.
That's simply not possible. The IRS themselves state that "tax evasion" is illegal, but "tax avoidance" isn't. A "loophole" is the use of deductibles to lower the amount you pay in taxes, that you choose to try to get. For example, you could get lower taxes by "getting married", even if you're just friends you can get lower tax rates, etc. That's a "loophole". Are we supposed to prove they "really wanted to get marri…
I knew that my opinion would not be popular here as most users are pro corporate... but either way, your definition of loophole is wrong
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
On the other hand. I think Google creates way more value for the world, they are just not as good as Apple at capturing that value. Android, Maps, Docs, Gmail, Navigation, Analytics are all (mostly) free.
They're not free. They just don't cost money . Arguably they're very expensive.
And literally billions of people don't have the money to spend on products like that but are able to use them because they can pay with their data, which has no cash value to them.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#245"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…
[deleted]
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#246Is this supposed to be good news? I see lots of excitement in this thread, but isn't having a single company worth so much money a sign that we are, as a society, failing to create an economy that is truly competitive and fair?
We've already got banks that are too big to fail, soon we might have private companies that are humongous to the point of having the same status.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#247Samsung is making much more Operating Income than AAPL. Why their market cap is so low?
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Their walled garden approach is looking smarter and smarter with every EU fine that gets thrown at Google. As an aside: As an engineer, I dislike their walled garden approach; but I love their approach as a consumer. To be frank, most companies have bad taste and poor UX design. Apple doesn't knock it out the park all the time, but their products are consistently good and their design guidelines for iOS apps enforce…
> but I love their approach as a consumer. Quite often anti-competitive actions are beneficial to customers at the expense of other companies.
I'm starting to see a lot of people charging Facebook/Apple/Google/Amazon with anti-competitive behavior, and yet most of the charges (including a lot of the ones the EU charges Google and Apple for) are just normal business behavior. Nobody cares about whether your smaller firm can compete against larger companies or not.
As a consumer, I don't give a damn if Apple is "mean" to your business. Learn to compete better.
If these companies are stopping a better product from coming to the market then by all means lets throw antitrust at them; but if your product is just a clone and/or lower quality product that cannot get users, nobody cares.
Sorry, but learn to compete.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#249Apple is worth $1 trillion in the same way an asteroid hurtling toward Earth contains $1 trillion in precious metals.
Tim Cook has yet to prove he can do more than maximize profits while someone somewhere is working on the thing that'll undermine the source of Apple's value while they're not looking.
edit: generalized away from a specific example because it distracted from the point.
Re: Apple becomes the first $1T company
#250"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…
Marketing probably correct if you asked that question about the current set of incumbents that were out. Blackberry, Palm, and the rest of the phones with keyboards were not worth $600. I think Marketing's failure was not factoring in the new product category that was being defined. Honest mistake, honest miscalculation, and great quotable from Ballmer.