Apple Market Cap now over $300 Billion, second only to

[alfredo]

Exxon. Remember when Microsoft was ready to crush Apple, and Michael Dell suggested Apple shut down and return investor's money? Apple passed Microsoft early last year, and Dell is losing value. The more conservative companies were unwilling to take the risks Apple took, and now are eating their dust. You may hate Apple, but you must concede that they are doing something right. Think of what the computer/consumer electronic field would be like if not for the disruptive technologies out of Apple*.

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/03/apple-surpasses-300-billion-in-market-capitalization/




*I also like what Panasonic, Olympus, and Sony are doing with compact interchangeable lens cameras. They have put new life into the market. Before you either had to have a big, heavy DSLR, or a point and shoot. Now, because of the micro four thirds out of Panasonic and Olympus, the large sensor (APS-C) NEX out of Sony, we have compact cameras that deliver near professional results. Samsung has some very nice small large APS-C sensor compacts too.

[cbdo2007]

1. and everyone on DU will still think it's a "scam" and a bad investment.

[gateley]

3. Really? How come? I sure don't. My best friend has stock in it (the only

stock he has) and he's a believer! It reminds me of when another friend of mine had Amazon stock and daily it was jumping, I'd call and say "Lorien, have you gotten your Lamborghini yet?".

I'm a big Mac fan (snob) regardless of the stock prices.

And DUers don't think in a block, so "everyone on DU" never fits - as evidenced by all the fighting!

[cbdo2007]

12. ha ha, you got me there. I know everyone on DU is not the same....

but it just seems like anything stock/finance/economics/successful-company related are quickly boiled down to them being a "scam" or something.

I'm not a Mac fan at all. Don't even own one Apple product and never have...but I've got some Apple stock and it is NICE!!! ;) ($$$)

[gateley]

19. He's hoping for a split -- do you know if that's what historically happens when

a stock gets this high? Is that what you'd like to see happen?

And I'm always puzzled by people who aren't Apple fans once they've tried one. I got my first Mac about 8 years ago, a laptop, even though I was perfectly happy and proficient on Windows. They had signs in the Apple store about classes to learn how to convert from a PC to a Mac, the IT people at work were telling me "gateley you'd better have us come over and we'll help you learn this" - so I was a bit nervous. But I swear, I plugged it in and away I went - it's so intuitive. And when you click HELP you actually get solutions you can understand. :7

Anyway, to each his own and I'm very happy for your smarts in overlooking your personal preferences to buy a good performing stock! :hi:

[Statistical]

21. It is unlikely AAPL will split.

Historically companies would split to keep average share price between $10 & $50. Over the last decade or so it is in vogue to never split a stock and thus create some impressive sounding prices.

Splits have no real meaning. They use to be common now they aren't. In the end 5x $50 shares is worth the same as 1x $250 share.

[gateley]

24. Thanks for the instant mini- education! I'll let my friend know. nt

[ProfessorGAC]

25. Splits Were Also Common. . .

. . .when a company held significant shares of treasury stock. By splitting, they could raise cash for expansion by selling off shares and more easily control the dilution of ownership. You have to be careful about the total spending, because if you sell 5 millions shares at $50 or 2.5 million shares at $100 it's the same amount of money and same impact on dilution.

And, sometimes splitting is a way to liquidate shares that were treasuried at a pretty low price and then sold off in small parcels to increase overall cash position.

BIg companies used to do this a lot, but analysts don't look at cash position like they used to (they still look at cash flow carefully), so this is a less useful strategic measure than it used to be.

There are case studies where a company split at $80, so they could sell 10% of treasury at half-price, increase cash position, and the increased position would push the stock up 3 or 4 % in a week.

I don't think that's anywhere near as likely to happen like it did in the 70's and 80's.
GAC

[cbdo2007]

35. As long as Google is at $600 per share - Apple won't split.

These days a high stock price is something to be proud of. My viewpoint is that if the stock is going to keep going up, it will do so regardless of a split. Splits don't make it go up, company performance does, so I really don't care either way. :)

As far as computers in general - just different strokes for different folks. I've learned that my brain doesn't work the way that "intuitive" computer programs want it to work, so I would probably just be frustrated by the change. Windows has always worked just fine for me, even Vista, so I've never really had any reason or incentive to switch. Unfortunately I'm not always smart enough to overlook personal preference, as my HP stock isn't rising as quickly as I would like, but I try to do my best. :)

[fatbuckel]

7. Smart money is on the better built product in a down economy. It`s called a "wise investment".

[emulatorloo]

2. Dell should have kept his mouth shut. (KARMA)

I remember thinking at the time he made those statements that it was illadvised.

[alfredo]

40. They should have been paying attention to what happened

when RJR Reynolds became the public face of the tobacco industry. Their bellicosity brought even more heat down on the industry.

moral of the story:

Don't be a jerk in public.

[whoneedstickets]

4. Apple's success stems from the same thing that makes all luxury brands successful

growing income inequality.

$2K for a laptop is chump change for the top % of earners, its not for average folks who can get equivalent performance from an $800 Dell. But even that is too much for most, so Dell suffers too.

edit to add link:

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/FindHotStocks/luxury-goods-stocks-are-flying-high.aspx


Actually, this suggests the possibility of an even more 'upscale' computer brand that could supplant apple. Investors? are you with me?

[onehandle]

5. Yes, it's only millionaires that buy Apple products.

All the customers that pack Apple Stores all day long are millionaires. You can't even get in unless you show your Swiss bank account's bankbook.

They have a special room in the back for the billionaires who don't want to mingle with the riff-raff millionaires out front.

[whoneedstickets]

32. No, But I doubt many in the bottom 3 quartiles of income by Mac PCs

Apple has lots of revenue streams

[Johonny]

41. IDK

prestige items tend to be highly desired by bottom 3 qrts. Having an iphone = status symbol. Thus you see many in that sector with iphones. Just like they use to buy Air Jordans in the 90s. I don't disagree with you that Apple products have become so successful due more to their perceived prestige value than their actual real quality. That value was driven by a) Apple being ahead of the curve in marketing and time to market b) the success of prestige items in general in the Bush and current economy.

[PBS Poll-435]

58. I like my iPod Touch, but I would never buy an overpriced Intel (PC) box

Just cuz it is pretty.

When Apple starts to use other chips, then maybe I might jump.

[alfredo]

11. Sure, let another desktop company jump in. Great idea when

it appears the market is going mobile. My sister is retired and on a fixed income. She just bought an iPad and loves it. She also has an iPhone. Her husband is going to buy a MacBook soon. She was a PC user for over a decade. They are retired and are not rich.

My sister said the iPad does everything she needs. She's 70 years old.

A $2k laptop is near the top of the line. The MacBook goes for half that at $999.

I'm also retired and found the Mac Mini well within my price range. I've had it for several years and it is a good solid performer. They now start at $699.

[proud2BlibKansan]

90. You can get an iPad for $500.

Best laptop I have ever owned.

[gateley]

60. Many people, myself included, buy Apple because we like the performance and

ease of navigation. "Upscale" has nothing to do with it. I recall when Acers were considered upscale (the first black monitor I ever saw) but it was the same old PC -- no different than the boring beige ones. I wouldn't have paid the extra money for one. With Apple, I feel like I'm getting something for that extra money. :shrug:

[Art_from_Ark]

61. $2K for a laptop?

Here in Japan, suggested retail price for a MacBook starts at around $1000, although it can often be purchased at a lower price at a computer store.

http://store.apple.com/jp/

[Atman]

70. Same price here, but the haters here like to exaggerate

Pretty typical for a Mac thread..."They MUST cost the same as Lamborghini's! I can build my own computer that's EXACTLY LIKE A MAC, out of old shoeboxes and a window fan and it will only cost me $27! Apple SUX!"

LOL. It never gets old.

.

[MadHound]

64. Actually, it is smart consumers who are capable of looking beyond the price tag

And judging how well the product performs over the long haul.

I'm not a rich person by any means, but over the past sixteen years I have bought two computers, both Macs. The first, a Power Mac 6100, I used for nine years, and the only reason I'm not using it now is because the processor simply couldn't keep up with the speed and density of the internet content.

I got my current Mac, an eMac, in 2003. It is still running strong, still perfectly capable of doing everything I need a computer to do.

Meanwhile, friends of mine who swear by PC's have gone through at least four computers during that time period, some get a new computer every years. Sure, PC's are cheap, initially. But in the long run they're much more expensive than a Mac.

And let's not even get into how badly PC's break down, burn out, blue screen of death, and suffer from various viruses.

Short term vs. long term thinking, you should try it sometime.

[proud2BlibKansan]

89. Except most Mac laptops don't cost $2000

[gateley]

6. "Think of what the computer/consumer electronic field would be like if not

for the disruptive technologies out of Apple*. "

No kidding! All the phones are now iPhone clones. A friend of mind said he was looking at a friend's Kindle and kept trying to swipe to turn the page.

He made the perfect analogy -- Apple is like the Beatles. Everybody waits to see what they'll do, then jump in and start doing it themselves (he said it better than that, but you know what I'm trying to say.)

Interesting observation about the cameras, too!

:hi:

[onehandle]

9. 'Then this happened'

This is what high-end smartphones looked like in 2007:



Then this happened:



http://www.marco.org/980434663

[gateley]

20. And now so many of them look just like "Exhibit B". They're truly innovators. nt

[alfredo]

31. Once the competitors catch on, Apple has moved on.

[alfredo]

17. I'm a big fan of the risk takers. One reason America has

peaked is because the business community is too conservative. They stopped innovating. Look at what happened to the big three auto makers. They didn't fight back against the Asian car makers with innovation, they stubbornly continued making their father's Oldsmobile.

US bicycle manufacturers sat on their fat asses and allowed the Japanese and Taiwanese eat their collective lunches. It's taken decades for the US bicycle industry to recover. We are now a center of small nimble companies building cutting edge machines. Count the number of American made bicycles in the Tour De France.

Apple has thrived because they weren't timid. They didn't hammer down the the nail sticking up, they promoted him/her. Think Different wasn't just a marketing slogan, it was the creed of Apple's design team.

Sony and Compaq paid attention to design. Compaq's efforts were clumsy, Sony's quite a bit better. HP made some nice looking boxes, but still you open them up and they were indistinguishable from the other commodity boxes on the shelf. Design seemed to be just skin deep. I've never opened a Sony, so I can't comment on the attention to detail on the inside.

Apple plowed money into R&D, whereas other US companies plowed their money into the pockets of their top officers. It didn't matter if the company died, just as long as they could grab a few million more by selling off the assets.

[gateley]

23. Again, excellent points about the car and bicycle industries.

Reading what you say about Sony and Compaq, design just being skin deep, in my mind I'm likening Apple to Bang and Olufsen. I got a stereo system once and asked what the salesperson said everybody asked "but is it a good product?". The designs were so sleek and innovative -- jaw-dropping. This was in 1990 and the instruction manual was like 5 pages total. With large type. :7 Like Apple, very basic, intuitive and sensible. And the sound was phenomenal. So I see a similarity there, too.

[alfredo]

29. That was HP and Compaq. I haven't torn into a Sony computer

to see the design of the internals. The other companies seem to have missed another goal of Apple's design: removing the distance between the user and machine.

Part of the PC's problem was they were stuck with Windows. Windows had a different agenda from the computer makers, so the makers had to share mind space with MS and that "Intel Inside" sticker was ugly and detracted from any design statement they wanted to make. Notice that Apple didn't go along with Intel's marketing.

Yes, I am a fan boy, not so much the products, but how they have played the game. Jobs deserves all the awards he has received.

[DainBramaged]

34. I have PCs and an Apple, as does my daughter

I'm Joe SixPack. What can the $999 Apple notebook do for me that a $499 Compaq/Sony/Dell/Lenovo can't?

[MilesColtrane]

37. Run OS X, Windows, and Linux?

[DainBramaged]

44. Why? So you can claim your computer is better than mine?

I use one operating system at a time. At work, two. And they aren't OSx.

[MilesColtrane]

49. Goody. Here's a cookie.

O

BTW, I didn't claim my computer is better than yours.

You asked what it could that yours couldn't.

[DainBramaged]

52. I can multiple boot any Windows PC, your point is moot

thanks for the cookie but no thanks, I prefer hamburger.

[alfredo]

38. Nothing. The operating system and the integration with

other Apple devices add value. There are elements of their design that enables the user to become emotionally attached to the machine. This pays off in two ways. First way is because the user will take better care of their purchase. You take care of what you like. The second is brand loyalty. T

he Halo effect from their hand held devices bring in new users.

Apple design is all about removing emotional and physical distance between the user and the machine. Transparent keyboard and mice was one way they were making the computer disappear. The OS was designed to be unobtrusive. Nagware is at the minimum.


Think minimalism when looking at Apple designs. This is part of why people are willing to pay a bit more for Apple products.







They also get a consistently well constructed machine backed up with top of the field tech support.

[DainBramaged]

43. Ipods work just fine on Windows computers. I also have an ELEVEN YEAR OLD GATEWAY

I play Dos and Windows 98 games on so your insinuation that Apple users take better care of their possessions is false.

Minimalism, I think it all the time, And PCs offer that too, it's simply that Apple has convinced a generation (like Toyota did their parents) that they can do no wrong and if you don't own an Apple, well you just aren't one of us....




That's a Lenovo Q110. Costs $350. And it is perfect for those who want a minimalist appliance. And Netbooks are the PERFECT travel companion at ONE THIRD the price of a Apple.

The difference between rthose of us on the PC side and you folks who are Apple fanatics is that we don't rub our products in your faces every chance we get, and YOU folks do it ALL the time. You also make a point of putting down PCs when Apple computers use LAST YEAR'S processors and memory and even video cards that PC's used. There aren't any Apple gaming systems available, you're out of luck. So it all comes down to ego, or as you call it style. Because for the money, Apples are as practical as using a Cray to balance your checkbook.

[alfredo]

48. People care of things they become attached to. That is

a consideration when designing a product. I wasn't saying other products are not taken care of, I was just stating that building emotional attachments is part of Apple's design philosophy.

I wasn't saying other products don't have their selling points, I am talking about how Apple has succeeded.

[taught_me_patience]

8. Sell when everybody is buying

and buy when people are selling. The competition will start eating away at apple like a pack of wolves and growth will be extremely hard going forward.

[onehandle]

10. That's almost exactly what Businessworld said around ten years ago.

Apple has hardly done anything since then.

[DainBramaged]

13. If Apple paid dividends like normal companies, this would mean something

people buying stock in Apple without reaping a reward for the company's performance is a huge scam.

[Statistical]

15. Research retained earnings. n/t

[wuushew]

16. Capital gains = scam?

That is a very strange outlook.

[Statistical]

18. In related news owning your own home is a scam because it doesn't pay dividends.

:)

Earnings are earnings. If the company can better utilize the profits to pay down debt, repurchase shares, expand operations, and buy competitors they should. Dividends only make sense when the dividend yields more (via reinvestment) than what the company can do internally.

[taught_me_patience]

27. Gotta take a finance class - Dividends have zero impact to valuation

because investors can create their own "synthetic dividends" .

[Statistical]

28. Plus I prefer cap gains over dividends anyways.

Dividends are forced. You can't opt to no receive them, thus you can't opt to defer taxation. With capital appreciation you can opt to make a synthetic dividend (sell off a portion of stock on a periodic basis) and take the tax hit on your terms.

[cbdo2007]

36. ha ha ha haha....oh great....

another one of these people who doesn't understand how the stock market works.

AAPL is up over 240% over the past 2 years and you're worried about a few dollars in dividends that people are missing out on?!?! ha ha hahahahahahahahaha

[REP]

47. "Those grapes were sour, anyway"

Huh. Taste pretty nice to me, but I bought at waaaay under $100.

[Tesha]

83. A steadily-increasing stock price is another way to reap rewards.

My Apple stock has done far better for me than
my ATT stock ever did. I got in late so I've only
more-than-tripled my money.

Tesha

[Statistical]

14. I own APPL but note market cap isn't profits or revenue.

It is simply a measure of what investors (collectively) are willing to pay for the company.

AAPL (TTM)
Revenue: 65B
Profits: 14B

MSFT (TTM)
Revenue: 63B
Profits: 18B

Aapl market cap is so high because the stock commands a high premium because in the past it has grown very rapidly. Can a $300B company continue to grow at 20%+ per year necessary to command the high P/E ratio. Well honestly I don't know! Which is why I sold roughly half of it at $300 and am holding the other half.

IF (big IF but worth mentioning) AAPL disapoints and fails to deliver the blockbuster growth in the past it will no longer support a high multiple and the stock can easily shed 10% or even 20%. As long as AAPL can deliver the stock will soar but when you are buying a share of AAPL you aren't buying it for today profits (it has less than MSFT) you are buying it for the growth potential.

[taught_me_patience]

22. Market Cap is a poor measure... need to look at enterprise value

Market cap + net value of debt. Aaple has no debt and $25/share in cash. Enterprise value is $275MM. Revenues are $65B... to grow revenue 20% would mean $12B in sales growth. To put that in perspective, the entire DVD/BD category is $13B. Growth like that is insanely difficult... especially when all your competitors are gunning for you.

[alfredo]

30. Cash on hand is important during recessions. It allows them

to weather the storm, and buy other technologies at a good price.

Even during this recession they continue hammering their competition. They are forcing them to spend money on R&D just to keep from falling further behind.

Remember that old saying "don't work hard, work smart"? I think Apple is working hard and working smart. They have never abandoned that insurgent mindset.

[DainBramaged]

33. It's amazing how people are hypnotized by the Apple 'aura'

It's OK that they horde cash, it's OK that they don't pay dividends, it's OK that I buy shares hoping they will continue to grow at unrealistic rates simply so I may make a profit selling it somewhere down the road. Buying other technologies at a good price. What does that do for you the investor? Their acquisitions haven't done much to put money in your pocket.

Blinded by the light.

[alfredo]

39. When you are smart about what and when you buy, it gives investors

more confidence in their investment.

Investors are pretty confident that each product is not an end in itself, but a means to an end. How many people understood that the iPod Touch was the proving ground for the iPad? People who have been paying attention knew the iPod line was where innovations were being tested.

What has enthralled a lot of us has been watching the orderly unfolding of Apple's strategy. What other company has been able to dominate a market sector with only 10% of the market? Apple is fun to watch.

[DainBramaged]

45. Now tell us what the purpose of the IPad was except as a cash cow?

for the Apple lemmings to buy? IPods and IPhones do the same functions (actually, the IPhone does make phone calls), and in a much more compact and useful package.

[Statistical]

46. Wouldn't that be a reason to purchase the stock.

Personally I see little value in Apple products. IMHO they are horribly overpiced, obviously millions of Americans disagree with me but that doesn't change my opinion. However as investor I am on the flip side of that equation. Horribly overpriced = best margins in the industry.

I think you need to look at what are you evaluation:
a) Apple products for your own consumption
b) Apple business model, margins, and growth as an investor.

[alfredo]

53. B is what this topic is about. Apple has played their cards right

and have been rewarded for their smart business moves. They took risks that paid off big time. They've had a long term plan they stuck with. They also had the design team and strong leadership to pull it off. Now they are sitting on tens of billions of cash on hand, and no debt. They got rich by making something of value to the customer.


I used to be an investor, but sold all my stock when bush took office.

[alfredo]

54. The iPad was a new way to interact with the computer. Apple

has been simplifying and shrinking the distance between the user and the machine. The iPad is where they were heading, but it is not the final destination. Every product is a launch pad for the next generation of devices.

The competitors that weren't paying attention or dismissing what they were doing are playing catch up big time. Apple has had a year's head start on them. They have defined the rules of the game. Look at how competitors tried to make iPod Killers, iMac Killers, iPhone Killers. They just don't have the design team or vision to compete.

This thread is about how a company has gone from left for dead to #2 behind Exxon in Market Capitalization. I would love to see other American companies as progressive, innovative, and smart as Apple has been. I think they have been very good for the tech industry. They have kept everyone on their toes.

Did you know that when the iMac was first released, Compaq bought one and had an unboxing and tear down for their design and marketing team. Even the packaging was studied. What they marveled over was the seamless Lexan hood. They also studied how they used the chimney effect to cool the computer without fans.

Later the new Power Macs turned heads because of the flawless Anodized Aluminum case. Nobody else was doing work like that. I'd put it on par with Campagnolo. Now the MacBook Pros are unibody. They are made of one piece of metal, then hollowed out. It's not just the end product but methods used that are pushing the technology.

BTW, Open a Mini and you will see a MacBook.

[DainBramaged]

57. Open a Mini and I saw a PC folded over twice.......

But I can't upgrade the cpu or video card......................I feel about great cars the way you feel about Apple, but Apple isn't getting me a girl to sit on it..... just on line.

[alfredo]

63. The mini is what it is. It is robust enough to do photo editing of

large raw files, and other such duties. It had the specs I needed, so there was no need to spend extra to make it more suitable.

A well cooked meal from my own kitchen worked well at much less expense. I didn't need an expensive car, just an exquisite broth, nicely brown meats, and veggies seasoned perfectly. Any guy can buy a car, but how many can cook?

[DainBramaged]

65. Cooking is a poor analogy. Apple offers little substance and plenty of style

being fooled into buying their products when there are far less expensive and more powerful alternatives, doesn't leave a good taste no matter what the ingredients.


Like I said, Apple fanatics love to tell us how good their computers are, but let's see you play Bioshock on the Mini.

[alfredo]

66. I like the interface, I like that there is no nagware or thousands

of exploits. I like that it is UNIX with an easy, and easy on the eye interface. I like that Apple is a "Blue" company. I like that they are not like everyone else. I like that they design for the user, not the bottom line. I like that they design in a way that shows they know the elements of design. You may not find it important, but I prefer something attractive sitting on my desk instead of an ugly box.

The new Mini is the most energy efficient desktop on the market, and Since Al Gore joined their board, they have cut the number of dangerous substances in their processes and products. Apple responded to Green Peace's complaints and cleaned up their act.

I am willing to pay a premium for a product that I know will give me a decade of service. We still have a 1999 iMac in use for legacy games. My friend is using my old 90's era G3.
the Local Democratic Party is using my old G4 Dual for DTP. It has my old copy PS7 and a shit load of UNIX apps for content creation.

[DirkGently]

67. You mean, the device that is becoming standard in med schools, and hospitals?

... and is, at this moment, being frantically copied by every computer manufacturer on the planet? Like the iPhone before that and the iPod before that? The "Ipad is a useless giant iPod Touch" theme failed about a minute after the Ipad launched.

C'mon. There's plenty to criticize about Apple, and many people justifiably prefer other products, but the "Apple lemmings" thing is just bad Internet yargle bargle. Apple developed the GUI operating system we're all typing these messages on, and the mice we're all clicking. So it's not hype. It's hardware that's often designed better and works better, and it's a little silly at this point to suggest people who like that are somehow delusional.

[Statistical]

68. "Apple developed the GUI operating system" .. "the mice we're all clicking"

Actually neither of those claims are true. They are merely urban legends. Apple invented neither.

The first mouse (was actually named a mouse due to the tail cord) was invented by Stanford Research institute in 1963.
The first commercial mouse (and first to use a ball instead of 2 axis wheels) was invented by the same persons working for Xerox in 1972.

The first computer sold with a mouse in US was the Xerox 8010 Star Information System released in 1980. The Apple Lisa wasn't released until four years later. The reason I said US computer is simultaneously a germany company invented, produced, and sold a mouse in the 1970s also.

The Standford Research Institute invented the first GUI (it was the same team which developed the mouse) in 1968. The system was called NLS and provided a platform to research non-command line interfaces.



The first commercial GUI system was once again Xerox with the same Xerox 8010 Start Information System released in 1980.


There were also numerous popular GUI released by companies simulatenously in the early 1980s.
GEM on Atari ST (1985)


Deskmate on Tandy (1983)


Workbench on Amiga (1984)


Apple first GUI was actually behind the competitors although this did improve with launch of GS/OS in 1986


The rest of your post is right on but the urban legend that apple invented either the mouse or GUI is clearly false.

[DirkGently]

71. Xerox invented GUI. Apple brought mouse and GUI to market in the form we know today. It's no myth.

Edit: That's why I said "developed," not invented. The rest of the world copied Apple's products, not Xerox or Stanford.

[Statistical]

73. No they didn't.

By the time Apple GS/OS system hit the market (1984 for first lackluster inferior product, 1986 for GS/OS) there were a half dozen competitors developed in parallel all of which were influenced (or in the case of Apple significantly so) by Xerox system.

Now MICROSOFT was slow to get on GUI banwagon but the PC worlds was much more diverse in early 80s then it is today. Tandy, Xerox, Amiga, Atari and other developed products similar and many launched prior to Apple GS/OS. Apple offering was not particularly innovative nor popular and remained a minority player. Apple neither invented nor developed either the mouse or GUI. They weren't the first ones to put them together either. They weren't the first one to adopt/invent/develop the WIMP system (windows, icons, menus, pointers). Much of Apple early work was copying others and heavily influenced on Xerox system. The early Apple GUI was an almost exact copy.

"The rest of the world copied Apple's products, not Xerox or Stanford."
Not true. The rest of the world release GUI simultaneously and sometimes earlier than Apple. Apple marketshare, influence, and profits remained niche. In a lot of ways Apple were inferior until really the emergence of OS X and the companies strong and aggressive moves in CE devices (ipod, iphone, ipad, etc).

[DirkGently]

75. When Windows came out, what other GUI operating systems were extant?

The difference, again, is that Apple made these things work. The iPod, iPhone, and now the iPad offer similar examples. I saw people screeching about the iPhone not being "an invention" because Apple did not, by itself, create any of its component capabilities. That's just not how technology products work, particularly in the computer industry. One thing builds on another. Xerox can be credited with GUI, but it didn't come up with what Apple brought to market. Apple's designs work better and quickly become the standard. That's actually a major accomplishment, despite the bizarre need of some to deny it. It was the Mac system Gates was chasing with Windows. It's the Iphone Android and others are trying to ape. And now come the iPad clones. That's all fine -- it's the way things work. But it's more than a little ridiculous to pretend that Apple's success is the result of the power of good looks and marketing over substance, when the rest of the world is consistently trying to copy and adopt its designs.

[DainBramaged]

76. Here, a present for you

[Statistical]

77. When windows 1.0 came out there were a over a half dozen viable competitors.

Microsoft emergence as a monopoly in PC space didn't happen until much later (early 90s) with launch of windows 3 and to a larger extent windows 95.

Now you are just running off on a tangent. I never said ipod, iphone, OS X or any other Apple product wasn't innovative. I own AAPL sotck specifically because I believe AAPL has found a niche and mercilessly exploited that.

I am just correcting your two false claims

"Apple developed the GUI" - 100% false.
"Apple developed the mouse" - 100% false.

I then corrected your updated claim.
Apple didn't invent these but they put them together and everything today is based on Apple work not Stanford & Xerox.
Once again 100% false. Apple wasn't the first, they weren't the best and they weren't particularly innovative in the early years.

"But it's more than a little ridiculous to pretend that Apple's success is the result of the power of good looks and marketing over substance, when the rest of the world is consistently trying to copy and adopt its designs."
I never claimed that, and never backed up anyone who did say that, however that is a strawman. Your two original claims are still 100% false and your updated/revised claim is equally false.

[DirkGently]

79. You're being deliberately obtuse. Apple did develop the mouse and GUI we know today.

You can hop around all you want, but that is the case. The market didn't copy Xerox's design or a Stanford mouse. They aped the Apple products developed from those ideas. Microsoft's DOS itself derived from software purchased wholesale from another entity, yet is credited to Bill Gates. Windows was a direct attempt to make Microsoft's OS work like APPLE'S, not like Tandy or Xerox or anyone else.

The rest of your complaint is inapposite. You jumped into a discussion I was having with another poster who takes the "Apple is for lemmings" position. It's not all about you. Your "strawman" complaint is a strawman.

My point was, and is, that such is a lot of silly Internet Hater nonsense, no matter how much you'd like to drag the conversation into the weeds as to what level of credit Apple does or does not deserve for the various technologies it brought to market, become famous for, and had copied by other companies.

Apple has succeeded by astute design and solid hardware. And yes, innovation.

[Statistical]

80. History doesn't back up your false claims.

You can hop around all you want, but that is the case. The market didn't copy Xerox's design or a Stanford mouse. They aped the Apple products developed from those ideas

Nobody copied Apple. Apple was late to the party. Their fist useful GUI was in 1986 3 to 4 years after every competitor in the space had released products. Nobody copied apple. Apple didn't invent the mouse. Apple didn't invent the GUI.

"Apple has succeeded by astute design and solid hardware. And yes, innovation."
Didn't say otherwise but that doesn't apply to the emergence of the mouse & GUI. That is just revisionist history for fanatics.

Feel free to have the last word to backtrack, evade, toss out strawmen, or lie.

[Tesha]

84. Your dates seem wrong.

The Macintosh was announced on January 24th, 1984.
Who cares when an Apple-II GUI shipped?

And several years before Macintosh, Apple had shipped
Lisa with many of the same ideas already present.

Did they borrow heavily from Xerox PARC? Yes. But as
the saying goes "real engineers *SHIP*!" and far more
people bought that 1984-vintage Mac than ever even saw
a Star. (I used a Star *AND* a Lisa, BTW, and didn't own
my first Mac until the Mac-II series debuted.)

Tesha

[DirkGently]

88. Actually, "History" says Microsoft licensed aspects of the Mac OS for Windows.

Microsoft had worked with Apple Computer to develop several Desk Accessories and other minor pieces of software that were included with early Macintosh system software. As part of the related business negotiations, Microsoft had licensed certain aspects of the Macintosh user interface from Apple; in later litigation, a district court summarized these aspects as "screen displays". In the development of Windows 1.0, Microsoft intentionally limited its borrowing of certain GUI elements from the Macintosh user interface, in order to comply with its license.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Microsoft_Windows

Note, Apple was found not to own the entire concept of GUI, and Xerox failed at the same claim:

Apple had previously agreed to license certain parts of its GUI to Microsoft for use in Windows 1.0. When Microsoft made changes in Windows 2.0 adding overlapping windows and other features found in the Macintosh GUI, Apple filed suit. Apple added additional claims to the suit when Microsoft released Windows 3.0.

Apple claimed the "look and feel" of the Macintosh operating system, taken as a whole, was protected by copyright, and that each individual element of the interface (such as the existence of windows on the screen, the rectangular appearance of windows, windows could be resized, overlap, and have title bars) was not as important as all these elements taken together. After oral arguments, the court insisted on an analysis of specific GUI elements that Apple claimed were infringements. Apple listed 189 GUI elements; the court decided that 179 of these elements had been licensed to Microsoft in the Windows 1.0 agreement and most of the remaining 10 elements were not copyrightable—either they were unoriginal to Apple, or they were the only possible way of expressing a particular idea.

Midway through the suit, Xerox filed a lawsuit against Apple claiming Apple had infringed copyrights Xerox held on its GUIs. Xerox had invited the Macintosh design team to view their GUI computers at the PARC research lab (the story that Apple had given Xerox Board members stock in exchange for access to the research performed at PARC is a legend because the truth is that Xerox did, at one time, own stocks in Apple but they were purchased as an investment and sold later);<4> these visits had been very influential on the development of the Macintosh GUI. Xerox's lawsuit appeared to be a defensive move to ensure that if Apple v. Microsoft established that "look and feel" was copyrightable, then Xerox would be the primary beneficiary, rather than Apple. The Xerox case was dismissed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Computer,_Inc._v._Microsoft_Corporation

The court was correct. Apple doesn't "own" the notion of GUI, but neither does Xerox. But the commercial interface Microsoft chose to license, and to copy as far as it legally could, was the GUI developed by Apple. Saying Apple didn't "develop" the GUI Microsoft was after because GUI existed as a concept would be like saying Sony didn't develop the Walkman because portable cassette players already existed. It's a pretty irrelevant place to split your hairs when you're talking about technological innovation.

So it simply isn't true that "nobody copied Apple." Microsoft did, and went through an entire court battle and a licensing process to manage the way in which it would be permitted to do precisely that. We're all aware Apple copied Xerox first, and the court established GUI itself isn't Apple's intellectual property. But it sure wasn't Xerox's highly regarded, existing commercial operating system that Microsoft wanted to imitate in creating Windows, now, was it? Because there wasn't one. Nor was Microsoft chasing the great popularity of ... ahem ... Tandy computers. ;) Apple was the target, and as far as that goes, Apple's OS is still the target for Microsoft Windows. It's certainly not the other way around.


Setting all that aside, I think it's interesting that it seems like the core difference I have in the approach I see in arguments like yours regarding "Apple vs. The World" is a sort of overweening focus on parts vs the whole. For example, the Iphone was denigrated on the basis that Apple didn't "invent" the smartphone or the touchscreen or wireless web browsing. Well, no, but then again, that's completely irrelevant, given that it was the development, combination, and application of these technologies in a useful form that succeeded so spectacularly, and has been copied so assiduously. As though the utility and efficiency of the end product as a whole didn't matter.

Same goes for this notion that it's somehow irrelevent or unworthy that Apple "developed" GUI and the mouse to millions of desktops, given that they didn't invent those technologies from whole cloth. You don't think Apple is the reason we're using them now? Just seems myopic to me.

I'm going to disengage, because each new post of yours is more vehement and more of full off-kilter insulting talk about "strawmen" and "lies" and so forth, which is exactly the kind of weird anger and seeming personal investment in the subject I was talking about in my first post. I don't want to upset you further.

[DainBramaged]

69. Your "Apple invented the mouse" and GUI is incorrect, so the rest of your response is debatable

Invented by Douglas Engelbart of Stanford Research Center in 1963, and pioneered by Xerox in the 1970s, the mouse is one of the great breakthroughs in computer ergonomics because it frees the user to a large extent from using the keyboard. In particular, the mouse is important for graphical user interfaces because you can simply point to options and objects and click a mouse button. Such applications are often called point-and-click programs. The mouse is also useful for graphics programs that allow you to draw pictures by using the mouse like a pen, pencil, or paintbrush.


http://inventors.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://webopedia.internet.com/TERM/m/mouse.html

And the only record I find is 100 IPads being tested in California for hospital use.

The only apple in 1963 was the one you ate.


(sound of loud buzzer indicating error)

[DirkGently]

72. I said "developed," not invented. Apple brought both to market and others copied.

And since we're talking about Stanford today,

Update: The Stanford School of Medicine just posted a great press release talking about how exactly the iPad will be used for the medical school. Here are some interesting excerpts:

The core goal of the iPad initiative is to improve the student learning experience. The decision to provide the devices was prompted by a desire to give students flexible access to the content that they need whether it is a virtual cadaver in dissection lab, annotated lecture slides and videos in the classroom, or journal articles for evidence-based practice in clinic.
“We want to explore the use of iPads and other technologies to help students access the enormous amount of medical knowledge that is being produced constantly,” said Charles Prober, MD, the school’s senior associate dean for medical education. “Part of the challenge facing medical students, and all doctors, is the overwhelming amount of information. Devices like the iPad may be able to help users access that pool of knowledge.

http://www.imedicalapps.com/2010/07/stanford-school-of-medicine-ipad-incoming-class/

Point being, the tablet computer, as brought to market (again, not "invented") by Apple, is a not a "giant MP3 player." It's being assiduously pursued as useful new device in many areas. I know a med student, and his school requires the Iphone; the new talk is that the iPad is expected to be adopted in a similar fashion. Instant access to medical text and records is a pretty obvious application.

Edit: Just noticed your attempt at a snotty "buzzer." This is the type of juvenile Internet nonsense I'm talking about. What's the need to be nasty and condescending over your opinion? And you're wrong. The products Microsoft and PC manufacturers copied were Apple products. Same goes for the tablets. Apple didn't "invent" that either, nor the touch screen, nor the wireless device. But Apple made it work and brought it to market in a useful, desirable package. Maybe that's the basis for the weird sense of resentment with the whole thing?

[DainBramaged]

74. (sigh) whatever.....

you call my reply snotty? HA. You can believe what you want.

[DirkGently]

78. I believe your theory the Ipad is a giant Ipod for "Apple lemmings" is wrong. So does Stanford.

[Statistical]

42. You lack even the most basic education on investing

Take two stocks.

Stock A: goes up 10% for year and yields 5% dividend. You own $5000 worth of Stock A.
Year end performance: $5000 * 0.10 = $500 unrealized capital gains. $5000 * 0.05 = $250 dividend. $750 total gain

$750 in gains. $500 in still unrealized (locked up in unsold shares). $250 is in liquid cash.

Stock B: goes up 20% for year but has no dividend. You own $5000 worth of Stock B. Since Stock B has no dividend you sell $500 worth of stock at year end.
Year end performance: $5000 *0.20 = $1000 - $500 = $500 unrealized capital gain. $500 realized capital gain. $1000 total gain

$1000 in gains. $500 in still unrealized (locked up in unsold shares). $500 is in liquid cash.

Why is stock A superior? You can make a x% dividend by simply selling some % of your stake in stock B at a time and price of your chosing. Given their are tax implications many would prefer to defer that tax obligation.

What matter is the return on equity. How much profit has APPL generated per unit of investor wealth. AAPL return on equity is superior to many companies. If that return is paid via dividend or not is immaterial. Dividends merely provide a cushion when a stock underperforms. AAPL not having a dividend and having high P/E will take a very large hit if it fails to meet objectives.

[alfredo]

26. The IF is a big one. I think if Ive or Jobs leaves, the price will

take a big dive. They are Apple. Ive has the ability to make real what Jobs envisions.

What Apple is doing right is thinking long term. Where they are now is pretty much where Jobs wanted when Jobs returned in the 90's. An Apple employee gave me insight into where they were going. It was content delivery. That was why MS wanted Apple to "knife the baby." The baby was Quicktime, the centerpiece of their content delivery push. They were also pushing MkLinux as a test bed for what was to be OSX. When the MkLinux project ran its course, those engineers moved to Quicktime. Same for the HyperCard developers.

The employee encouraged me to learn Linux and Unix because that was where Apple was heading. He also said that was where Apple employees were going to go if MS crushed Apple. No surrender for them.


Apple has stumbled in the past, but they have such a strong diverse pipeline they quickly recover. I think investors know that and reward Apple.

[alfredo]

56. It was probably a good move by selling some of your AAPL.

The old hats warn us not to fall in love with a stock. Apple's luck or whatever it is, will not last forever.


I got out of the market while I was still ahead. It was fun.

[WinkyDink]

50. Once you add a lens, it ain't so "compact."

And nothing beats film, anyhow.

[alfredo]

51. Depends on the lens. A GF1 with a 20mm pancake or the

Sony with the 16mm pancake are not much heavier than my Canon G10 P&S. The Samsung NX10 with the 30mm is pretty small, same goes for their NX100.

For myself, I don't care if they are pocketable, I just want something light enough to shoot one handed. I do appreciate the direction those companies are taking with small, fast, and light large sensor cameras.

[DirkGently]

91. Agreed. Micro 4/3 is a great innovation. Nikon and Canon are kicking themselves.

... and the recently released Panny GH2 and GF2 are apparently selling out everywhere.

[bemildred]

55. Yet more proof the market is an ass. nt

[Statistical]

82. The market is an ass for raising the stock price of a company who saw profits increase by factor of

10 in less than a decade?

Shouldn't the stock prices of insanely successful companies rise?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

59. I wouldn't be comfortable buying a stock that has been going up so much for so long.

Call it spider sense.

[TBF]

62. I'm not a fan of Apple but lots of folks bought iPads for the holidays -

their products seem pretty popular. I have a dell laptop myself (which I love!) and couldn't figure out how to use the iPod I won at work so I gave it to my daughter. Heh.

[awoke_in_2003]

81. I had the money...

to buy stock in 2000- I am still kicking myself in the ass.

[onehandle]

85. $5000 worth of stock bought in 1997 would be worth over a million now.

Where did I put that time machine...

[DainBramaged]

86. $5000 worth of stock is still worth $5000

It's dependent on splits and dividends and what the actual value is today.

The offering price of MSFT stock was $21.00 per share at the IPO on March 13, 1986. If you had bought 1 share at the offering, you would now have 288 split-adjusted shares. So you would be worth 288 * 27.69 = $7,974.72

Someone who invested $10,000 in the company's IPO would own a stake worth roughly close to $3,000,000 today.


Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_would_100_shares_of_Microsoft_stock_bought_in_1985_be_worth_today#ixzz1AC9eizsl

[onehandle]

87. Zzz.... nt