Apple firmly on course for $1 trillion valuation: analysts - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote=Reuters](Reuters) - Apple Inc’s shares rose to a record high on Friday as more analysts set a trillion-dollar valuation on the company, following a blowout fourth quarter and an upbeat forecast that quashed investor concerns around the iPhone X. The stock rose as much as 3.7 percent to $174.26, briefly breaching $900 billion in market value, amid declines in the broader market. The gains added nearly $32 billion to the company’s market capitalization. The Cupertino, California-based company also forecast a strong holiday quarter ahead, which will include the iPhone X that started selling on Nov. 3.[/quote] Read more at [url]https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-results-stocks/apple-firmly-on-course-for-1-trillion-valuation-analysts-idUSKBN1D315H[/url]

Time to invest I guess

god damn, i legit thought them releasing the iphone 8 and x in a short time frame would be bad for them. wonder how long this will last before it begins to fall or if it will keep going up.

[QUOTE=Pat.Lithium;52853816]god damn, i legit thought them releasing the iphone 8 and x in a short time frame would be bad for them. wonder how long this will last before it begins to fall or if it will keep going up.[/QUOTE] Look at a company like Ford. A hundred years in and still doing strong and have been popular the entire time. Of course they have ups and downs, but I don't think it's a stretch to think a company like Apple could still be a leader in the market a century from now, there's no real reason to think they will fail in my opinion.

[QUOTE=Ajacks;52853908]Look at a company like Ford. A hundred years in and still doing strong and have been popular the entire time. Of course they have ups and downs, but I don't think it's a stretch to think a company like Apple couldn't still be a leader in the market a century from now, there's no real reason to think they will fail in my opinion.[/QUOTE] Same goes for Microsoft and Google honestly. Those 3 will still be around for years

Only if they adapt. 15 years ago barely anyone thought that Nokia and Blackberry would be dead. But then iPhone happened, and changed a lot about what phones should be. HTC, Samsung, LG and Sony managed to adapt, Nokia and Blackberry decided that touchscreen won't replace buttons... and they were wrong. Google, Microsoft and Apple can make a similar mistake and then die. But on the other hand, there is Nintendo, which was founded in 19th century, and always successfully adapted to new times (lets just forget WiiU was a thing, ok?). This is why it still exist, and is very well known.

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;52856126]Only if they adapt. 15 years ago barely anyone thought that Nokia and Blackberry would be dead. But then iPhone happened, and changed a lot about what phones should be. HTC, Samsung, LG and Sony managed to adapt, Nokia and Blackberry decided that touchscreen won't replace buttons... and they were wrong. Google, Microsoft and Apple can make a similar mistake and then die. But on the other hand, there is Nintendo, which was founded in 19th century, and always successfully adapted to new times (lets just forget WiiU was a thing, ok?). This is why it still exist, and is very well known.[/QUOTE] Nintendo has made mistakes before, like the virtualboy but they know how to adapt.

How much of that do they have in material assets though? Isn't most of it through loans?

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;52856126]Only if they adapt. 15 years ago barely anyone thought that Nokia and Blackberry would be dead. But then iPhone happened, and changed a lot about what phones should be. HTC, Samsung, LG and Sony managed to adapt, Nokia and Blackberry decided that touchscreen won't replace buttons... and they were wrong. Google, Microsoft and Apple can make a similar mistake and then die. But on the other hand, there is Nintendo, which was founded in 19th century, and always successfully adapted to new times (lets just forget WiiU was a thing, ok?). This is why it still exist, and is very well known.[/QUOTE] I'm not really sure if Nintendo know how to adapt, but their selling point is their games, which they make exclusive to their consoles, which means people have to buy their consoles, which means their consoles sell.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52856609]How much of that do they have in material assets though? Isn't most of it through loans?[/QUOTE] Market capitalization is a different concept from a company's assets, liabilities, and equity.

[QUOTE=Bradyns;52856609]How much of that do they have in material assets though? Isn't most of it through loans?[/QUOTE] This is their market value, not their total assets, the latter of which is at about $375 billion as at 30 September 2017. But yes, about two-thirds of their assets are marketable securities, no doubt financed by retained earnings.

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52856659]I'm not really sure if Nintendo know how to adapt,[/QUOTE] Nintendo was losing the console war and adapted by making consoles with unique features. The Wii was a mega success, the Wii U tried to recapture the magic but fucked up since the feature wasn't a fraction as appealing as they thought, and then they won back the crowd with the Switch's unique place in the market. If that's not adapting then I don't know what is. In 2014 they claimed to have enough money in the war chest to run at a loss for 38 years so it's clearly working for them.

I guess I'll give Apple this much - they made computer technology - and gadgets in general - appealing to a generation that had already grown into adults before computers really took off. They're responsible for making easy to use and aesthetically appealing consumer technology popular. To those of us who have always been using computers, and who have more technical expertise, Apple products and their design philosophy may be an object of ridicule (Apple OSes being less flexible than Microsoft Windows or Android) but they know their target audience, and never fail to impress them.

[QUOTE=omggrass;52856171]Nintendo has made mistakes before, like the virtualboy but they know how to adapt.[/QUOTE] Nah the issue is with those failures, they introduced them too soon when the technology wasn't there to really help it. The virtualboy was a good idea, just executed poorly due to the technical limitations of the time. Then theres stuff like the power glove, another example of technology limited. Nintendo like to gamble on inventions, jump the gun and get stuff out there thats unique and new. Throw stuff at the wall and hope it sticks basically, and when it does they make mad bank off it.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;52856927]Sell your $MSFT stock before it's too late, Nadella is burning everything prosperous into the ground for short term gain, I have firm beliefs Microsoft will be as relevant as today's IBM in 5 years from now[/QUOTE] With Windows under their belt, and all the consumer hardware that runs it, along with the absolutely massive software ecosystem surrounding it, I think it'd be very very difficult for Microsoft to become irrelevant in 5 years.

Google I could understand, they have the most used search algorithm in the world, Android OS and other technology patents. Apple make a phone, laptop and... a mouse you have to plug in upside down to charge? To be honest, I haven't seen Apple make anything that had a big reaction since the iPad. Unless they hire a really amazing leader who has control over the entire company, I think they'll plateau for a while.

[QUOTE=Sam Za Nemesis;52856927]Sell your $MSFT stock before it's too late, Nadella is burning everything prosperous into the ground for short term gain, I have firm beliefs Microsoft will be as relevant as today's IBM in 5 years from now[/QUOTE] Nonsense. Windows is practically THE operating system for the majority of people, and it'll keep Microsoft around for quite some time.

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52856659]I'm not really sure if Nintendo know how to adapt, but their selling point is their games, which they make exclusive to their consoles, which means people have to buy their consoles, which means their consoles sell.[/QUOTE] It's not just about adapting. Nintendo has garnered huuuuuge intellectual property over the decades in which they successfully sold games and consoles. They have a giant amount of money locked for rainy days. They will stay for a long time. New concepts like the Switch shows that they can still surprise the market with new ideas. It's adapting since they realized their mistakes with the Wii U and so far haven't repeated them with the Switch. [QUOTE=Reds;52856973]Nintendo was losing the console war and adapted by making consoles with unique features. The Wii was a mega success, the Wii U tried to recapture the magic but fucked up since the feature wasn't a fraction as appealing as they thought, and then they won back the crowd with the Switch's unique place in the market. [/QUOTE] The Wii U was a failure because, along the unclear and unattractive concept that even devs didn't understand, it had a childish design, a REALLY bad name and very weak and embarrassing marketing.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52857784]Google I could understand, they have the most used search algorithm in the world, Android OS and other technology patents. Apple make a phone, laptop and... a mouse you have to plug in upside down to charge? To be honest, I haven't seen Apple make anything that had a big reaction since the iPad. Unless they hire a really amazing leader who has control over the entire company, I think they'll plateau for a while.[/QUOTE] Don't forget that they basically own a smartwatch market, along with tablet one. And what else they can invent with big reaction? Days of innovation glory is over for the whole tech industry, everything is incrimental now.

[QUOTE=DoktorAkcel;52857959]Don't forget that they basically own a smartwatch market, along with tablet one. And what else they can invent with big reaction? Days of innovation glory is over for the whole tech industry, everything is incrimental now.[/QUOTE]Barely anyone uses a smartwatch (gimmick tech) and the tablet market is moving from ARM to X86 because people want their tablet to replace their laptop which the ipad is too primitive to do. The reason Apple products aren't as interesting as they were is because the great salesman Steve Jobs isn't here to make Apple stand out from the noise, like he did with the Computer, Mp3 player and Smartphone markets. People are starting to see Apple as "that other thing that won't do what I need it to" because they're waking up to the fact that Apple products do what Apple wants rather than what the customer wants.

[QUOTE=RoboChimp;52857784]Google I could understand, they have the most used search algorithm in the world, Android OS and other technology patents. Apple make a phone, laptop and... a mouse you have to plug in upside down to charge? To be honest, I haven't seen Apple make anything that had a big reaction since the iPad. Unless they hire a really amazing leader who has control over the entire company, I think they'll plateau for a while.[/QUOTE] It should’ve been Forstall instead of Cook.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52857830]Nonsense. Windows is practically THE operating system for the majority of people, and it'll keep Microsoft around for quite some time.[/QUOTE] Market and Markets has claimed that enterprises are slowly moving towards Macs, though. Microsoft won't become irrelevant but they are slowly losing position of top dog.

[QUOTE=LtKyle2;52858534]Market and Markets has claimed that enterprises are slowly moving towards Macs, though. Microsoft won't become irrelevant but they are slowly losing position of top dog.[/QUOTE] apple definitely needs to start attacking the enterprise market more, considering how much money IBM has saved by switching to macs

[QUOTE=JeSuisIkea;52853790]Time to invest I guess[/QUOTE] That ship has sailed.

[QUOTE=elitehakor;52858566]apple definitely needs to start attacking the enterprise market more, considering how much money IBM has saved by switching to macs[/QUOTE] I spent a long ass time finding the article I read that mentioned M&M. Here we go; [url]https://www.computerworld.com/article/3234770/apple-ios/windows-fades-as-business-develops-a-taste-for-apple.html[/url] [quote]Market and Markets says 50 percent of enterprises will have adopted BYOD strategy by the end of the year. Apple should see benefit from this, but that still leaves plenty of space for future growth.[/quote] With how many people prefer Macs due to its ease of use, that is a huge game changer. Also major companies switching to iOS devices: [quote]IBM, Delta, GE and many more are using Macs/iOS. SAP has almost 13,000 Macs deployed across its business. Capital One has 12,000 Macs. GE recently announced plans to shift to iOS devices and Macs. Bank of America, Medtronic and Panera are adopting iPads. Even the New York Police Department recently revealed it is dumping Windows Phones for iOS.[/quote] For corporations its like a consumer buying a car, you want something with a overall lower cost of ownership, its not just the price you pay up front but also how much you spend maintaining and repairing it when you need to over the course of its life.

-snip- unpopular opinion

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52859561]Our workplace uses Macs. Less maintenance, less issues, and all the software we need is available.[/QUOTE]I don't know about less maintenance or issues. Less cables may be ? Imacs are almost unrepairable, a pain in the ass to run deployment software on and when something goes wrong with the hardware it's easier to buy a new one, I guess that's fine if you can afford it.

[QUOTE=djjkxbox;52859561]Our workplace uses Macs. Less maintenance, less issues, and all the software we need is available.[/QUOTE] We had to use shitty macs in our media class and it was a right pain in the ass. Slowest computers i've come across in the past 10 years, and they apparently cost a lot too. They really changed my idea about macs requiring less maintenance too, and in all honesty probably stole away about 25% of our education time, instead spent waiting for the systems to boot and the Adobe programs to open and attempt running on the shit hardware. If only the school had put that same money into HP or Dell laptops, we would have gotten computers probably 3 times as fast.

When I worked in IBM - they generally had upgrade every 3 years. So you get a laptop - after 3 years you get new laptop. The choice was: Lenovo W541 (With SSD) - Upgrade available after 3 years. Apple Mac - Upgrade available after 4 years. I always went for Lenovo/Windows. You could claim as many laptops as you want as long as you had vague justification for it. Some dude had 2 mac's, an ipad and a mac box thing (not sure what it's called, it's a small apple box and you have monitor/mouse/keyboard connected to it) He was hardcore mac fan until his charged got stolen.

[QUOTE=Paul-Simon;52861341]We had to use shitty macs in our media class and it was a right pain in the ass. Slowest computers i've come across in the past 10 years, and they apparently cost a lot too. They really changed my idea about macs requiring less maintenance too, and in all honesty probably stole away about 25% of our education time, instead spent waiting for the systems to boot and the Adobe programs to open and attempt running on the shit hardware. If only the school had put that same money into HP or Dell laptops, we would have gotten computers probably 3 rules as fast.[/QUOTE] I mean that's probably an older Mac model, that was a lot slower. Some of the old ones were pretty damn slow, especially if they're just the base with no upgrades. The modern ones aren't like that though. Guess it's a matter of opinion, but it's worked well at our place