6 ms·

Oh yes, that's right. To me a business is successful when they are big enough in their domain that a new tech doesn't suddenly wipe them out. And they have enou

Oh yes, that's right. To me a business is successful when they are big enough in their domain that a new tech doesn't suddenly wipe them out. And they have enough money to pivot and adapt and still remain in business. That didn't happen for Apple when they were making Macs, they were same as HTC or Blackberry. Microsoft is a true success, they failed completely at Mobile market and yet here they are, doing just fine. > Apple also has a market cap of $1.5 Trillion, with a T, so there's that. The stock market hasn't been representative of real world for a long time now.

culturestate 6y ago
This feels like an odd definition of success but at any rate - Apple has never been wiped out, though they've come close, so I'm not sure how you can argue against their success on this basis either. Out of curiosity (since you seem to be Japanese) how would you rate companies like Toshiba or Sharp on this scale?
- harpratap 6y ago
  > since you seem to be Japanese I'm not > how would you rate companies like Toshiba or Sharp on this scale Successful. Because they survived transition from electrical->electronics->semiconductors. Although Sharp may be coming to the end of it's life now because of their LCD tech.
  - culturestate 6y ago
    Well Toshiba was an inch from bankruptcy and Sharp was sold to Foxconn to stave off its own impending dismemberment so now I really don't understand this definition of success.
    - harpratap 6y ago
      To declare Apple's model as a success, they will have to survive a lot longer. 3 decades into existence isn't enough to evaluate. Their model failed in desktop computers but worked well in handheld devices. Let's see how well they do in the next computing platform before we are sure of it.
      - stormbrew 6y ago
        But Microsoft is a "clear success" and only one year older than Apple? Does Apple only need to survive one more year to be a success?
        harpratap 6y ago
        Microsoft survived huge failures and also when governments came after them. And they did it in their first attempt. Apple survived only by sheer luck, not because their products or business model was designed to survive. They could be the next scapegoat of the trade war and it will take them back to their Mac days. And Microsoft is not alone, Google essentially became MS 2.0 when they launched Android. Following MS footsteps to become successful. Which just further proves Microsoft's model.
        stormbrew 6y ago
        Wow this just gets more and more confusing. Google, at 22 years old, is "MS2.0" and "successful" even though just a post ago 3 decades (though it's actually 4.5 anyways for both MS and Apple, but who's counting) wasn't enough. Even though that's also approximately as long as Apple has been on its current success cycle anyways? If Apple had been "born" in 1998 would it be a "success" now like Google because the mac era never happened but things took off with the iMac and then the iPod? This kinda feels like you decided on a conclusion and are now trying to backfill an explanation into it. :P
        harpratap 6y ago
        Okay so when I meant Google is "successful" was that they successfully beat MS in smartphone race and became a dominant player in the industry. They are definitely not even close to being a proper industry stalwart like Microsoft is, and it's quite possible they won't even survive the next decade if Government starts regulating them.
      - rusticpenn 6y ago
        "Handheld devices", I think Iphone and Ipad are a different category of devices. Apple watch (wearables) also seems to be becoming huge.
    - sqrt17 6y ago
      maybe "they were successful in a period that comes quite close to where we are now"? People forget that success is not an immutable attribute - it is the sum total of hard work and decisions that are put in every week, every month, every year, over a longer period of time. But as much as it is the product of a longer period of time, success can wax and wane throughout the decades and a company can be wiped out or acquired on less-than-favorable terms if they fail to adapt to the next large-scale change in the industry.
dfee 6y ago
> The stock market hasn't been representative of real world for a long time now. Read as: [their revenues] haven’t been representative of real world for a long time now. Hmm. $260B in revenue in FY2019 and $55B in profit with $206B cash on hand. I think their (current) $1.5T current valuation is probably fine.
- harpratap 6y ago
  So why is Samsung, who makes similar kind of revenue not up there with $1T market valuation? Walmart makes double that revenue.
  - jeffshek 6y ago
    Because their "expected" future profit margins are significantly lower than Apple's. Caveat: "Expected" does not mean fact. But it is understandable why investors believe this.
    - harpratap 6y ago
      > Caveat: "Expected" does not mean fact. But it is understandable why investors believe this. Yes, this is what I said. Stock markets factor in future potential (a little too much I think) and not just current performance. Hence their growing diversion from reality.
      - valuearb 6y ago
        Except that Apples current performance demolishes Samsung, Apple is and has been far more profitable. Apple has never been highly valued either, it spent most of the last decade well below the markets average price to earnings ratio, the market was continually saying it didn’t think Apples earnings could grow, or even last. It hasn’t been till the last year where Apple finally broke the market average and squeezed into a low 20 PE ratio. Fir comparison, Amazon hasn’t been below 60 in forever.
        6y ago
design-material 6y ago
Sorry but there's a bunch of inconsistencies here: >> Windows worked just as fluid as iOS when they finally got it right, but they were there too late. Of course it was fluid - Apple was already tied down by legacy hardware by the time Windows Phone released, whereas Microsoft had the huge benefit of a higher-baseline due to exponential hardware advances. MS weren't merely 'late' - they had no vision in this space (see: Windows Mobile pre-iPhone). >> Apple's success is more of lack of a good competitor more than anything else Their competitors include literally the biggest company in the world.. If what you mean is that the iPhone specifically lacks a good competitor - even though both Microsoft and Google tried everything to rectify that - then isn't that reflective of Apple's incredible execution of the iPhone strategy and not, as you suggest, that Microsoft/Google/BlackBerry/Palm/Nokia/Samsung aren't good competitors? >> To me a business is successful when they are big enough in their domain that a new tech doesn't suddenly wipe them out Even under this subjective definition, Apple view their 'domain' as consumer electronics, not 'mobile' or 'computers' or 'mp3 players' (something they recognised back when they renamed themselves to Apple, dropping 'Computers'). So ironically, Apple don't merely fit the 'success' criteria under your definition, but Microsoft actually don't - they had to exit their once-primary domain - Windows and consumers - and pivot to enterprise and services (which of course has worked out great for them - but by your definition it's not a success as Apple and Google's new tech would've otherwise wiped them out)

culturestate 6y ago

This feels like an odd definition of success but at any rate - Apple has never been wiped out, though they've come close, so I'm not sure how you can argue against their success on this basis either. Out of curiosity (since you seem to be Japanese) how would you rate companies like Toshiba or Sharp on this scale?

harpratap 6y ago
> since you seem to be Japanese I'm not > how would you rate companies like Toshiba or Sharp on this scale Successful. Because they survived transition from electrical->electronics->semiconductors. Although Sharp may be coming to the end of it's life now because of their LCD tech.
- culturestate 6y ago
  Well Toshiba was an inch from bankruptcy and Sharp was sold to Foxconn to stave off its own impending dismemberment so now I really don't understand this definition of success.
  - harpratap 6y ago
    To declare Apple's model as a success, they will have to survive a lot longer. 3 decades into existence isn't enough to evaluate. Their model failed in desktop computers but worked well in handheld devices. Let's see how well they do in the next computing platform before we are sure of it.
    - stormbrew 6y ago
      But Microsoft is a "clear success" and only one year older than Apple? Does Apple only need to survive one more year to be a success?
      - harpratap 6y ago
        Microsoft survived huge failures and also when governments came after them. And they did it in their first attempt. Apple survived only by sheer luck, not because their products or business model was designed to survive. They could be the next scapegoat of the trade war and it will take them back to their Mac days. And Microsoft is not alone, Google essentially became MS 2.0 when they launched Android. Following MS footsteps to become successful. Which just further proves Microsoft's model.
        stormbrew 6y ago
        Wow this just gets more and more confusing. Google, at 22 years old, is "MS2.0" and "successful" even though just a post ago 3 decades (though it's actually 4.5 anyways for both MS and Apple, but who's counting) wasn't enough. Even though that's also approximately as long as Apple has been on its current success cycle anyways? If Apple had been "born" in 1998 would it be a "success" now like Google because the mac era never happened but things took off with the iMac and then the iPod? This kinda feels like you decided on a conclusion and are now trying to backfill an explanation into it. :P
        harpratap 6y ago
        Okay so when I meant Google is "successful" was that they successfully beat MS in smartphone race and became a dominant player in the industry. They are definitely not even close to being a proper industry stalwart like Microsoft is, and it's quite possible they won't even survive the next decade if Government starts regulating them.
    - rusticpenn 6y ago
      "Handheld devices", I think Iphone and Ipad are a different category of devices. Apple watch (wearables) also seems to be becoming huge.
  - sqrt17 6y ago
    maybe "they were successful in a period that comes quite close to where we are now"? People forget that success is not an immutable attribute - it is the sum total of hard work and decisions that are put in every week, every month, every year, over a longer period of time. But as much as it is the product of a longer period of time, success can wax and wane throughout the decades and a company can be wiped out or acquired on less-than-favorable terms if they fail to adapt to the next large-scale change in the industry.

dfee 6y ago

> The stock market hasn't been representative of real world for a long time now. Read as: [their revenues] haven’t been representative of real world for a long time now. Hmm. $260B in revenue in FY2019 and $55B in profit with $206B cash on hand. I think their (current) $1.5T current valuation is probably fine.

harpratap 6y ago
So why is Samsung, who makes similar kind of revenue not up there with $1T market valuation? Walmart makes double that revenue.
- jeffshek 6y ago
  Because their "expected" future profit margins are significantly lower than Apple's. Caveat: "Expected" does not mean fact. But it is understandable why investors believe this.
  - harpratap 6y ago
    > Caveat: "Expected" does not mean fact. But it is understandable why investors believe this. Yes, this is what I said. Stock markets factor in future potential (a little too much I think) and not just current performance. Hence their growing diversion from reality.
    - valuearb 6y ago
      Except that Apples current performance demolishes Samsung, Apple is and has been far more profitable. Apple has never been highly valued either, it spent most of the last decade well below the markets average price to earnings ratio, the market was continually saying it didn’t think Apples earnings could grow, or even last. It hasn’t been till the last year where Apple finally broke the market average and squeezed into a low 20 PE ratio. Fir comparison, Amazon hasn’t been below 60 in forever.
      - 6y ago

design-material 6y ago

Sorry but there's a bunch of inconsistencies here: >> Windows worked just as fluid as iOS when they finally got it right, but they were there too late. Of course it was fluid - Apple was already tied down by legacy hardware by the time Windows Phone released, whereas Microsoft had the huge benefit of a higher-baseline due to exponential hardware advances. MS weren't merely 'late' - they had no vision in this space (see: Windows Mobile pre-iPhone). >> Apple's success is more of lack of a good competitor more than anything else Their competitors include literally the biggest company in the world.. If what you mean is that the iPhone specifically lacks a good competitor - even though both Microsoft and Google tried everything to rectify that - then isn't that reflective of Apple's incredible execution of the iPhone strategy and not, as you suggest, that Microsoft/Google/BlackBerry/Palm/Nokia/Samsung aren't good competitors? >> To me a business is successful when they are big enough in their domain that a new tech doesn't suddenly wipe them out Even under this subjective definition, Apple view their 'domain' as consumer electronics, not 'mobile' or 'computers' or 'mp3 players' (something they recognised back when they renamed themselves to Apple, dropping 'Computers'). So ironically, Apple don't merely fit the 'success' criteria under your definition, but Microsoft actually don't - they had to exit their once-primary domain - Windows and consumers - and pivot to enterprise and services (which of course has worked out great for them - but by your definition it's not a success as Apple and Google's new tech would've otherwise wiped them out)