4 ms·

I’m not saying Apple would have gone bankrupt without Microsoft. I am saying 6% of your funding coming from a competitor is very unusual. Doesn’t need to be a p

I’m not saying Apple would have gone bankrupt without Microsoft. I am saying 6% of your funding coming from a competitor is very unusual. Doesn’t need to be a proximate cause for bankruptcy avoidance to be non trivial. If windows had not allowed office on Apple computers then Apple computers would have been less successful. Market share on hardware matters more than profits on software.

scarface_74 3y ago
Guess where Firefox gets most of its revenue? But more relevant, while not 6% of its revenue over 2% of Apple’s revenue today comes from the search deal it has with Google. And yes market share on hardware is important, look how badly Apple is doing now with only 13% of the global market share in smart phones…
- jncfhnb 3y ago
  Revenue is not funding. Google’s influence over Firefox is an issue of immense contention. Apple’s relationship with Google is considered by many to be anticompetitive collusion. Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days.
  - scarface_74 3y ago
    Revenue is not “funding”??? Where do you think business gets money from on an ongoing basis to survive? One reason that for example that Pepsi was spun off from Yum brands was that Pepsi executives had a hard time selling into large franchises because companies didn’t want to send money to competitors. > Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. “Words mean things” - “market share” has a definition. > Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days Are you just making stuff up now? It’s really not hard to look at Apple’s financials to see that “most” of Apple’s revenue comes from hardware sells and not services - where App Store revenue is included.
    - jncfhnb 3y ago
      No, revenue is not funding. Funding is debt and equity. Revenue can become equity if you retain profits after expenses but the lions share of funding is debt and contributed capital. Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free. The majority of Apple’s contribution margin is coming from sources like that. Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware.
      - scarface_74 3y ago
        Someone doesn’t know finance. Assets = liabilities + owners equity This formula is like high school finance. When Microsoft bought $250 million in Apple Stock, the Assets increased by $250 million and the owners equity increased by $250 million. This is simple double entry accounting. When Google pays Apple and Microsoft to be the default search engine, you still add the payment to Assets and owners equity. When you borrow money - say the same $250 million - you still add $250 million to Assets. But then you add $250 million to liabilities. You notice that in all three scenarios that Assets increase ? By that simple equation, “Assets” increase by three methods to “fund” the company - through the regular course of business, someone buying into the company and via debt. Again this is simple Finance 101. > Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free Now check your math against the publicly available breakdown of revenue and the overall profit and see how nonsensical your math is. > Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. So which market share are you making up to make your comment logical? > Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware. Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in the phone market??
        jncfhnb 3y ago
- oblio 3y ago
  :-) You're conflating the modern post-iPhone Apple era with the one before. Apple customers weren't greatly exceeding Microsoft customers before. Every manager up to exec level had a Windows desktop or laptop and possibly a Windows "smartphone". The MacOS market wasn't inherently much higher in per-capita value than Windows.
j16sdiz 3y ago
Not sure if this is the same event,... but microsoft did invest $150M in apple as a part of settlement in a patent lawsuit

scarface_74 3y ago

Guess where Firefox gets most of its revenue? But more relevant, while not 6% of its revenue over 2% of Apple’s revenue today comes from the search deal it has with Google. And yes market share on hardware is important, look how badly Apple is doing now with only 13% of the global market share in smart phones…

jncfhnb 3y ago
Revenue is not funding. Google’s influence over Firefox is an issue of immense contention. Apple’s relationship with Google is considered by many to be anticompetitive collusion. Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days.
- scarface_74 3y ago
  Revenue is not “funding”??? Where do you think business gets money from on an ongoing basis to survive? One reason that for example that Pepsi was spun off from Yum brands was that Pepsi executives had a hard time selling into large franchises because companies didn’t want to send money to competitors. > Apple’s hardware market share is huge when considering the wealth of customers. “Words mean things” - “market share” has a definition. > Apple makes most of its money by forbidding sharing access to its customers for software these days Are you just making stuff up now? It’s really not hard to look at Apple’s financials to see that “most” of Apple’s revenue comes from hardware sells and not services - where App Store revenue is included.
  - jncfhnb 3y ago
    No, revenue is not funding. Funding is debt and equity. Revenue can become equity if you retain profits after expenses but the lions share of funding is debt and contributed capital. Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free. The majority of Apple’s contribution margin is coming from sources like that. Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware.
    - scarface_74 3y ago
      Someone doesn’t know finance. Assets = liabilities + owners equity This formula is like high school finance. When Microsoft bought $250 million in Apple Stock, the Assets increased by $250 million and the owners equity increased by $250 million. This is simple double entry accounting. When Google pays Apple and Microsoft to be the default search engine, you still add the payment to Assets and owners equity. When you borrow money - say the same $250 million - you still add $250 million to Assets. But then you add $250 million to liabilities. You notice that in all three scenarios that Assets increase ? By that simple equation, “Assets” increase by three methods to “fund” the company - through the regular course of business, someone buying into the company and via debt. Again this is simple Finance 101. > Most of Apple’s revenue comes from the hardware sales. But the hardware sales are very expensive. Even at 110%+ markups. The App Store sales is by comparison basically free Now check your math against the publicly available breakdown of revenue and the overall profit and see how nonsensical your math is. > Market share does mean something specific, but you chose to specify which market, and that wasn’t the important one, so your definition was not useful. So which market share are you making up to make your comment logical? > Which is doubly toxic because this is only due to Apple forbidding competition against itself on its hardware. Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in the phone market??
      - jncfhnb 3y ago
oblio 3y ago
:-) You're conflating the modern post-iPhone Apple era with the one before. Apple customers weren't greatly exceeding Microsoft customers before. Every manager up to exec level had a Windows desktop or laptop and possibly a Windows "smartphone". The MacOS market wasn't inherently much higher in per-capita value than Windows.

j16sdiz 3y ago

Not sure if this is the same event,... but microsoft did invest $150M in apple as a part of settlement in a patent lawsuit