3 ms·

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 anticomp

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
      That is not finance, that is accounting. Those are not the same thing. When Google pays a fee to other companies it becomes revenue. Revenue is a temporary account and does not feature in the balance sheet. Retained earnings does, which is revenue - expenses - distributions. This is all tangential to the point that the majority of funding for a company at any given time is likely debt and contributed capital. Apple is over 80% debt funded. Retained earnings accounts for less than 0.1% of Apple’s funding. I have passed the CPA exam so consider if you really think you’ve got the upper hand here. > Now check your math against the publicly available breakdown of revenue and the overall profit and see how nonsensical your math is. Products sales: 61B. Products COGS: 39B. Gross Income of 22B Services sales: 21B. Services COGS: 6B. Gross income of 15B. Consider then that the vast majority of their supporting expenses including 7B in R&D go towards their product (which is the hardware and OS) and I think you’d find this easily supports what I’m saying. It’s closer than I thought though. > So which market share are you making up to make your comment logical? The most important one. The US. > Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in the phone market?? No, you just didn’t read.

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
    That is not finance, that is accounting. Those are not the same thing. When Google pays a fee to other companies it becomes revenue. Revenue is a temporary account and does not feature in the balance sheet. Retained earnings does, which is revenue - expenses - distributions. This is all tangential to the point that the majority of funding for a company at any given time is likely debt and contributed capital. Apple is over 80% debt funded. Retained earnings accounts for less than 0.1% of Apple’s funding. I have passed the CPA exam so consider if you really think you’ve got the upper hand here. > Now check your math against the publicly available breakdown of revenue and the overall profit and see how nonsensical your math is. Products sales: 61B. Products COGS: 39B. Gross Income of 22B Services sales: 21B. Services COGS: 6B. Gross income of 15B. Consider then that the vast majority of their supporting expenses including 7B in R&D go towards their product (which is the hardware and OS) and I think you’d find this easily supports what I’m saying. It’s closer than I thought though. > So which market share are you making up to make your comment logical? The most important one. The US. > Are you really saying that Apple has no competition in the phone market?? No, you just didn’t read.