5 ms·

> Under Cook’s leadership Apple has grown from a market capitalization of approximately $350 billion to $4 trillion, representing a more than 1,000% increase, a

by tchalla 6mo ago

> Under Cook’s leadership Apple has grown from a market capitalization of approximately $350 billion to $4 trillion, representing a more than 1,000% increase, and yearly revenue has nearly quadrupled, from $108 billion in fiscal year 2011 to more than $416 billion in fiscal year 2025. Quite successful.

thimabi 6mo ago
I also liked the part about growing the company while reducing its carbon footprint by more than 60%. Even if that figure might somehow be inflated, it is impressive nonetheless.
- ihsw 6mo ago
  [dead]
- benoau 6mo ago
  It's probably an even bigger reduction considering their growth. But it's still a net deficit of nearly 15 million tons of emissions of which practically none are offset. https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Progress_Report_2026.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
  - MagicMoonlight 6mo ago
    Offsetting isn’t real. Buying a few trees doesn’t offset a factory full of trees that fills a river with poison.
    - pertymcpert 6mo ago
      Carbon offsetting is nothing to do with river pollution.
      - umpalumpaaa 6mo ago
        Carbon offsetting is risky. You plant a tree and you don’t know if it will die. You create a swampy area to absorb co2 and 10 years later it dries out due to global warming. Offsetting should be used if there is no other way to reduce emissions in the first place. Same is true for sucking carbon out of the air and storing it somewhere… it’s expensive and it should not be the default - we need offsetting and carbon segregation for the really unavoidable stuff
        reverius42 6mo ago
        Sucking carbon out of the air using fully renewable energy (solar/wind) is a great thing to do! ... once we've fully decarbonized all other energy use and we have extra, left-over renewable energy.
        pertymcpert 6mo ago
        Cool, but nothing to do with this conversation.
pzo 6mo ago
This is what’s all bad with us stocks and completely disconnected with market value: Revenue jumped 4x but market capitalization got inflated to 12x.
- pama 6mo ago
  The price over earnings (arguably an imperfect, but better way to compare stock prices against each other than using pure revenue) for Apple has been fluctuating within about a factor of 2 for the last 20 years. Since before the iPhone, people were nervous about the possibility of sustained growth of profits of the company, and the P/E was similar to today. Once Apple started making a lot more money under Tim Cook, the price was at a relative discount becauee 10 years ago people were certain (but wrong) that this run would end soon and badly. The long term stability under Cook was truly impressive. Lets see what the markets think abiut the leadership change tomorrow, but probably this is not an immediate event.
  - bagacrap 6mo ago
    pe ratio under 10 in 2013 to ~40 in 2024. You can't deny the multiple expansion.
    - npunt 6mo ago
      To be fair, a PE <10 didn't even represent the ground truth of customer's relationship to Apple at the time. In hindsight we have a lot more information, but in that era there was still a lingering question of whether their iPhone advantage was durable, due to Android competitors. It only later became apparent that the stickiness factor was super high. From a correct pricing perspective, of all the companies in tech Apple seems one of the most likely to keep customers for a lifetime. They have immense lock-in and customer affinity. I don't know if the correct number is 20 or 30 or 40 but unless the economy completely tanks (which tbf is reasonably possible these days), I can only imagine a majority of their customers today will still be their customers in 15-20 years.
- rootusrootus 6mo ago
  Investors are forward-looking, though, so it just means that they think the future looks brighter than the immediate past. The real disconnect IMO is TSLA.
IncreasePosts 6mo ago
For the same period: AMZN: +2100% META: +1700% MSFT: +1300% GOOG: +1400%
- elicash 6mo ago
  Was meta a public company back then? Amazon, I think, was quite small, too.
  - kristianp 6mo ago
    You're right, Facebook didn't go public until May 2012, after the start of the period mentioned. Amazon went public in '97.
- postalcoder 6mo ago
  This is a specious comparison at best. Apple is, at heart, a hardware company. They have different growth profiles. A consumer hardware company getting that sort of growth is mind boggling.
pornel 6mo ago
He destroyed my trust in Apple in ways that can't be put in numbers. This growth comes from rent seeking. Greedy fees and lock-in they can sustain due to control of the platform and cultivated duopoly. Apple narrative around security is patronising and deceptive, used as an excuse for removing users' freedoms (by not letting users replace Apple's services with competing ones Apple protects users from their bad choices). Very conveniently the supposedly most innovative company that is great at UX can't do better than Vista. Apple's response to pro-consumer laws was petty, vindictive, malicious compliance. To me Apple morphed from having premium products with excellent integration to having cross-product lock-in that maximizes money extraction from users. And then there's Cook sucking up to Trump with a golden turd to protect next quarter's revenues. This showed that Cook had no principles more important than profit.

by tchalla 6mo ago

thimabi 6mo ago

I also liked the part about growing the company while reducing its carbon footprint by more than 60%. Even if that figure might somehow be inflated, it is impressive nonetheless.

ihsw 6mo ago
[dead]
benoau 6mo ago
It's probably an even bigger reduction considering their growth. But it's still a net deficit of nearly 15 million tons of emissions of which practically none are offset. https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Progress_Report_2026.pdf https://www.apple.com/environment/pdf/Apple_Environmental_Pr...
- MagicMoonlight 6mo ago
  Offsetting isn’t real. Buying a few trees doesn’t offset a factory full of trees that fills a river with poison.
  - pertymcpert 6mo ago
    Carbon offsetting is nothing to do with river pollution.
    - umpalumpaaa 6mo ago
      Carbon offsetting is risky. You plant a tree and you don’t know if it will die. You create a swampy area to absorb co2 and 10 years later it dries out due to global warming. Offsetting should be used if there is no other way to reduce emissions in the first place. Same is true for sucking carbon out of the air and storing it somewhere… it’s expensive and it should not be the default - we need offsetting and carbon segregation for the really unavoidable stuff
      - reverius42 6mo ago
        Sucking carbon out of the air using fully renewable energy (solar/wind) is a great thing to do! ... once we've fully decarbonized all other energy use and we have extra, left-over renewable energy.
      - pertymcpert 6mo ago
        Cool, but nothing to do with this conversation.

pzo 6mo ago

This is what’s all bad with us stocks and completely disconnected with market value: Revenue jumped 4x but market capitalization got inflated to 12x.

pama 6mo ago
The price over earnings (arguably an imperfect, but better way to compare stock prices against each other than using pure revenue) for Apple has been fluctuating within about a factor of 2 for the last 20 years. Since before the iPhone, people were nervous about the possibility of sustained growth of profits of the company, and the P/E was similar to today. Once Apple started making a lot more money under Tim Cook, the price was at a relative discount becauee 10 years ago people were certain (but wrong) that this run would end soon and badly. The long term stability under Cook was truly impressive. Lets see what the markets think abiut the leadership change tomorrow, but probably this is not an immediate event.
- bagacrap 6mo ago
  pe ratio under 10 in 2013 to ~40 in 2024. You can't deny the multiple expansion.
  - npunt 6mo ago
    To be fair, a PE <10 didn't even represent the ground truth of customer's relationship to Apple at the time. In hindsight we have a lot more information, but in that era there was still a lingering question of whether their iPhone advantage was durable, due to Android competitors. It only later became apparent that the stickiness factor was super high. From a correct pricing perspective, of all the companies in tech Apple seems one of the most likely to keep customers for a lifetime. They have immense lock-in and customer affinity. I don't know if the correct number is 20 or 30 or 40 but unless the economy completely tanks (which tbf is reasonably possible these days), I can only imagine a majority of their customers today will still be their customers in 15-20 years.
rootusrootus 6mo ago
Investors are forward-looking, though, so it just means that they think the future looks brighter than the immediate past. The real disconnect IMO is TSLA.

IncreasePosts 6mo ago

For the same period: AMZN: +2100% META: +1700% MSFT: +1300% GOOG: +1400%

elicash 6mo ago
Was meta a public company back then? Amazon, I think, was quite small, too.
- kristianp 6mo ago
  You're right, Facebook didn't go public until May 2012, after the start of the period mentioned. Amazon went public in '97.
postalcoder 6mo ago
This is a specious comparison at best. Apple is, at heart, a hardware company. They have different growth profiles. A consumer hardware company getting that sort of growth is mind boggling.

pornel 6mo ago

He destroyed my trust in Apple in ways that can't be put in numbers. This growth comes from rent seeking. Greedy fees and lock-in they can sustain due to control of the platform and cultivated duopoly. Apple narrative around security is patronising and deceptive, used as an excuse for removing users' freedoms (by not letting users replace Apple's services with competing ones Apple protects users from their bad choices). Very conveniently the supposedly most innovative company that is great at UX can't do better than Vista. Apple's response to pro-consumer laws was petty, vindictive, malicious compliance. To me Apple morphed from having premium products with excellent integration to having cross-product lock-in that maximizes money extraction from users. And then there's Cook sucking up to Trump with a golden turd to protect next quarter's revenues. This showed that Cook had no principles more important than profit.