Apple In and $1 TRILLION

[diesel1959]

Holy batcrap!! I’d find a good tax attorney if I were you.

We (my wife and I) pay a shit tonne of taxes, thank you very much. I R knot a sovereign citizen . . . if that's what you're hinting at. I'm merely a believer in minimalist federal.gov--as written and authorized in the Constitution.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Apple is NOT a monopoly by any stretch of the imagination. I hate the big brother routine, but you do realize that they have heavy competition in every market segment they operate in. Maybe you have heard of some of their competition: Microsoft in the OS market. Dell, HP, Lenovo... in the personal computing hardware arena. Samsung, LG in the smart phone arena. About the only market space they hold high % is the smartphone. In the rest they are almost monitory players. Just cause they are wealthy doesn’t make them a monopoly. If they were like say YouTube or Facebook and were monsters in the arena they playin with no real competition I’d agree with you.

Also Apple isn’t worth $1TT. Stick analysts estimate their worth at $1TT. Big difference in actual cash/assets vs make believe value. Tomorrow they could be worth $1BB if Timmy has a Zuckerberg moment.

I don’t disagree with you on the concept that a few ÜberCorps running this nation would be a horrible thing. However, I think you’re late to the party. A very few high $$ folks already run most of it.

You need to read all the posts, at no time have I ever said Apple was or at any time a monopoly. What I said was that is no longer the standard to be applied due to the depth of a global market...I don't foresee any company that can rise to have a monopoly unless a country blocks competition inside their markets. Trump is 100% correct in a global economy we need to have free and open trade, no protectionism in the form of tariffs on goods. At the current time the US is bankrolling the world to the tune of nearly $1Trillion dollars our companies pay in tariffs to do business in other countries.

All that said I can make a case for these Trillion $ companies: To be a global player its a high dollar game. This may best be illustrated in the petro business, especially in the Offshore drilling business. Its massively front end loaded. These companies can spend a $Billion before they sell a barrel of oil

But this is a tightrope. Focus on Zuckerman, who believes in Universal Basic Income, Socialism, and is a rather far left thinker to say the least. If ANYONE thinks lobbyists are a problem now, just wait. Zuckerman can walk the halls of Congress and walk into any door he wants, he does need to schedule a meeting. Me, hell, I had family that was in Congress and never once stopped by they had the time of day for me and I was in DC almost every week for years..To be honest it was easier for meet to meet with the Deputy Sec Def and Army than it was to see any of my family up there.

We end up with companies so powerful, so wealthy the the tail starts to wag the dog of govt....which is the entire point, we are traveling on the road to Fascism...

 

[TAZ]

We (my wife and I) pay a shit tonne of taxes, thank you very much. I R knot a sovereign citizen . . . if that's what you're hinting at. I'm merely a believer in minimalist federal.gov--as written and authorized in the Constitution.

Lol. I meant that you said government should be minimal on an open forum. Prepare for the IRS rectal probe. Not that you’re whacky for believing that.

 

[TAZ]

You need to read all the posts, at no time have I ever said Apple was or at any time a monopoly. What I said was that is no longer the standard to be applied due to the depth of a global market...I don't foresee any company that can rise to have a monopoly unless a country blocks competition inside their markets. Trump is 100% correct in a global economy we need to have free and open trade, no protectionism in the form of tariffs on goods. At the current time the US is bankrolling the world to the tune of nearly $1Trillion dollars our companies pay in tariffs to do business in other countries.

All that said I can make a case for these Trillion $ companies: To be a global player its a high dollar game. This may best be illustrated in the petro business, especially in the Offshore drilling business. Its massively front end loaded. These companies can spend a $Billion before they sell a barrel of oil

But this is a tightrope. Focus on Zuckerman, who believes in Universal Basic Income, Socialism, and is a rather far left thinker to say the least. If ANYONE thinks lobbyists are a problem now, just wait. Zuckerman can walk the halls of Congress and walk into any door he wants, he does need to schedule a meeting. Me, hell, I had family that was in Congress and never once stopped by they had the time of day for me and I was in DC almost every week for years..To be honest it was easier for meet to meet with the Deputy Sec Def and Army than it was to see any of my family up there.

We end up with companies so powerful, so wealthy the the tail starts to wag the dog of govt....which is the entire point, we are traveling on the road to Fascism...

So basically what you are saying is that successful business ventures operating within the laws of the land need to be squashed by government mandate. Aka to save capitalism we need to institute a bit of socialism. I’d suggest that a better solution to the issue would be to stop electing idiots, but that requires non idiot voters.

I get what you are saying, but I’m not sure I agree with your proposed solution. The problem is a financially corrupt, morally questionable and dysfunctional government. The solution to that isnt giving them more power to destroy industries they don’t like.

 

[Ole Cowboy]

So basically what you are saying is that successful business ventures operating within the laws of the land need to be squashed by government mandate. Aka to save capitalism we need to institute a bit of socialism. I’d suggest that a better solution to the issue would be to stop electing idiots, but that requires non idiot voters.

I get what you are saying, but I’m not sure I agree with your proposed solution. The problem is a financially corrupt, morally questionable and dysfunctional government. The solution to that isnt giving them more power to destroy industries they don’t like.

TAZ, our Govt has been doing this for a 100 years. AT&T, Standard Oil, American Tobacco, Intl Harvester just to name a few. POTUS T Roosevelt Was known at the "Trust Buster". This has been going on for years and its nothing new. But Bush 2 let us down, he should have allowed GM and or Chrysler to fail. But Bush is not a smart guy and he believed the BS that fed him telling him that if GM failed America would go into a Depression...BS!

So what has the govt done since? Allowed Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon all which are but a few point away from crossing the Trillion $ mark. They should be broken up!!!!

And it may be to late to just say NO! Who is going to tell Apple or Facebook or Google NO? They have enough money and clout to stop it. Zuckerman can walk the halls of Congress with nothing but his walking around money and buy all the votes he needs to make sure no one can compete against him!

In order for capitalism to work you have to have fair and open competition. There is only so much room in the marketplace for any given product...

 

[toddnjoyce]

TAZ, our Govt has been doing this for a 100 years...

That doesn’t mean it’s right.

In order for capitalism to work you have to have fair and open competition. There is only so much room in the marketplace for any given product...

Define fair and open competition. Apple, Google, Facebook each compete in a marketplace that is different from one another.

Here’s a different twist on the argument that an arbitrary number should trigger government action: anything more than 1 each pistol, rifle, and shotgun and the government should come in and confiscate excess guns.

I would rather see the federal government step in and declare martial law in Chicago and clean it up than have them manipulate the economy. The federal government should (and does) have a say in public safety for the public good.

To solve the problem of potentially outsize influence, the solution is easy: prohibit lobbying and campaign contributions.

 

[TAZ]

TAZ, our Govt has been doing this for a 100 years. AT&T, Standard Oil, American Tobacco, Intl Harvester just to name a few. POTUS T Roosevelt Was known at the "Trust Buster". This has been going on for years and its nothing new. But Bush 2 let us down, he should have allowed GM and or Chrysler to fail. But Bush is not a smart guy and he believed the BS that fed him telling him that if GM failed America would go into a Depression...BS!

So what has the govt done since? Allowed Google, Facebook, Apple, Amazon all which are but a few point away from crossing the Trillion $ mark. They should be broken up!!!!

And it may be to late to just say NO! Who is going to tell Apple or Facebook or Google NO? They have enough money and clout to stop it. Zuckerman can walk the halls of Congress with nothing but his walking around money and buy all the votes he needs to make sure no one can compete against him!

In order for capitalism to work you have to have fair and open competition. There is only so much room in the marketplace for any given product...

Maybe I’m not correct in my understanding of all those breakups, but I’m familiar with the original ATT breakup. That wasnt done because they were too wealthy. It was done because they were an actual monopoly that killed competition. Aka they became the sole telephone company for the nation.

I have ZERO qualms about breaking up monopolies. I firmly believe that monopolies are bad for the consumer. Apple is not a monopoly. Maybe in some segments it may be close, but not there. Apple has very stiff competition in everything it does. You have valid high performance products and services to choose from, not just Apple.

I believe that you are conflating wealth and political influence with business monopolies. They aren’t the same AFAIK. I don’t disagree with you about their political influence. I do have an issue with giving government more power than it already has.

I also agree with you 100% about GW allowing companies to fail. They all should have been allowed to fail. The demand for their products was there and other players would have picked up the pieces. In the case of GM; Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW would have all picked up production to meet demand which in turn would have gotten those folks hired and assets purchased. However, CEO and other executives would have been SOL.

I also have strong feelings about YouTube and Facebook. These are business models that have little to no true competition, so maybe they should be reviewed and a decision made. Break them up or offer up tax incentives for competitors.

In order for capitalism to work, you have to let capitalism work as much as possible. Some faceless unaccountable regulator isn’t the solution to too much political influence.

 

[Darkpriest667]

Maybe I’m not correct in my understanding of all those breakups, but I’m familiar with the original ATT breakup. That wasnt done because they were too wealthy. It was done because they were an actual monopoly that killed competition. Aka they became the sole telephone company for the nation.

I have ZERO qualms about breaking up monopolies. I firmly believe that monopolies are bad for the consumer. Apple is not a monopoly. Maybe in some segments it may be close, but not there. Apple has very stiff competition in everything it does. You have valid high performance products and services to choose from, not just Apple.

I believe that you are conflating wealth and political influence with business monopolies. They aren’t the same AFAIK. I don’t disagree with you about their political influence. I do have an issue with giving government more power than it already has.

I also agree with you 100% about GW allowing companies to fail. They all should have been allowed to fail. The demand for their products was there and other players would have picked up the pieces. In the case of GM; Ford, Toyota, Honda, BMW would have all picked up production to meet demand which in turn would have gotten those folks hired and assets purchased. However, CEO and other executives would have been SOL.

I also have strong feelings about YouTube and Facebook. These are business models that have little to no true competition, so maybe they should be reviewed and a decision made. Break them up or offer up tax incentives for competitors.

In order for capitalism to work, you have to let capitalism work as much as possible. Some faceless unaccountable regulator isn’t the solution to too much political influence.

But in the US they ARE the definition of an Duopoly... It's APPLE or Samsung... BARRIERS TO ENTRY MATTER! I'm not trying to be pedantic (Again,) but it seems you guys don't understand that high barriers to entry and few competitive options = a bad market.

What's worse, and probably unnoticed by most on this forum (and everywhere else) is that there are FEW foundries for making the chips. In fact I only know of three non Chinese state owned foundries for making phone chips... One is Samsungs own foundries, TSMC (Tawain Semiconductor Manufacturing Company,) and Global Foundries.

The cost to build a single foundry for silicon chips is 1 billion dollars minimum... (again barriers to entry.) The cost to contract TSMC, Global, or Samsung is dependent on the other bidders... If you want to know why CPUs, RAM, and other silicon is so expensive right now it's because APPL and SAMSUNG are eating up all the capacity. Why? Because they can push all the other competitors out.

There is definite consolidation in the phone and chip spaces... And that consolidation is bad for consumers. A true capitalist market has competition. FAIR and free competition. With such high barriers to entry in the tech space we do NOT have it.

https://www.twice.com/product/research-confirms-us-cellphone-market-two-horse-race-66325

 

[TAZ]

You’re digressing into other topics. Apple is not responsible for chip foundries. You stated that Apple should be broken up by the government because it’s too rich. Now we are twisting the story to Apple is responsible for chip shortages even though it doesn’t own or operate any chip foundries.

Let’s for the sake of argument break up Apple so that the barriers to entry are lowered. Apple Mobility will still make iPhones out the wazzoo. Samsung will still make Galaxy’s out the wazzoo. LG will make phones. How is it now easier to enter the mobility market space? You still need to set up multi million $$ facilities that Samsung, LG and now Apple Mobility already have. Unless by break up you mean destroy. Or maybe you’re thinking that Apple can only make X number of phones and Samsung Y, LG makes Z and the government decides this which creates shortages in products which will be filled by insert startup name here. That’s kind of what socialists and communists think. And we see just how effectively they can manage markets.

I think you’re misunderstanding what the barriers to entry are for each industry. If Apple were actively crushing competition or start ups or buying up and shutting down competitors then maybe you have a case. However, the SEC and other regulators are supposedly looking those mergers and purchases over and can at any time squish them without breaking up successful companies. Why arent they and why would a new layer work better than the existing layers?

By the way. Why are there no new US based chip makers? Is it cause Apple swishes then or maybe government regulations suck. Same as oil refineries.

 

[Darkpriest667]

You’re digressing into other topics. Apple is not responsible for chip foundries. You stated that Apple should be broken up by the government because it’s too rich. Now we are twisting the story to Apple is responsible for chip shortages even though it doesn’t own or operate any chip foundries.

Let’s for the sake of argument break up Apple so that the barriers to entry are lowered. Apple Mobility will still make iPhones out the wazzoo. Samsung will still make Galaxy’s out the wazzoo. LG will make phones. How is it now easier to enter the mobility market space? You still need to set up multi million $$ facilities that Samsung, LG and now Apple Mobility already have. Unless by break up you mean destroy. Or maybe you’re thinking that Apple can only make X number of phones and Samsung Y, LG makes Z and the government decides this which creates shortages in products which will be filled by insert startup name here. That’s kind of what socialists and communists think. And we see just how effectively they can manage markets.

I think you’re misunderstanding what the barriers to entry are for each industry. If Apple were actively crushing competition or start ups or buying up and shutting down competitors then maybe you have a case. However, the SEC and other regulators are supposedly looking those mergers and purchases over and can at any time squish them without breaking up successful companies. Why arent they and why would a new layer work better than the existing layers?

By the way. Why are there no new US based chip makers? Is it cause Apple swishes then or maybe government regulations suck. Same as oil refineries.

I never said they needed to be broken up. I said they are a defacto monopoly due to extremely high barriers to entry. There are no US chip makers because the last recession (2008) caused the closing of damn near every foundry for silicon in the United States.

The reason there haven't been any NEW ones built is.. two-fold First, the cost of building new foundries, even in places like Vietnam and China, is MASSIVE... I thought it was 1 billion, I did some reading over the last few hours and it's now 2 billion standard.. Second, and this is going to hurt some snowflake feelings here, the United States is NOT the #1 consumer of semi-conductor related technology since 2012... China is. So why build foundries in the #3 Market for Semi conductors (yes even INDIA buys more phones than us.)

The fact of the matter is... Companies like Microsoft and Apple have a documented history of suppressing competition either through straight bullying or other means... Apple's favorite way is what's called the patent troll... They file patents on things that have no business being patented... For instance.. Apple filed a patent for the SHAPE of their damn phone... a rectangle with rounded edges was a patent for Apple. They tried to patent SWIPING the screen to unlock it. This is the kind of ridiculous BULLSHIT that causes markets to be kept in a stranglehold by 1 or 2 companies.

What we have is a market where about 1 or 2 companies can't bully the other out or else they would. The only reason Samsung even exists in the US market is because they are simply too large for apple to bully out of..


OH and before another one of you LUDDITES tries to tell me or any other tech nerd that APPLE revolutionized or started the smart phone industry, the hell they did... PALM did and then Blackberry after them.. All APPLE did was bring the Cult of Personality and give every moron on the planet the ability to become a narcissist. There were millions of smartphones in the US before APPLE came... and now NONE of those companies exist. And I'll tell you I was damn sad that they forged the end of the QWERTY keyboard.. I loved them.

I had a Palm Treo long before APPLE iPhone came out.. Was damn cool! Now I use a Huawei Nexus 6P and my next phone will be a Huawei as well.. Chinese phones that have tons of hardware and software capability at a fraction of the price... The US (backed by Apple funded senators and congressmen) is trying ot make Huawei banned in the US... They are citing security concerns with backdoors from the Chinese made chips.... THE REAL reason is that APPLE doesn't like competition. The Backdoor thing is bullcrap and anyone with tech experience knows it... hardware backdoors are incredibly hard to manufacture and would cost more money than they're worth in effort. The NSA had software backdoors in Microsoft Systems for decades. Almost every motherboard manufacturer had BIOS level backdoors for the 3 letter agencies as well.. All that got exposed well over 10 years ago.

 

[Sam7sf]

OH and before another one of you LUDDITES

I got no problem hating technology lol

 

[Ole Cowboy]

That doesn’t mean it’s right.



Define fair and open competition. Apple, Google, Facebook each compete in a marketplace that is different from one another.

Here’s a different twist on the argument that an arbitrary number should trigger government action: anything more than 1 each pistol, rifle, and shotgun and the government should come in and confiscate excess guns.

I would rather see the federal government step in and declare martial law in Chicago and clean it up than have them manipulate the economy. The federal government should (and does) have a say in public safety for the public good.

To solve the problem of potentially outsize influence, the solution is easy: prohibit lobbying and campaign contributions.

So far every Corp the govt has broken up has produced only more winners. Just look at the AT&T breakup and the results. In the late 60's we could have had car fones, we had the tech. Our fone bills were far higher back then than today, yet today I can call all over the world mostly for pennies on the min. I remember it costing as much as $10.00 per min to call home from Korea. Southwest Bell today is bigger than AT&T ever was. But the breakup created the competition in the market. AT&T was not broke up because they were worth to much, but but because they owed most of the telephone poles.

Vertical market dominance another cause that is a barrier to competition. At one time you could not: Raise the cattle, Raise the feed for the cattle, be the slaughterhouse for the cattle, be the wholesaler and distributor for the cattle, own the truckage to move cattle and products, and own the retail side of the house. IIRC this is what got Standard Oil in trouble, from the hole in the ground to the gas in your car, they owned everything and it was a barrier to competition.

I have never said its based upon an arbitrary number, but at some point in time you cross a threshold that triggers scrutiny. It's a complex investigation, but when you have a market cap of $1T, and $254B in cash walking around money and no debt to offset.

Prohibit lobbying and campaign contributions is never going to happen!

I suspect that The cell fone business which is FAR from being a saturated global market and while Apple is the Gorilla there is still enough competition to insure that is a fair and open market for all players. I only used Apple as my example because I know it well and it was in the news with it crossing the $1T mark. I don't think there is a case to break Apple up at this time, but they certainly bear watching. As long as their role is that of an innovator they will continue to enter new market space. I think they are headed for the medical side of the house. Combine the power of a cell fone with capability of a medical device and and this could be revolutionary in healthcare.

You’re digressing into other topics. Apple is not responsible for chip foundries. You stated that Apple should be broken up by the government because it’s too rich. Now we are twisting the story to Apple is responsible for chip shortages even though it doesn’t own or operate any chip foundries. HUH, never said such!!!

Let’s for the sake of argument break up Apple so that the barriers to entry are lowered. Apple Mobility will still make iPhones out the wazzoo. Samsung will still make Galaxy’s out the wazzoo. LG will make phones. How is it now easier to enter the mobility market space? You still need to set up multi million $$ facilities that Samsung, LG and now Apple Mobility already have. Unless by break up you mean destroy. Or maybe you’re thinking that Apple can only make X number of phones and Samsung Y, LG makes Z and the government decides this which creates shortages in products which will be filled by insert startup name here. That’s kind of what socialists and communists think. And we see just how effectively they can manage markets.

I think you’re misunderstanding what the barriers to entry are for each industry. If Apple were actively crushing competition or start ups or buying up and shutting down competitors then maybe you have a case. However, the SEC and other regulators are supposedly looking those mergers and purchases over and can at any time squish them without breaking up successful companies. Why arent they and why would a new layer work better than the existing layers?

By the way. Why are there no new US based chip makers? Is it cause Apple swishes then or maybe government regulations suck. Same as oil refineries.

Talk about digressing into other topics, WOW!!!!!

Companies have been broken up over the years based upon a myriad factors. In the past it's fairly easy the company is a monopoly or is so vertical in the market that simply own it.

Barriers to competition: A good case study is Microsoft. I worked in R&D back in those days and as I looked across the IT landscape I saw one company that I KNEW would end up be the gorilla on the block and that was Apple. But MS had a LOCK on the Federal govt and Apple struggled to penetrate the govt. Gates became a Billionaire on the taxpayers dime. Apple could not break into the govt because Apple created its own software and mated it to its own computer, making it a proprietary system. The only place we could get Apple was in some specialities like some of us in R&D had them, in fact my office we all have Macs on our desk and I was able to place them in other enviros across the military...because I was my own Federal Contracting Officer and I had the budget so I could write the justifications and specs to get them in the door.

Now MS also did same same, however what they did was make a few tweaks to MS DOS and run it another brand of computer so it fostered competition in that way. Apple tried that but it did not work out very well due to the code to be written. In addition Apple was optimized to run on the Motorola chipset and not Intel.

The real barrier to competition was in fact MS and when they got their hooks into the Feds by going thru IBM was totally dominated in the mainframe in the Federal govt and as the Feds go, so did the Mil-Industrial complex and Corp America follow as fast as they could. Today globally, Apple commands about a7% market share and sits in 5th place among the competition.

Some may wonder, well if Apple is a $T and little debt and $254 Billion in cash for walking around money and they are not the market leader market share(s). The answer is simple, higher profitability on the products they sell, they don't have to sell the most, just sell for more money with great profit.

The take away:

While we have not broken up a company in some time we are in fact doing a better job of insuring that mergers and buy outs do not in fact create the barriers to competition. It appears this is the one area where the Feds seem to do a good job with some exceptions and those being GM/Chrysler they should have let them fail. I do not believe they would have failed to begin with. They both could have shed the fat and pounds that went along with it and emerged better companies. Ford has done very well.

 

[toddnjoyce]

Amazon has crossed the same mark. How are they different than Apple?

Amazon Becomes Second U.S. Company to Reach $1 Trillion in Market Value - The Wall Street Journalhttps://apple.news/AD1vxpZ2OQIGAh1HHD7FOzQ

 

[Ole Cowboy]

Amazon has crossed the same mark. How are they different than Apple?

Amazon Becomes Second U.S. Company to Reach $1 Trillion in Market Value - The Wall Street Journalhttps://apple.news/AD1vxpZ2OQIGAh1HHD7FOzQ

They are not different and Facebook is hot on their heels and so is Microsoft. We have 4 companies poised to pass the $Trillion mark.
They are big and they are diverse across offerings and ownership. As a result (IF you watched Varney Business this am) that was a hot topic.
A key question being that advertising which is a finite number. As these companies grow larger and larger they take a bigger piece of the advertising pie, thus making it more and more difficult for smaller companies to compete for the advertising finite dollars. Case in point, Apple has said it will have car for sale in the market place in the early 2020's. Therefore Apple is going to chase the advertising in the Automotive sector. With their size and their bankroll they can jump in the auto pond with both feet and make a big splash, they can suck the auto advertising well dry.

Amazon going head to head with Wal Mart on line and now they have plans for brick and mortar.

Every time a prettier girl walks in the room at dance, there is one more girls setting standing against the wall.

People only have so much money to spend and as they Mega companies grow they take more and more of the funds available for consumption and as they diversify more and more gets diluted and fewer and fewer small companies can compete.

BUT it gets WORSE: Corps have become political entities and are dictating who they serve and who they do not. Facebook, prob the biggest and farthest to the left is not shutting down business accounts that make their money primarily from advertising revenue. The reason is Facebook sees the money they are getting as taking away from Facebook revenue, so they shut them down!

Television is the main medium for advertisers in the U.S., as it has accounted for about 40 percent of all advertising spending in the country since 2010. However, with the rise of digital platforms, not all mediums are as heavily invested in as others. Particularly traditional mediums such as radio, magazines and newspapers all suffered a decrease in ad spending, with newspapers suffering the most. Newspaper ad spent is forecast to decline from nearly 15 percent in 2010 to about 5.5 percent in 2020. Despite being a leader in the advertising industry as of 2015, television’s share of advertising spending is also projected to decrease in the coming years. Digital is forecast to become the main media for advertisers in the U.S., accounting for 37 percent of all advertising spending in the country in 2017.

In terms of revenue, digital advertising in the U.S. is forecast to generate more than 116 billion U.S. dollars by 2021, with search advertising accounting for the largest portion of this amount. Banner ads and social media advertising also belong to digital formats important for advertisers in the U.S. Within the digital market, mobile advertising is also a heavily invested sub-sector of the advertising industry. In 2015, mobile advertising spending in the U.S. amounted to nearly 32 billion U.S. dollars. Forecasters expect that this spending will steadily grow in the future and amount to around 87 billion U.S. dollars by 2020. Search advertising and display advertising account for the majority of mobile advertising spending.