ME. historically challenged? That's hilarious. I've been paying attention to Apple's history while you have been asleep. You seem to be on a completely different planet or even in a completely different dimension.
Apple's stock rose from $12.35 (adjusted for stock splits) on 01/09/2007, the day the iPhone was announced, to $100.344, on 09/21/2012, in an almost steady climb in value during the time when all other stocks TANKED DUE TO THE STOCK MARKET CRASH. . . and all of the time Apple's PE was between 11 - 14 times earnings. Apple's stock dropped from that high in 2012 and over an 8-9 month period of stock manipulation went to an spit adjusted price of 56 with a PE of 8-9, after languishing there for a while, then started climbing again to 60.21 on March 13, 2013 with a PE of around 12 and Apple announced a seven for one stock split effective June 2, 2013 when the stock reached 64.64. Apple's stock started climbing from there and has not stopped climbing, still with reasonable PEs, until it reached a high of 132.94 on 02/24/2015. . . at only 16 times earnings. At no time was it ever a bubble. Data source NASDAQ set for ten year historical.
Apple's stock dropped only 6% when the stock market crashed on September 29, 2008. . . and quickly regained it's value and started climbing. . . and the PE was a reasonable during the entire climb.
What keeps iPhones selling in high volume, is mostly due to the upgrade cycles every year, where Apple includes a tiny ‘new’ upgrade to keep the iFanatics adding about $1000 per year into the Apple coffers.
Excuse me? $1000 price tags? What nether orifice did you pull that figure out of? One year upgrade cycles? Another falsehood. More ignorance from the Apple hater brigade and you specifically and you base your analyses on such tissue paper?
Very few people upgrades their phones every year when contracts are two year contracts. . . and only the most expensive models with the full complement of memory is as expensive as your exaggerated claim makes it.
Samsung comes out with a new, greater, better and more powerful with cooler gewgaws every four months. . . and you claim it is Apple with a quick up-grade cycle? And Samsung's top of the line models sell for more than Apple's. You ARE delusional. However under contract, the prices are so close as to be meaningless in difference. . . Except the bottom rung Samsung Galaxy Note 4 was $249 on contract while the lowest price Apple iPhone 6 was only $199 on contract. As I said, totally delusional.
it’s still the same iPhone, with upgrades for newer technology along the way. But, what Apple did back then, has been done by many others, and many of those others produce products as good or better than the iPhones.
Really???? Please show me and all of us here the phones that did what Apple did. ALL of the other companies who made MULTITOUCH screens. . . All the Phones that were capable of showing full screen desktop Internet sites. Show us a phone that used a FINGER as a pointing device. . . Show us a phone that was as easy to use that it did not require a MANUAL. What phones had VISUAL VOICE MAIL? What phones allowed you to just point at a name to call that person. Show me a phone that had such ease of use in selecting photos. Where ARE these mythical phones back in 2007? Where were they in 2008? 2009? 2010? Please, tell us!
BTW, nice ‘long list’ of Apple’s products and services, but, like you and I and everybody else in the world know, Apple is still a one product company, namely, iPhones.
Whenever someone uses the phrase "everyone knows" it's a sure sign it is false. There are forty-seven items on that list of products and services that I just named off the top of my head. . . and you just blithely dismiss them with the wave of your phrase "everyone knows" that Apple is merely a one product company. In the early 2000s, your argument would have been that Apple was a one product company, namely iPods. And similarly, if you had made that argument in the mid 1990s, you would have claimed that Apple was a one product company, namely the Macintosh computers. You would argue what ever you like, but it still would not be true. Most companies have dominant products. . . and Apple is no different, however Apple is not afraid to cannibalize its own products. It has been doing that with the iPhone and iPads eating the iPods.
However, Apple received just last quarter:
That's just one quarter. Multiply times about 3.3 to get yearly figures, since that was the best quarter of the year.
Just one new service on that list of 47 that had only 3 weeks of use in the last quarter and of which Apple had yet to receive any revenue is ApplePay. During the only FOUR MONTHS it has been in use, it has garnered Two Thirds of all digital wallet electronic payment transactions made in the United States. TWO THIRDS! Apple gets 0.15% of the value of each transaction.
Retail point of sale credit transactions now total over THREE TRILLION DOLLAR A YEAR. . . and Apple is now offering the most secure way to make those transactions. The banks are paying Apple 0.15% of all electronic transactions made with ApplePay. . . which could amount to multiple TRILLIONS of dollars of transactions of which Apple would get that percentage. You seem to totally ignore that little item. Do you have any idea what that degree of transactions translates into for Apple's bottom line in the future? Obviously you don't. Right now, if Apple got all 2/3rds of those, it's $3 Billion. . . but that's now. It will only grow in the future as more and more transactions are done electronically. Of course Apple only has a fraction of that at this time, but it is still a future profit point for Apple. It also does not include on-line transactions which ApplePay is designed to securely handle better than the forms of payment avoiding fraud.
By the way, exactly what product is Google selling for MONEY? How many products are in their mix?
Yeah, you’ve been paying attention to Apple’s history, which makes you an Apple zealot, or an Apple employee, or somebody that needs to get a life.
However, the argument doesn’t change the fact that, iPhones are the thing that have elevated Apple to its high profits and big market cap. That might be a good thing right now, but, it’s not what builds a secure future for the company. iPhones will NOT be forever popular and will not sell in high-volume forever. Apple is trying to diversify in order to not be so dependent on iPhones, but part of their diversification has Apple looking to IBM to rescue the iPad from becoming irrelevant. That Apple admits that they can’t play in the enterprise field without help, speaks volumes about how much they themselves feel about their future. IBM is not going to rescue Apple or the iPad. The iPad will continue to sell in decent numbers, but, it’s in a fading market, and the ‘new’ market is in hybrids, which Apple is rumored to be entering with the ‘iPad Pro’, which means that, Apple will be coming in late to the market, but, with Apple’s loyal fan-base, the iPad Pro will sell well too, but not because it will be better than any of the competition.
Apple has been a follower since it release the original iPhone, and the competition has led in newer technology and with better devices. Apple follows by developing their own devices with the specs of phones that the competition had one or two years earlier; example, the larger screen sizes, where the competition had them about 3 years before Apple.
I’m not here to separate you and Apple. Nobody should come between a love that’s so strong. I just can’t see where people can be so fanatical about a company or a product. It’s nonsensical and yucky to me.