Apple Inc to join Dow industrials index this month, replacing AT&T Inc

Business Financial Post ^ | 03/06/2015

[SeekAndFind]

Apple Inc. will join the Dow Jones Industrial Average on March 18, replacing AT&T Inc., in the first reshuffling since September 2013.

Apple holds a market capitalization of about US$736 billion, making it the largest publicly traded company in the world. AT&T, by contrast, has a market value of US$176.5 billion.

Shares of Apple were higher in early trading, gaining 1.3% to US$128.02, while AT&T’s shares fell 1.3% to US$33.55.

The changes will push the number of technology-related companies in the 30-member gauge to six and boost their influence even more as the tech giant joins Microsoft Corp., Intel Corp., International Business Machines Corp., Cisco Systems Inc. and Visa Inc.

AT&T is being kicked out after falling 4.5% in 2014. The changes will take effect with the start of trading on March 19.

[Swordmaker]

So Apple is actually not at the top of the list.

Look, tacticalogic, if you do not understand that FANNIE MAE—the FEDERAL National Mortgage Association—is an organization established by the US Federal government operating under REGULATIONS and control of CONGRESSIONAL and PRESIDENTIAL pressures. . . or that it is in large part owned by the government, and, which I explained to you, received a HUGE infusion of GOVERNMENT BAILOUT MONEY when the US Treasury bought Fannie Mae bonds, and in fact, as part of the sub-prime mortgage crisis, was forcibly put into the conservatorship of the US Government by President George W. Bush under The Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008, which also authorized an up to $100 BILLION per year cash infusion into both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, until $250 BILLION was infused into both credit guarantee organizations that had been taken over by the government, and that MORE transfer payments were made by Obambi's second round of bailouts as lump transfers, none of which which were not true EARNED REVENUE by Fannie Mae, but which were booked as revenue, then you are hopelessly lost in your anti-Apple hatred and delusions.

As a result of this Government seizure of Fannie Mae was de-listed from the New York Stock Exchange on June 16, 2010, and is no longer a publicly traded stock.

The funds and obligations of FANNIE MAE are considered part of the Federal off budget items and are part of the national debt. . .

"On May 8, 2013, Representatives Scott Garrett introduced the Budget and Accounting Transparency Act of 2014 (H.R. 1872; 113th Congress) into the United States House of Representatives during the 113th United States Congress. The bill, if it were passed, would modify the budgetary treatment of federal credit programs, such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The bill would require that the cost of direct loans or loan guarantees be recognized in the federal budget on a fair-value basis using guidelines set forth by the Financial Accounting Standards Board. The changes made by the bill would mean that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were counted on the budget instead of considered separately and would mean that the debt of those two programs would be included in the national debt. These programs themselves would not be changed, but how they are accounted for in the United States federal budget would be. The goal of the bill is to improve the accuracy of how some programs are accounted for in the federal budget."

No other company on that list has their debts considered part of the national debt.

Quasi-governmental organizations are NOT CONSIDERED BUSINESSES because they operate under a completely different set of rules and environment. Fannie Mae is backed by the full faith and credit of the US Government. . . and has MANDATED customers by law. No other business on that list is so backed, or has guaranteed customers. Fannie Mae, like the two Chinese government owned banks which also have mandated customers, does not belong on that list, and should not be there.

I wonder who added Fannie Mae to the list. . . seems strange. They could have just cut to the chase and put the US Government up there and counted all the Tax Revenue received in April. . . and been as accurate.

[Swordmaker]

So Apple is actually not at the top of the list.

I also refer you to the qualifiers in Post 73, which you conveniently ignored:

"Revenues are all well and good. . . but it's like Market Share. Unless those revenues stick to your fingers and in your pocket, they mean NOTHING. Unless you want to count certain Government national banks like the Industrial & Commercial Bank of China's profits of $ 42,718,000,000 with assets of 3,124,886,000,000 (that three TRILLION dollars). . . and the US Government's Fannie Mae withe profits of $ 83,963,000,000 on assets of 3,270,108,000,000 (another $3 trillion in real estate loans), There is NO OTHER COMPANY IN THE WORLD with profits like Apple's!"

I specified exactly what Fannie Mae was there. . . a US Government owned entity. . . and the same for the Chinese bank.

And you chose to ignore the statement in Post 79 as well. So I will repeat it:

"The Number one position is occupied by the quasi-government entity FNMA, which is only there because of an artificial political move by the Obama regime. . . the governmental bailouts to save it from bankruptcy.

Fannie Mae had a whopping big quarters and year in 2013 because the US Government bailed FNMA out because of HUGE LOSSES of $59.8 Billion in 2008, $74.4 Billion in 2009, and even more losses in 2010. . . and they booked those huge multi-Billion dollar bailouts from tax payer funds as income recovery in 2012 and 2013. Without those non-real-revenue funds, FNMA would have still been in the red on 2013 as they paid out funds on foreclosed property loans.

There are two other larger organizations that are not listed, but both are government owned banks in China which mandate that all businesses in the country do business with them and mandate their levels of profit. . . they do not qualify for inclusion. . . and really Fannie Mae being a quasi-government body with over 3 Trillion in assets should not either.

You cannot be that dense to ignore the facts. . . so it has to be your anti-Apple bias at work here. . . you sheer hatred of Apple and your desire to simply DENY Apple the credit for what they have accomplished. You are completely delusional and would prefer GOVERNMENT over private industry.

You expose yourself as a dyed in the wool LIBERAL by that preference.

[tacticalogic]

You made the mistake of arguing in absolutes, and now you’re having to move the goalposts to CYA.

[Star Traveler]

OMG! He thinks that the government monstrosity, Fannie Mae, is a “business” to be compared to Apple?! ... LOL ...

We’ve not only got an APPLE-HATER TROLL in our midst, we’ve got a closet Liberal in our midst ... :-) ...

[Swordmaker]

You made the mistake of arguing in absolutes, and now you’re having to move the goalposts to CYA.

No, sir, you are the idiot here. You do not understand anything about business at all. . . or economics. You want to include GOVERNMENT ENTITIES as businesses. I am NOT the one moving any goal posts. The charts I posted are the ones being used by all news reports. . . and they also EXCLUDE government entities. YOU want to include them for your warped world view. You might as well include every government as competitors to business, which DOES out you as a LIBERAL socialist supporter.

[Swordmaker]

You made the mistake of arguing in absolutes, and now you’re having to move the goalposts to CYA.

Your Alinsky Tactics are not going to work on me, Liberal Socialist Troll.

[tacticalogic]

Your Alinsky Tactics are not going to work on me, Liberal Socialist Troll.

Name calling isn't going to save you.

[Swordmaker]

Name calling isn't going to save you.

Who needs saving, Troll? I am the one who presented the indisputable FACTS.

You are the one throwing stink bombs, not I. You are the one who is dancing, trying desperately to re-interpret those facts to suit your agenda

You are the one who demonstrates very plainly you do not know what you are talking about and are trying to obfuscate the clear evidence.

Frankly, tacticalogic, your abysmal ignorance is NOT MY PROBLEM, it's YOURS. Get a better education. However, you should stop presenting your ignorance as facts. . . and you should certainly quit parading your ignorance as superiority.

You think you have a "Gotcha" when you do not. When I posted the evidence I properly provided clear explanations of what it included and what it did not include and why certain government quasi-businesses were not included. Even the chart that included Fannie Mae specified it was a "Government Sponsored Entity", which should have raised red flags even for a Liberal Socialist Troll, such as you, that it is NOT LIKE THE OTHERS ON THE LIST! If it is not like the others on the list, then it does not belong on the list! Where are the two Chinese Banks that actually had greater profits than FNMA? They were excluded for the same reason that FNMA should have been excluded. . . they were "Government Sponsored Entities".

You just toss out your unsupported, worthless opinions which are basically stink bombs released from your nether orifice. No value at all. Your tactics are pure ALinsky Rule #5. You are attempting to freeze me and ridicule me. . . as you and your ilk have attempted to do from the beginning on these Apple threads. Sorry, it simply doesn't work. You have no logic. . . You should change your name to Liberal Socialist Troll. . . because that is how you are coming across when you support a government entity as a business in competition with truly independent non-government supported businesses.

[tacticalogic]

Who needs saving, Troll? I am the one who presented the indisputable FACTS.

You're the one that's having to "qualify" things you previously asserted as "indisputable FACTS".

[Swordmaker]

You're the one that's having to "qualify" things you previously asserted as "indisputable FACTS".

They ARE indisputable facts, except for Alinsky Rules for Radicals using Liberal Socialists Trolls like you, who think that GOVERNMENT ENTITIES are the equivalent of real businesses. . . and obviously love big government.

The data I was using were comparing real businesses to real businesses.

Not like you want to do. . . comparing real businesses to government backed, bailed out Government entities whose artificial revenues came solely from the US Treasury in re-imbursements for losses they incurred in previous years for bad business practices of requiring loans to people who could not pay to even service the loans, because they are a SOCIALIST POLITICAL ORGANIZATION.

If that is your level of discourse you are LOST. Resign your conservative credentials, join the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the Democratic Party. That's where you belong when you make that kind of argument.

[tacticalogic]

If they were truly “indisputable”, you wouldn’t need to be qualifying them to circumvent the potential disputes.

[Swordmaker]

If they were truly “indisputable”, you wouldn’t need to be qualifying them to circumvent the potential disputes.

You claimed that I had to PROVE my challenge to you, in context of businesses, was:

"Show me another money machine producing any where near as well.

I showed you various proofs that Apple was generating wealth in unprecedented numbers. You then absurdly claimed that you did not have to falsify my assertion, but that I had to provide proof that no other business in history had ever made a greater showing than Apple. All you had to do was find a legitimate business with greater profits in a single quarter than Apple in any year in the past. You just did not want to do the work. . . or knew it was not possible. So you just threw a stink bomb.

Normal debate requires those who disagree to come up with an example that falsifies the assertion of the positive. . . but you claimed I had to provide absolute unequivocal proof . . . which I provided with evidence, explaining that there are three governmental supported entities which list revenues but are normally excluded because of the governmental ownership and mandated participation (lack of legitimate competition by legal exclusion from competition). I specifically listed Fannie Mae as one of these. The lists I provided then compared Apples to Apples, properly omitting the governmental oranges.

Then. YOU, absurdly, want to claim one, if not all three, of those excluded "oranges", a governmental created and backed entity, FANNIE MAE, a business only by the grace of Congress calling it that by fiat, getting money from a GOVERNMENT HAND OUT, is the same thing as actually producing a real profit. It is not. They have produced NOTHING except economic disaster!

Talk about people completely unclear on the concept of what a PROFIT is. . . and talk about changing the goal posts.

Let me make this perfectly clear. Fannie Mae, being an adjunct of the Federal Government since 2008 when it was taken over by act of Congress and signed by the President, and therefore now part of the Federal Budget, even if not accounted for where it can be clearly seen, has produced NOTHING of value! It does not compete with other similar organizations for customers, instead has its customers mandated to participate with Fannie Mae by force of Federal Mortgage and Banking Law. It is NOT a business. It is a governmental Credit Agency.

To restore solvency, Fannie Mae BORROWED MONEY FROM THE FEDERAL TREASURY, who created the money to lend to Fannie Mae by borrowing it from the Federal Reserve who merely printed it, borrowing it against the full faith and credit of the US Government, thereby adding it to the national debt, and on receipt Fannie Mae put it on their books as revenue! Borrowing money for a bail out is NOT PRODUCING REVENUE OR A PROFIT!

Do you get it now?????

It certainly is NOT producing wealth. It was a transfer from the future earnings of We The People to the Government.

We well know that governments and government entities cannot produce wealth; they can only consume it.

Now, tacticalogic, are you going to continue playing super-dense due to your rabid anti-Apple hatred?

[adorno]

Bubbles are about companies that have no right to be so overvalued, like many of the companies in the dot.com bubble. There was also a huge bubble in the real estate market, where banks had huge numbers of mortgages, yet, with little value to a lot of them. The banks were riding high, but, from phony products.

You and that other guy want to keep up the Apple charade, then, more power to you. Apple is still a company with a huge bubble, and not from the ration of earnings vs market cap. Apple is a huge bubble because, they don’t really have the product line(s) to keep up the earnings, and Apple also can’t survive another economic meltdown with no diversification in products and services. iPHones alone is not a goog long-term strategy, and their other services are all dependent on iPhones continuing to have huge sales, which is still not a good strategy for long-term success.

I know it’s hard to see beyond the current huge earnings, and it’s also very hard for you and that other guy to see beyond your love for Apple, but, Apple is a bubble of astronomical proportions. People are investing on the strength of iPhone sales, but, that won’t be enough to secure long-term success.

But, like I’ve already said, you can risk your money and your love on Apple as much as you want. I’m a lot more practical.

[adorno]

Like I’ve already said, you can continue to stay in denial, and you can also show your love for Apple with your many posts, but, you can’t change the facts. The facts point to an Apple with one basic product driving their earnings and their market cap. The super-high earnings is nice to have, and most other companies would kill to have that kind of earnings, but, the point remains that, Apple is still, mostly, a one-horse show. In a lot of industries, one product might suffice for long-term success, but, in the hardware/software industry, one product is not going to be enough for long-term survival.

But, again, continue professing your love; I won’t get in the way and you can smootch and brown-nose Apple as much as you desire.

[tacticalogic]

You had to know arguing in absolutes is bad practice, but you got emotionally invested in it and let that get the better of good sense.

[Swordmaker]

You and that other guy want to keep up the Apple charade, then, more power to you. Apple is still a company with a huge bubble, and not from the ration of earnings vs market cap. Apple is a huge bubble because, they don’t really have the product line(s) to keep up the earnings, and Apple also can’t survive another economic meltdown with no diversification in products and services. iPHones alone is not a goog long-term strategy, and their other services are all dependent on iPhones continuing to have huge sales, which is still not a good strategy for long-term success.

You really don't have a clue. Apple went through the last melt down of the Stock market without a reduction and even climbed to $700 a share while every other stock was tanking. You keep beating your dead horse. You keep on repeating the same litany of falsehoods demonstrating you don't know anything about Apple's product lines. Why? You've been told by multiple people multiple times. Don't you bother to read the replies?

You keep claiming the iPhone will fail "any time now" when it has been going strong for eight years. . . and actually is getting stronger and stronger. Reaching a record sales in the last quarter unseen by any other smartphone before. Yet you keep beating on you rotting corpse of a dead horse.

Apple Product lines and Services:

• Apple iPhone 6 and 6 plus
• Apple iPhone 5s
• Apple iPhone 5c
• Apple iPad Air
• Apple iPad Air 2
• Apple iPad Mini Retina
• Apple iPad Mini
• Apple iPod touch
• Apple iPod Nano
• Apple iPod Shuffle
• Apple MacBook Air
• Apple Macbook Pro
• Apple Mac Mini
• Apple iMac
• Apple iMac Retina
• Apple iMac 5k
• Apple Mac Pro
• Apple AppleWatch
• Apple Thunderbolt Display
• Apple Airport Extreme Router
• Apple Airport Express Router
• Apple Airport Time Capsule 2GB
• Apple Airport Time Capsule 3GB
• Apple AppleTV
• Apple AppleCare Service Support Agreements
• ApplePay credit/debit card payment service.
• Apple Beats by Dr. Dre Headphones
• Apple iWorks, Pages, Numbers, and Keynote
• Apple Final Cut Pro
• Apple Logic Studio and Logic Pro
• Apple FileMaker Pro database software.
• Apple iTunes Music Store
• Apple iTunes Streaming Movies & Video
• Apple Podcasts
• Apple iTunes University
• Apple iTunes App Store
• Apple iBooks Store
• Apple Macintosh App Store
• Apple Online Retail Store
• Apple Brick and Mortar Stores
• Apple iCloud Server service
• Apple Licensed Products
• Apple Ad Network
• 40% ownership of ARM Holding, owner of ARM processors.
• P.A. Semiconductor, wholly owned subsidiary
• Apple's over 6,000 licensed patents and copyrights.
• Apple's 40% share of the Rockstar Consortium's $4.5 Billion Patent portfolio.

I am going to repeat. You simply DO NOT UNDERSTAND what a stock bubble or any price bubble is. Perhaps this time it will get through your apparently thick skull made of lignum vitae. A Bubble is a stock price of a company with a stock price far beyond the justification of any earnings of the company. That is all a bubble is. Apple is selling at 15-16 times earnings while other companies in the industries Apple competes in are selling for 27 to 70 times their earnings. THOSE are the stocks that may be bubbles. . . especially the ones with PEs of 70 or more.

[adorno]

You don’t really have a clue, do you? (Did I steal that line? If I did, well, I’m just imitating what Apple does. ;) )

But, in case you’re historically challenged, I’ll point it out to you. The economic meltdown occurred around 2007-2008, and the iPhone was still kind of new on the market. It wasn’t a resounding success initially, but, it was on an upward climb. The climb has already lasted 7+ years, and basically, 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. The uniqueness and novelty of the iPhones is no longer applicable. 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. Notice that, it’s still the iPhone, and that’s still the product that experts and analysts continue to mention when it comes to the future of Apple. Those iPhones had better never lose their ‘magic’, or it’s taps for Apple.

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. The rest are just window dressing, and of no real consequence. Sure enough, Apple does have a very good product with the Macs, but, the Macs are not what have Apple makeing stratospheric sales and earnings. With Macs, Apple would just be another Dell of HP. Heck, even Google could claims a long list of products and services, but there too, Google is mostly about advertising through a search engine; basically, a one-horse show too.

But, you can carry on with your Apple worship. I don’t depend on Apple for anything, and with good reason: I don’t trust a one-horse show to be around for very long.

[Swordmaker]

But, in case you’re historically challenged, I’ll point it out to you. The economic meltdown occurred around 2007-2008, and the iPhone was still kind of new on the market. It wasn’t a resounding success initially, but, it was on an upward climb.

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:

• $ 51.81 Billion revenue from iPhones
• $ 8.99 Billion revenue from iPads
• $ 6.94 Billion revenue from Macintosh Computers
• $ 4.80 Billion revenue from Services
• $ 2.40 Billion revenue from AppleTV and other products

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?

[Swordmaker]

You had to know arguing in absolutes is bad practice, but you got emotionally invested in it and let that get the better of good sense.

You are lost. Logic deprived, Liberal socialist Troll.

[adorno]

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.