Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Becomes $3 Trillion Company Again, But Nvidia Steals the Moment

vladi said:
Oh come on don't do that here! Back in 2002 I went and blew 10k into Apple stock when it was $9 original asking price before none of that bs splits. Do you know why? Because I knew iPod would be the next cool thing for kids and that $9 per share is beyond obvious underestimation.
Click to expand...
Well then, tell me, who got "butthurt" (you're on thin ice with that polemic) investing (not trading) in Apple stock? If you held onto it, you certainly didn't, did you? Neither did anyone else who bought and held AAPL until today. You just don't want to admit you were wrong.
 
Dark_Omen said:
Not my fight, but you might want to sell now while your net worth is high.

Apple currently has nothing in the pot for the future.

  1. The car was cancelled.
  2. The VR headset doesn’t do anything that’ll change my life.
  3. The iPhone is mature and stale to the point where I may switch to a Pixel or Ultra.
  4. The iPad continues to be utilized wrong.
  5. Apple is far behind on AI capabilities and usage.
  6. The Mac is literally just an average computer.
  7. Apple Watch Ultra is nice, but isn’t up to its capabilities.
  8. The Apple Card is an afterthought at this point that’s waiting until the day it dies out.

Cook will drive the company into the ground and then retire.
Click to expand...
Well, it's certainly good to know someone who knows more than Apple execs about their plans.
And more than the stockholders.
And more than the stock analysts, who rate Apple a buy.
Next you'll tell me to sell my Berkshire Hathaway A. Or my Nvidia. Or my Microsoft (not gonna happen, can't afford the capital gains tax).
So where did you get your Economics PhD, Wharton or University of Chicago?
 
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy
victorvictoria said:
Well then, tell me, who got "butthurt" (you're on thin ice with that polemic) investing (not trading) in Apple stock? If you held onto it, you certainly didn't, did you? Neither did anyone else who bought and held AAPL until today. You just don't want to admit you were wrong.
Click to expand...

You jealous? :) To make you scream a bit some more I also bought AMD stock when it was trading for under $3 for exact same reasons why I bought Apple when it was under $10. If you are into technology and investing you should be more informed to snatch better deals and not jump onto band wagon once it happens. Oh and I'm not into stock trading nor investing at all, I do it for fun cause everybody is trading so I do it from time to time.

Btw I've been in desktop publishing since 1982 (when laser printers were retailing for $6,000 back then) and all of my PCs ever were Mac up until 10 years ago. I got pristine collection of literally few dozens of vintage Macs that still boot up and all together they are more worth to me than any of that stock trading bs money I've ever made.
 
NEPOBABY said:
Vocal interaction with a computer is fine in Star Trek because filmmakers need to make the story move along and don't have enough screen time to show characters typing and moving a mouse all the time.

In reality you don't really want to hear yourself talking to a computer all day and neither do people around you. Vocal interaction is fine for brief queries like searching for something, stopping an alarm, or asking about the weather but because "AI" will always have bugs, like all software does, you will be frustrated trying to vocally interact too much.

Even the simplest and oldest apps we use have annoying bugs, so please lower your expectations of some kind of science fiction future.

The de facto way of interacting with computers will remain a cursor or finger forever.
Click to expand...
Kinda the approach the there will always be a clutch and 4 on the floor folks took in the early days of automatic transmissions. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: dannys1
All I know is if I invested in Nvidia around the crash of 2000…less than a few grand in 200 shares that would be like 10,000 shares after all the splits! and it was on my watch list! dang hindsight. I loaded up on Yahoo, and yeah it saved my retirement but dang. And no I didn’t buy Apple at that time, I waited until 2008. I still don’t own Nvidia, I really should, but it’s far to easy for a new chip revolution or for a new way LLM’s use compute more efficiently that could effect sales. I think things could change on a dime, especially if AI starts to do research in that are. Apple is the safer short term bet, but Nvidia could double from here. Nothing in tech is safe 8 to 10 years out NOTHING! AI will change everything.
 
NEPOBABY said:
Word for word what we read at the top of every bubble. I had an uncle who said that and lost $3 million during the DotCom bubble. I have two cousins who thought they were moon boys and lost all their money on FTX.

For every person who makes a profit in stock holding or stock trading there are losers too. Everyone can't be a winner.
Click to expand...

Indeed, but if you invest and hold long term in any stable company you'll most likely make money.

Every major tech company has increased in value in the last twenty years - and tech will continue to do so. Granted there will be a few losers but if you've your finger on the pulse you can spot them (eg Intel, and if you'd invested in them 20 years ago you'd still have a massive increase now)

People who chase big or fast gains will likely lose, those in it for the long term can just sit back and be patient.

If you think LLMs, ML and generative AI isn't the biggest change in tech since the internet itself I don't know what to tell you. I guarantee you that whatever happens with Nvidia in the short term - if they haven't merged into another massive company they'll be worth more in 20 years time than they are now.
 
dannys1 said:
If you think LLMs, ML and generative AI isn't the biggest change in tech since the internet itself I don't know what to tell you. I guarantee you that whatever happens with Nvidia in the short term - if they haven't merged into another massive company they'll be worth more in 20 years time than they are now.
Click to expand...

I think it’s one thing to be huge, and it’s another to be able to build a profitable business model out of it.

Case in point - we can look at recent innovations like ride sharing, food delivery, as well as music and video streaming, as examples of “innovations” which have undoubtably had an impact on the lives of millions of people, yet don’t seem to be making their parent companies any money.

I also look at the recent spate of news revolving Humane and I think a lot of AI-infused hardware ventures will not make any money. The reason is that people simply do not want to carry an additional device along with them, yet at the same time, it’s hard to see an app being profitable when they all likely share the same backend and lacks system-level integration with your smartphone (which I suspect is why so many companies are trying to work around the smartphone in the first place).

What exactly is the business model for a service that can generate any image you want, and who is the target market even? So once again, it feels like these will all end up being ecosystem-level functionality that only the few tech giants can afford to integrate into their platforms and effectively offer for free. Apple especially once they figure out how to let all this run via on-device processing, which basically costs them nothing.

If anything, what we are seeing now is a gold rush, and no doubt Nvidia is making bank by selling companies the computing power they need. I estimate that maybe 80-90% of new AI products and initiatives are worthless and will stick around only as long as they have funding. We will eventually figure what sort of “AI” makes sense in computing devices and which will actually make a meaningful improvement in our daily lives, and I don’t think that will require 20 times the amount of GPU power compared to today, and I don’t think the majority of companies will be able to monetise these services in any meaningful manner.
 
Abazigal said:
I think it’s one thing to be huge, and it’s another to be able to build a profitable business model out of it.

Case in point - we can look at recent innovations like ride sharing, food delivery, as well as music and video streaming, as examples of “innovations” which have undoubtably had an impact on the lives of millions of people, yet don’t seem to be making their parent companies any money.

I also look at the recent spate of news revolving Humane and I think a lot of AI-infused hardware ventures will not make any money. The reason is that people simply do not want to carry an additional device along with them, yet at the same time, it’s hard to see an app being profitable when they all likely share the same backend and lacks system-level integration with your smartphone (which I suspect is why so many companies are trying to work around the smartphone in the first place).

What exactly is the business model for a service that can generate any image you want, and who is the target market even? So once again, it feels like these will all end up being ecosystem-level functionality that only the few tech giants can afford to integrate into their platforms and effectively offer for free. Apple especially once they figure out how to let all this run via on-device processing, which basically costs them nothing.

If anything, what we are seeing now is a gold rush, and no doubt Nvidia is making bank by selling companies the computing power they need. I estimate that maybe 80-90% of new AI products and initiatives are worthless and will stick around only as long as they have funding. We will eventually figure what sort of “AI” makes sense in computing devices and which will actually make a meaningful improvement in our daily lives, and I don’t think that will require 20 times the amount of GPU power compared to today, and I don’t think the majority of companies will be able to monetise these services in any meaningful manner.
Click to expand...

None of the four things you mentioned are revolutionary though. They're all things we already had done a slightly different way. A slightly different way to access music or video - a slightly different way to get a taxi or order food delivery.

LLM's are something we've never seen before.

I think you're right in that lots of little companies will try to jump aboard and fail. For the most part Microsoft and Apple will control things. It'll make the biggest tech giants bigger with OpenAI probably running a lot of the main stuff with a handful of other players.

It remains to be seen if a new company can come along and for instance replace all call centres with hardware - the problem being is that maybe this will all be done in the cloud and handled by one of the big companies like Amazon via AWS. The cloud monopolises a lot and the only way you could convince businesses to do it locally and spend more money would be for privacy and speed.
 
AlexESP said:
That might be your opinion as a customer, but it’s not what the market says. Apple is at all-time highs or close in most of its segments (e.g. phone), in terms of market share. The challenge for growth is not that they don’t offer competitive products, but the fact that those segments are stagnant.
Click to expand...
Most of the entire tech sector is at all time highs.

If you'd bought $1000 of Apple shares, and $1000 of Microsoft shares 10 years ago, the MS shares would be worth more today.

I was not at all saying that Apple isn't profitable, I was saying that... well, you can read my previous post again yourself.
 
Abazigal said:
My observation of AI is that it currently still suffers from a profitability issue. I can’t find the quote right now, but someone remarked on mastodon that the various companies have collectively spent a ton of money on AI, but generated only a small amount in revenue (not even profits), and it’s not even clear how they plan to monetise their products moving forward.

I don’t know about AI capabilities plateauing, but this sort of business sure ain’t cheap to go into, and I fully expect to see companies go under as their funding runs out and they don’t have a sustainable business model to show for all the money they have sunk into it.
Click to expand...
Considering this thread originated on the price of NVidia shares, I'm not quite sure how you missed the profitability of AI.

You're also focusing on profitability from consumer spending. The reality is that consumer spending is saturated and, as the wealth gap keeps on growing, is declining as a percentage of GDP. Nope, profitability is from business and government spending, and you're blind if you can't see all the wealth that AI has been already generating.
 
Nvidia passes Microsoft in market cap to become most valuable public company

Nvidia, long known in the niche gaming community for its graphics chips, is now the most valuable public company in the world.

Shares of the chipmaker climbed 3.2% in midday trading on Tuesday, lifting the company’s market cap to $3.33 trillion, surpassing Microsoft. Earlier this month, Nvidia hit a $3 trillion market cap for the first time, and passed Apple.

Apple shares were down about 1% during trading on Tuesday, giving it a $3.28 trillion market value. Microsoft shares slid less than a percentage point for a market cap of $3.32 trillion.
 
So are governments going to sue Nvidia because they are now a "monopoly"?

Or are actions selective and based on regulators and politicians lining their pockets with market manipulation?
 
stinksroundhere said:
So are governments going to sue Nvidia because they are now a "monopoly"?
Click to expand...
(1) NVidia is not a monopoly. Even if NVidia were a monopoly, (2) having a monopoly is not illegal.

"Obtaining a monopoly by superior products, innovation, or business acumen is legal"

stinksroundhere said:
Or are actions selective and based on regulators and politicians lining their pockets with market manipulation?
Click to expand...
But to answer your question...

US sets stage for antitrust probes into Microsoft, OpenAI and Nvidia

June 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Justice Department and the Federal Trade Commission have reached a deal that clears the way for potential antitrust investigations into the dominant roles that Microsoft, opens new tab, OpenAI and Nvidia, opens new tab play in the artificial intelligence industry, according to a source familiar with the matter.

The agreement between the two agencies shows regulatory scrutiny is gathering steam amid concerns over concentration in the industries that make up AI. Microsoft and Nvidia not only dominate their industries but are two of the world's biggest companies by market capitalization since Nvidia's market value recently surpassed $3 trillion.

The Justice Department will take the lead in investigating whether Nvidia violated antitrust laws, while the FTC will examine the conduct of OpenAI and Microsoft.

Nvidia has roughly 80% of the AI chip market, including the custom AI processors made by the cloud computing companies like Google, Microsoft and Amazon.com. That domination helps the company report gross margins between 70% and 80%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: stinksroundhere
nathansz said:
NVIDIA makes GPUs. apple includes a poor performing integrated gpu on their proprietary SOC
Click to expand...

Performance per watt Apple's GPU design is better than Nvidia's. Apple laptops are more respected on Reddit's generative AI and LLM subreddits than they are on this forum.
 
nathansz said:
So what stops them from boosting the power a bit and outperforming nvidia and amd outright for less wattage?
Click to expand...

Apple has always promoted efficiency and battery life. They aren't interested in burning the planet down unlike Nvidia AI bros and Bitcoin bros.

There is a lot of wasted energy in Nvidia GPUs also. They were originally designed for high performance gaming and had to adapted for inference and machine learning. That means they aren't optimally designed for these AI tasks and companies have to buy 1000 of them instead of 250. It's like all of the online AI businesses during this bubble cycle. They're selling overpriced shovels instead of selling gold.
 
stinksroundhere said:
Apple has always promoted efficiency and battery life.
Click to expand...

you've completely missed the point. battery life is of no consequence sitting at a desk.

apple still likes to go on about games from time to time, thus the game porting toolkit

yet no apple silicon can even match a 6xxx (last gen) amd in metal performance


as far as "AI" goes, which is only really a meaningless marketing term, apple has yet to show that it's silicon is more "optimally designed for these AI tasks" as you say
 
  • Like
Reactions: B.A.T
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back