>post-steve jobs applel

And yet they're making more money (=successful) than literally every other existing entity on the planet.

>>61559979
BTFOs the idea that consumers are rational actors who pick the best product. People are completely susceptible to marketing and will not make an informed choice.

>>61560836
Except Samsung

>>61561172
>if you don't buy what i think you should, you're objectively wrong and ignorant
ok

>>61560836
Well, they are masters at maintaining their brainlet cult followers.

>>61560836
>making more money (=successful)
>>>/pol/

>>61561172
>rational actors who pick the best product
>implying that value is objective or even real

File: listreveneue.png (56KB, 1435x380px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1435x380px

>>61560836
???

>>61559979
Steve Jobs was still alive and kicking when I bought my first and last Macbook. It was the worst computer I've had and the housefire cables were real too. I just threw it away eventually and didn't even try to sell it forward. Apple was never good.

>>61561376
>>making more money (=successful)
>>>>/pol/
making more money is an objective measure of successfulness, you are literally accepting that /pol/ is right

>>61561490
>objective measure of successfulness
At what? All key performance indicators that can be gamed will be gamed.

>>61559979
Is that even a real Mac? Pretty sure the GTX 770 was never in an iMac, but the 780M was.

>>61561415
Post the list by income instead.

>>61561527
no, see serial id - D25LHACK
OS X is the same everywhere tho

also its possible to have an external 7770

>>61561555
>income /= revenue
interesting

>>61561490
For the stock holders, maybe. All I care about as a consumer is the best product at the lowest proce. Apple is in the opposite direction, so it's a failed company relative its competitors.

>>61561574
He said making money, he made no mention of revenue. I think most would consider income a better indicator of "making money" than revenue. There are companies that have revenues in the billions but actually lose money.

>>61561376
>value isn't objective or real
Go back to /reddit/ with that post-modernist 4th wave feminist feels > reals bullshit.

Revenue IS income, you twit. If you mean profit, i.e. value not delivered to customers, say profit.

>>61561643
>implies that I should let (((someone else))) tell me what something is worth
Nice free market, /pol/cuck.

File: file.png (336KB, 1280x676px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1280x676px

I actually really like their aesthetic choices, it's such a shame that their hardware is grossly overpriced, severely underpowered, and the OS is extremely limiting in both software you can use and tinkering, even compared to Linux.

>>61561415
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_corporate_profits_and_losses#Largest_corporate_annual_earnings_of_all_time

>>61561415
>30% growth while everything else goes in the shitter
Already reserved their name among the top in humanity's history.

>>61561675
Who's talking about a free market?

There are ways to determine the value of something. Labour Theory of Value seems like a start.

File: 1472794808786.jpg (312KB, 1802x960px) Image search: [Google]

312KB, 1802x960px

>>61561337
>if i buy something that costs 500% more and performs worse, i'm objectively correct and informed

>>61561726
os is less limited than linux as its posix compatible + its own proprietary software

>>61561744
Literally how do they do it? Nothing else remotely comes close.

>>61561843
Good luck getting to all those tasty POSIX features

>>61561894
They're a fashion company, not a technology company.

>>61561903
>Good luck getting to all those tasty POSIX features
Not luck; design.
Source provided on request.