Originally Posted by clifp
Proctor and Gamble, Coke, and McDonalds all come to mind but when I checked none were over 100 billion. P&G was close at 86 billion. I than thought of Microsoft and Google (the Xbox fits on table as do all of Google products) but again not 100 billion, Even IBM barely does 100 billion in revenue and obviously you'd need a huge table. ...
And I probably didn't get the quote exact, I didn't replay it. I think he may have used an even higher $ figure, like 150B which would limit it further, and I'm pretty sure he left it open, like 'What other company can say that?'
- I don't think he said it definitively, like 'No other company can say that'
. So I think he was just trying to get the point across on how focused they are.
And even if Caterpillar made only one model earth-mover, it wouldn't fit on a table!
Originally Posted by photoguy
At times this has annoyed me ( it has been years since apple made a mid range desktop without built in monitor)
I agree, but as you say, who can argue with success?
When Jobs took over, the Apple product line was a real mess. There were so many models, with overlapping features/specs - a real nightmare. You might try to go up the line in one area (CPU/RAM), and the higher $ model dropped other features that the lower $ model had. It was a mess.
But I thought Jobs took it to extremes wen he stripped the line down to just a few models. I thought maybe once they had their bearings, they might broaden the range a bit, w/o going to extremes again. It's one of the reasons I went with Linux and stopped buying Apple products for myself - they didn't have a cheap, low end netbook when I wanted one. So I bought a little ASUS for $280 that came with a weird Linux on it (Zandros, Xandros?), I replaced that with Ubuntu, and I've been there ever since.
But Apple seems to be doing fine w/o me