Apple, Nokia, Yahoo !, IBM - the ups and downs of companies. BMW history: ups and downs

Apple is one of the few global corporations whose ups and downs certainly compel its founder to be remembered. It was Jobs, without a doubt, that was the driving force that led the company to success, but even a genius like him had to fail. It’s interesting, and what was the fifth year for Apple without its ideologist? the site has prepared a selection of the ups and downs of the company, which fell to its share in the past year.

Achievement: iPhone is still popular

Yes, contrary to ongoing criticism from consumers, competitors' attempts to create something breakthrough and derogatory forecasts of analysts, iPhone remains the best-selling smartphone in the world. In less than 10 years, Apple has more than one billion smartphones. Neither the crowned Nokia nor the ambitious Samsung succeeded in achieving similar indicators. It was not possible to influence the sales of the iPhone even due to the lack of a 3.5 mm connector in the new models.

Failure: first decline in operating profit in 15 years

No matter how profitable the iPhone project, its position, as well as other products of the company, look relatively worse than a year earlier. This was stated by Tim Cook himself, holding an answer to investors from Wall Street. In order to draw profit indicators on itself, even the huge potential of the Apple Watch was not enough.

Achievement: victory over the FBI

Everyone remembers the high-profile case of San Bernardino, in which the US Federal Bureau of Investigation demanded that Apple crack the suspect’s iPhone? Then this topic was perhaps the most exciting, occupying the front pages of such eminent publications as The WSJ, New York Times and Forbes. There were rumors that Apple could face big problems, stand trial on the side of the secret services. But be that as it may, the company of its customers to the secret of personal life.

Failure: tax problems with the EU

Tax crimes are rightfully one of the most serious in most Western countries. Having violated the law in the field of taxation at least once, it will be very difficult to avoid responsibility. Especially when it comes to billions. According to the decision of the European Commission, the company from Cupertino to the Irish authorities about 13 billion euros. It seems that even Donald Trump will not be able to save her from payments.

Achievement: opening the next generation Apple Store

Their story begins in 2014, when the former head of the Burberry fashion house took over as vice president of a retail company. It was she, based on her remarkable experience in retail, together with Joni Ive, who was the ideologist of the concept of the updated Apple Store. As of the end of December 2016, no more than 5 such stores have been opened around the world, having from the more familiar “apple” retail. What is not an achievement?

Failure: iPhone Reliability Issues

You probably already forgot about a whole bunch of problems that thousands of iPhone owners were forced to face, of course, if you yourself did not become their victim. If you can’t remember anything else, we recommend that you familiarize yourself with our materials about "" and "", which turned the devices into "bricks".

Achievement: iOS 10 success

Whose full-fledged release took place last fall, it has become - I’m not afraid of this word - the ideal version of Apple’s mobile OS in recent years. She became an outlet after several years of glitches, bugs and friezes of the system. Even despite the abundance of new features, each of them worked exactly as intended in Cupertino. In short, iOS 10 is the best thing that could happen to a system since iOS 6.

Failure: New MacBook Pros

Fresh MacBook Pro 2016 model year was not as attractive as we expected. Last year's hardware, the complete absence of the usual connectors, problems with autonomy, and - a cherry on the cake - an unlit apple. All of these are the new MacBook Pros. It got to the point that even the Consumer Reports guys, known for their Apple loyalty to Apple, recommend them for purchase.

Do you think otherwise? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Only 12 of the 100 US companies recognized as the largest in 1917 retained their names a century later. Some of the “survivors,” including General Electric, AT&T, Ford, and Dupont, have identified features of American industry and innovation.

The fortune of every prudent and sufficiently wealthy person who would have invested $ 1,000 in each of the 100 largest US public companies of the time in 1917 would now reach $ 26.6 million, if only based on an assessment of their value. Their annual yield of 5.8% is only slightly higher than the Dow Jones Industrial Average. But given the dividends paid, the yield is likely to be 10% per year, and the total result is $ 1 billion.

The average inflation rate over the past 100 years was 3%.

In terms of profitability, the main star of the list of 100 largest companies in 1917 is Procter & Gamble: a starting investment of $ 1000 would then have grown in value to $ 1.6 million at present (taking into account dividends, this amount would have been at least $ 50 million).

Most companies from the list of the largest hundred years ago have changed as a result of mergers and divisions. But a large role in their income was played by government intervention. American Telephone & Telegraph, known as Mommy Bell, was forced to split into eight companies in 1984 for those born during the birth boom in the first 20 years after World War II. Thus, the owners of the original company would also have today shares of Verizon and Comcast, CenturyLink and Nokia.

Similarly, John Rockefeller's Standard Oil was split in 1911 at the request of the government into many companies. Ten of them were among the 100 largest companies in America in 1917, when Forbes was founded. Their tracks are found today at Exxon Mobil and Chevron, BP and Sinclair Oil.

Investors who invested in the Sears, Roebuck & Company chain of stores in 1917 would be right, even despite a 90% drop in the company's stock over the past 10 years. Every $ 1,000 investment would then turn into $ 691,000 today thanks to a stake in Allstate subsidiary insurance company and financial Dean Witter (currently Morgan Stanley).

Kodak went bankrupt in 2012. But a stake in Eastman Chemical, which came out of it in 1994, means that shares worth $ 1,000 in 1917 now cost $ 138,200.

As for investments in railways, including companies such as Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe and Southern Pacific, which have been considered disgusting for decades, not everything is so bad with them: their shares fell into the portfolio of Berkshire Hathaway holding , which is managed by the best investor of the century Warren Buffett.

Methodology: it is estimated that $ 1,000 is being invested in the largest US companies in 1917 in terms of assets. Factors such as spin-offs are taken into account. But the distribution of cash, such as dividends, is not taken into account. These calculations are based on Forbes ten years of research, including work done for the issue dedicated to the 75th anniversary of the journal. In analyzing the distribution and separation of shares since 1992, Forbes was assisted by NetWorthServices from Phoenix, which provided its NetBasis product, which is used by many large corporations in stock options.

Having spent more than five years and billions of dollars trying to recreate the shale revolution in the image of the United States, some of the largest oil companies are starting to abandon their plans amid falling oil prices.

Recently, companies such as Chevron, Exxon Mobil, and Royal Dutch Shell have phased out shale oil exploration activities in Europe, Russia, and China.

The reasons for this decision are very different: from Russian sanctions, a ban on the use of hydraulic fracturing technology in France, poor results in Poland to lower oil prices, as a result of which the cost of a barrel of shale oil becomes higher than market prices.

Chevron ceased its fracking business in Europe in February when the company left Romania.

Shell said the company will cut shale oil production costs by 30% in countries such as Turkey, Ukraine and Argentina.

As for Exxon, the company left Poland and Hungary, and fracking in Germany was frozen.

Result: in addition to the USA, where hydraulic fracturing technology has led to a real breakthrough in the oil industry, only in China, Argentina and Canada shale oil production has gone commercial, the US Energy Information Administration notes, despite the fact that the USA has less than 10% of estimated reserves shale oil in the world.

According to the IEA, in Europe, including Russia, and China almost three times more reserves than in the United States.

“Shale production growth outside of North America is significantly slower than anticipated,” said Simon Henry, Shell's chief financier.

The recovery in oil prices could change the situation, which would give oil companies more motivation for risky shale production. And, experts say, there is still a favorable prospect for the development of shale production outside of North America.

Countries like Argentina and Algeria, according to Fawzi Alulu, an IEA analyst, are in about the same favorable position as the United States.

Two French and one British companies are planning to start drilling in the UK, where there is still debate about the use of hydraulic fracturing technology and its consequences for the environment and human health.

In Poland, small companies like the ones that started the shale boom in the USA continue to drill, despite the poor results of their larger colleagues.

Fracking technology uses water, sand, and fracturing chemicals to provide oil and gas output.

Unlike long-term projects, which specialize in the largest oil companies in the world, shale wells have a very short life. Therefore, in the production of shale oil, there is a need for constant drilling of new wells.

This technology was good for small upstream companies in North America, but oil giants such as Exxon and Shell, where it takes a long time to get approval for drilling, are out of the game.

Knowing that other countries also have reserves of shale oil, large companies began to look for where they could make a profit and join the new trend.

The heads of the East European countries, seeking to reduce their dependence on Russian gas, supported energy companies.

Chevron began investing in Romania, Lithuania and Poland, which, according to geologists and experts in the oil industry, are the most attractive in terms of the development of shale production. However, drilling in Poland led to rather disastrous results.

Chevron continued drilling even after the IEA lowered its shale gas reserves estimates in Poland by 20% in 2013, while other companies, such as France’s Total, admitted defeat.

By 2014, Chevron’s position in Eastern Europe was rather depressing. Last summer, the company left Lithuania. Last fall, the President of Romania said that the country does not have as many reserves of shale oil and gas as originally intended. And in January Chevron decided to leave Poland.

According to the company, shale opportunities in Central and Eastern Europe are significantly lower compared to other projects in the Chevron global portfolio.

At the same time, the company is still considering the possibility of shale gas production in South Africa.

ConocoPhillips is the only major company that still operates in Poland.

Exxon had similar problems in Hungary, where she left in 2009, and in Poland, where she left in 2012.

Exxon’s attempts to develop this area in Germany were undermined by the introduction of a moratorium on the use of hydraulic fracturing technology, and Western sanctions imposed on Russia prevented it, as well as other international large companies, from developing shale production in Russia.

At the moment, according to company representatives, among countries outside North America, Exxon is engaged in shale production in Argentina and Colombia.

One of the challenges companies have been facing is the high cost of drilling outside the US compared to oil prices, which have plummeted over the past six months.

Exploration wells in new areas require exploration. Drilling wells in Poland and China can cost up to $ 25 million each, while wells in North America cost about $ 5 million on average, says Melissa Stark, a researcher and author of the 2014 shale production report from Accenture LLP.

Shell began discussing shale mining with Chinese authorities in 2006, sources say. At that time, the company was actively looking for shale reserves around the world and entered into agreements in Sweden, Turkey, Russia and Ukraine.

The conflict in Ukraine and the sanctions imposed against Russia undermined the company's plans for production in these two countries.

Shell left Sweden in 2011 after intelligence provided disappointing results. Shell says the company is analyzing drilling results in Turkey, and is also awaiting information from the South African government regarding the development of shale projects.

Shell discovered shale gas in China in 2011. However, the problematic geology, infrastructure and protests among the local population led to the fact that the process had to be suspended, company representatives said. Last fall, Shell decided to curtail its work there.

Accenture's Melissa Stark believes countries with strong national oil and gas companies such as China, Argentina and Saudi Arabia are more likely to lead shale production outside the United States.

They have rights to develop resources within the country, support from the government and a lot of money. And it is state-owned companies that remain in the market of these countries in the long run, which is why they can invest in long-term projects, she said.

Creating a new enterprise is always a risky business. Indeed, in fact, starting a business is a step in an unknown direction. Any outcome is possible here - a quick take-off, a failed attempt or the collapse of titanium. The cause of failure and success can be any little thing - the appointment of an incompetent person to the post of head of the enterprise, theft of property, a rapid change in the market, the onset of the financial crisis.

But even from the most hopeless situations there is an opportunity to get out. However, not everyone succeeds. If a drop from a small height remains unnoticed, then a drop from the top of the market will respond for a very long time. Just these echoes we would like to mention today. We examined the 10 most significant failures.

A famous company with almost 100 years of history will take first place on our list. It was discovered in 1937 by Dr. Edwin Land. The scientist has developed the very first polarizing material used for commercial needs. He applied his developments in many technological and household devices.

The take-off of the company happened after the release of the original cameras, which immediately printed, the resulting pictures. The boom in device popularity happened in the 80s and 90s. The company produced specialized cameras and cassettes with special paper.

By the beginning of the 2000s, Polaroid was gradually losing the market, and after that it could not stand the competition with the digital image format that was gaining popularity at that time. In 2001, Polaroid filed the first stage of bankruptcy and then sold part of the company.

The once famous company "Kodak", which produced popular cameras and photographic film. Products under the name of this brand were in the home of every Russian. In 1963, Kodak began production of its most famous cameras, which used type 126 color film.

Already in 1976, one of the company's engineers developed a prototype of the first digital camera with a resolution of 0.1 megapixels. However, the release of the camera was delayed and as a result, the company lost a huge market share.

3. Nokia

Perhaps the collapse of this company could not be reconciled, perhaps, many millions of people around the world. It was so bitter to watch the fall of this "giant." Everyone used Nokia mobile phones in the 1990s and 2000s.

In 2007, a landmark event in the world of mobile technology - the release of the iPhone. And from that moment on, the company began a series of failures. In the race for the consumer, Nokia began to produce raw and unfinished products with disgusting firmware. After that there were a number of unsuccessful decisions of the leadership.

As a result, the company sold the unit involved in the development of mobile phones, was acquired by Microsoft.

Once one of the leaders in the consumer electronics market, MIR was founded in 1993. The network included 72 stores throughout Russia. In 2007, the company's turnover amounted to 675 million dollars. The network ranked 4th in the home appliance market.

As we recall, in 2008 the world economy suffered a crushing “blow” that destroyed many enterprises, firms and financial corporations. Among them was a Russian company. In 2010, the MIR chain of stores was declared bankrupt.

Siemens mobile phones have been available since 1985. They were very popular in the 1990s and early 2000s. However, due to problems with the software, mobile phones of the company constantly needed a flashing.

In 2005, the Siemens mobile unit was sold to BenQ, which also did not bring due success. As a result, mobile phones with this name ceased to exist.

Computer maker Olivetti launched its first product, the Olivetti M20. After that, the M24 model was released, copying the IBM PC. In 1985, the company bought a controlling stake in Acorn.