Apple market cap tops Microsoft, is now world's largest tech company - Page 5

Yep, and don't forget the rating agencies, Moodies and Standard and Poors both complicit in this mess.

But as you say, probably due more to ignorance than calculated shenanigans! But either way it all boils down to greed.

When did Wall Street stop being a means to invest in companies and solely try to make money on money?

When did banks stop doing what banks do and become hedge funds? And when did AIG want to be a hedge fund or Porsche for that matter.

Sounds like our hedge funds need hedge funds!

We definitely need regulation of hedge funds and derivatives. There must also be transparency in the investment vehicles, as there is little now. It's like buying a pig in a poke, whatever that means.

Lots to agree with you there...just want to say, I've had the first gen. intel iMac, first gen intel Macbook and the first gen iPhone (now a 3Gs) and they are well worth the price of admission! As you say, it's all about the experience and the quality of life (how's that for corny?) But it's true. I am more productive with Apple products in my business life which leaves me not only more time in my private life...but also in a better mood, too! Oh well...i'm probably stating the obvious now!

Best

Is it a 'pig in a poke' or a 'pig AND a poke?'

Good chatting with you...but got to get to bed...maybe I can get a 'poke' with my girlfriend! She actually calls me 'Mr. Pokey'

Doubtful, though!

She was out most of the night with her best friend. I never did like that guy!

Just kidding!

Best

Nothing wrong about selling software for Windows. Selling plastic CDs is very lucrative business. Apple would just build [Adobe] software more Mac centered with more features for Mac.

This would make a boost to Apple desktop/laptop sales.
This would also prevent Google from controlling major set of creative software.
This will allow Apple to control Flash destiny.

As I said earlier I like your idea Mercury! But I have to believe Stevo looks at Adobe more as an albatross than good venture. Let Google take it on and make a mess of it and apple continue with
Aperture and god knows what else Apple has up their sleeve.

Who remembers? That's like the investments, who knows?

I don't think Apple wants to sell Windows software anymore. Safari is different, they're really giving away enabling software, like with itunes. But those help to sell Macs and other Apple hardware. Selling CS5 to Windows customers (60% of that market) isn't what Apple wants to do.

Do you remember Appleworks? It was cross platform. When Apple had a majority share in education they sold it for PC's. When they discontinued it for iWork, they dropped the cross platform capabilities. So what happened? Here in the NY public school system, everything moved over to the Office Student/teacher Edition. And Apple didn't care!

Yep, I was right, no luck with her tonight!

later

Best

Yeap, but the ms courrier and these prototype mice that moronic site engadget "leaked" will put ms right on the map in no time.

Balmer is a marketing genius, and an innovation guru. You look at this guy having more money than the gdp of some eurozone countries, and you wonder, how did this incompetent fat f. get there? It's an accomplishment to his cretin, oh sorry, slip of the tongue, I mean credit.

And let's not forget google, and all the companies they've bought, they have the potential to burn every single one of them.

Apple is doomed for sure.

I agree, but for now Apple can't match Adobe portfolio of professional creative software. Besides taking over Adobe Apple would control Windows market of creative software which would boost Mac hardware business:

Dreamweaver CS5
Fireworks CS5
Device Central CS5
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5
After Effects CS5
Photoshop CS5 Extended
Illustrator CS5
Soundbooth CS5
Encore CS5
Bridge CS5
Dynamic Link
Photoshop CS5 Extended
InDesign CS5
Acrobat 9 Pro
Flash Catalyst CS5
Flash Professional CS5
Flash Builder 4
Dreamweaver CS5
Fireworks CS5
Contribute CS5
Adobe Premiere Pro CS5
Adobe OnLocation CS5

Plus Adobe owns Flash/Flex/Air and PDF technologies. Integrate it with QuickTime and you would have some interesting products including for iPod.

I believe Adobe market cap will drop further to 10-12 billion making it a very attractive target for acquisition by Apple or Google.

Sure, Apple could gradually stop selling [adobe] Windows software forcing all creative pros to buy Macs since on PC side there is currently no good alternative to Photoshop, ILL, DreemW, Flash, Acrobat Pro.

That would be tough. You can do this when you buy one program, as Apple did with Logic, but to do it with every program in the catalog would simply engender too much bad will.

It would also destroy the value of the purchase of Adobe. It would result in a drop of Apple's market value. Overall, not a great idea.

OK. I'm feeling pretty smug at the moment, since I called 10 Million iPads sold in YE '10 immediately when it was announced... regardless of it's "missing features".

I fully expect the 3rd and 4th Q's demand to far exceed supply... but Apple will surely sell 10Mil. Sept./Oct. is when I plan on buying the 3 for my family. OS 4 is gonna get a lot of kinks out, and add some great new features: "I/You/We won't be disappointed"

If you're a shareholder as I am, it's a doubly pleasant situation for the Holidays.

Well, thanks!

One area where Apple badly lags Microsoft (and IBM and probably more than a few other tech companies) is investment in basic research. For many years it probably made sense to run lean in order to insure that Apple had a future. But tech companies like Bell Labs and IBM made Nobel prize level contributions to society. Now that Apple has performed so well I hope they do more than just product development. When Jobs was recruiting Sculley he asked him if he wanted to spend the rest of his life selling sugar water to kids (he was a rising executive at Pepsi). I guess the question now might be if Apple's ambitions are beyond selling media devices to kids.

Ohhh....

OMG, Thanks for posting that (Air Display)... I didn't see any announcement fot it.

When the Apple Tablet was only a rumor, I dreamed that it might be used as a co-peripheral to a Desktop Mac. I posted this to AI and some other forums (see below).

I bought the app and have used it successfully" with Photoshop, Steam, Pages, and FCS Motion.

* Performance is surprisingly good, though the dueling UIs are a little difficult to get used to.


... now, we have these 2 iPads...



Seriously, this is something that Adobe and Apple, AutoDesk and Apple, etc. should work together to co-implement. I was not planning to upgrade to CS5, but I would if they had a good implementation of an iPad co-peripheral UI.

Dick

Here's part of a post I made to TUAW last December:

http://www.tuaw.com/2009/12/18/tuaw-...al-apple-tabl/

...what the iPad doesn't do:

-- it doesn't make you wait
-- it doesn't confuse you
-- it doesn't get in the way, between you and your stuff

.

Yes, long AAPL.

Well, I'll take your 10 million iPads and raise it....



Lets not be conservative:





The killer iPad app: whatever you've always wanted [a computer] to do, but have never been able to do it, before [sic]!

oh... I'm getting dizzy[er]!


.

I'm half expecting Steve Ballmer saying that those figures are "a rounding error"

This is very odd..

I am running Air Display, mirroring the display of an iMac 17" (Developer System),

What it illustrates in spades, is that a desktop OS on a tablet is a complete fail... All those nay-sayers insisting that an Apple tablet needs a "proper" OS (desktop OS X), were/are so wrong.

iPhone OS X (better, Mobile OS X) is not yet perfect, but it sure outshines a desktop OS for this class of device!

SJ is soo right!

.

The "losing money on every item" isn't the GM theory... it's the pets.com theory.

Having loss leaders to bring in sales on other stuff...there's another very large corporation that goes with that - Wal-Mart. It seems to work quite well for them.

It IS semantics. Bloomberg knows to phrase things correctly:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...pWQ&refer=home

Note where they say in the headline "most valuable" They don't say "world's biggest."

Or better yet this: http://www.forbes.com/lists/2009/18/...2000_Rank.html

Berkshire Hathaway has a market value of $122 billion.
Toyota has a market value of $102 billion.

Toyota has higher income, higher profits and higher assets.

Would you SERIOUSLY argue that Berkshire Hathaway is a LARGER company in your headline? Seriously?

Actually, they aren't primarily an advertising company either, they are primary an information collection and control company. Advertising is but one application of the information they collect on individuals. So, yes, they don't care if they make any money directly with Android, or gmail, or gdocs, or any other gservice. It's all about collecting more and more personal information, which, among other things, may be used for targeting ads. This is why they can dump these products on the market below production costs, undermining competitors, while at the same time increasing their information collection and control capabilities.

Of course, one advantage of their dominance in search is that it gives them tremendous ability to control and manipulate information access, which, again, they use to funnel money to their bottom line.


They may think that the fragmentation of Android actually serves them best. They don't actually care how good it is, or how good the user experience is. What they want is for Android to win, or do very well in, the checkbox wars, so that it looks like it outfeatures other phones and attracts users on that basis. However, since they want to create the appearance of a separation between themselves and the android ecosystem (this promotes the illusion of openness, among other things) they can't actually overtly control it like Apple does, and it would not suit their interests for any one handset maker to become the predominant supplier of Android handsets, as this could result in Google loosing some degree of control of Android.

So, what serves their interest best is to create this state of confusion and fragmentation in the Android universe by alternating latest features and releases among various handset makers, allowing no one to get the upper hand.

* Market Cap (currently) Apple just ahead of MS (fluctuates daily, but trend is certainly in Apple's favour)

* Market Cap is based on investor confidence & market coditions (and can chanfe rapidly and dramatically) - Apple has the tail wind of strong recent performance with great profit growth and continued storng product introductions. That said, it's also exposed (just as Microsoft is) to competitors - notably Google in Phones (where Google is gaining ground on Apple fast)

*In terms of Profit - Microsoftt is STILL more profitable than Apple, both in Margin ($ on sales after costs) and in terms of total profit (having a higher Market Cap doe not equal higher profitability)

* R&D investmenr - Microsoft is still the lager (that's not as visable to most consumers bacuase much of Microsofts business is in Enterprise & servier technology that is not 'headline' consumer press material.

In terms of breadth of Customer base & range of products, Microsoft has a clear lead, Apple is highly sucessful in a few core markets (iPhone being it's number 1 now), but remains exposed by only haveing a few business lines & key products (one of the reasons they are so profitable as a HW company).

in short - for those of use with more interest in the reality of the technology industry (rather than name calling) it's a very interesting time, where Apple, Microsoft and Google are locked in many major battles for different markets - some for share at no revenue (Google = free software and services as long as you click their advertising), some for premium margins driven by high prices on few products (Apple), and others (Microsoft) via broad market share, using lower pricing, and licencing software to a many different markets (business, consumer, etc).

R&D investment, as a number, is probably the most meaningless stat that's been mentioned in this discussion. It's easy to throw away tons of money on "R&D", so, as a number, is it contributing anything to the future bottom line, or simply draining from the present? There's no way to tell from the number alone.

I for one welcome our Apple overlords...

A stock with a high P/E ratio may or may not be overvalued. Investors accept higher ratios if they think that the earnings will (continue to) grow quickly .

The value of a stock can be calculated many ways, but one way is to compare price not to static earnings, but rather, to earnings growth. This is called the PEG Ratio, and some folks think it is a better than a static P/E as an indication of whether a stock is cheap or expensive.

Didn't it take the better part of 30 years?

Market capitalization is just funny money. It's what the public THINKS a company's stock is worth. I prefer REAL money, and MS has more. MS beats Apple hands down in terms of what's in the bank, or what could be in the bank.

Apple, Inc.
Revenue - $42.91 billion
Operating income - $11.74 billion
Total assets - $47.50 billion
Total equity - $31.64 billion

Microsoft
Revenue - $58.437 billion
Operating income - $20.363 billion
Total assets - $77.888 billion
Total equity - $39.558 billion



Stop sensationalizing.

Monopolies often erect barriers to entry into a market to preserve their status. This reduces other people's freedom to innovate. It is a major factor in antitrust analysis.

One article on this I read said that the last time AAPL had a higher market value than MSFT was in 1989, so really it's more like 20 years. This sounds about right, considering that in the late '80s Apple wasn't doing tremendously well and Microsoft was entering into their fastest growth phase.

Conclusions cannot be more reliable than the data they are based upon.

May 19 (Bloomberg) -- Smartphone manufacturers sales rose the most in four years during the first quarter as Research in Motion Ltd., Apple Inc. and makers of Android-equipped phones extended gains, market-research company Gartner Inc. said.

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-update1-.html

Reality check: Microsoft is nowhere near being "on the ropes".

Maybe not, but they are within the vicinity of the canvas...

and again:

Apple, Inc.
Revenue - $42.91 billion
Operating income - $11.74 billion
Total assets - $47.50 billion
Total equity - $31.64 billion

Microsoft
Revenue - $58.437 billion
Operating income - $20.363 billion
Total assets - $77.888 billion
Total equity - $39.558 billion


Stop sensationalizing. Still a huge gap.

This article is about valuation, not about any of the other areas you mention, which are all out of date, by the way. Each one of those areas will be a milestone achievement, just like with the company that will eventually overtake Apple. You can hate on Apple all you want and ignore the facts of the article, but at the end of the day Apple is most valuable tech company in the world and is (based on current trends) likely to be the most valuable company in the world in short order.


PS: I have no idea why these asshats are so offended that Apple has achieved a goal and broke a record. We're they also on tech blogs saying how Google's victory was nothing when they bested Apple's valuation? I'd like to round these people up and make them learn the basics of economics and logic.

Oh, yes. And we can see how much money those Nobel prizes have earned.

It is rare that a Nobel prize discovery turns into revenues in a reasonable investment timeline. I'd rather have Apple focus on creating super consumer products than researching the color of the up quark.


Fortunately, most of the investing public is smarter than you.

Would you rather have $39 billion of equity that's growing at 3% per year or $32 billion of equity growing at 25% per year? Basing your company valuation solely on assets on hand is a huge mistake.


So THAT explains why Japan passed us in the 80's. Oh, wait.

You're mistaken about why Western companies go to China for manufacturing. It IS the cost of labor - nearly entirely. Every company that I know of that that is doing business in China is doing it solely on the basis of labor costs.

There are companies trying to sell in China, but that is almost entirely on the basis of the huge population.

I can't think of a single company that is doing business in China to gain access to their 'superior' technology.


www.apple.com. Click on the tab labeled 'store'.

It would not destroy value of the purchase. Key Adobe products have no alternative on the market, so pro Windows users of Adobe products would have to migrate to Mac. Now they would have to buy both Apple hardware and Apple software. The loss of Windows soft revenue would be compensated by gain in Apple soft/hardware revenue. Ownership of Flash and PDF technologies would also make Apple even bigger player.

Imagine, instead of this scenario Google buys Adobe. Imagine, Google now owns Flash and PDF, then Google ports complete Adobe Creative suite to its Chrome OS, making it secondary for other platforms, gradually decreasing support.

Which scenario do you like more?

That's right. Microsoft sells plastic disks which cost pennies to burn. Lately even there are no disks at all - just download. MS basically sells air.

Apple on the other hand sells hardware. It's labor intensive, it requires high quality components, inventory, transpiration. Even if Apple sells millions of iPads and iPhones, it would probably impossible for them to match Microsoft profit margins.

BTW acquisition of Adobe who also sells air would actually diversify Apple business in addition to other strategic benefits.