Apple market cap tops Microsoft, is now world's largest tech company - Page 3

Since you've brought it up, since Apple ONLY sells it's OS for its HW you have completely trounced any argument that cgc0202 could possibly have about OS marketshare unit sales percentages being a valid argument over market share revenue, and profit. Way to go! Gold star for you.


* not even a focus on the actual unit sales or revenue market share. So sad.

Cool story bro, let me know when you start writing non-fiction.

All numbers are estimates. You quoted, I believe, the estimate by iSupply. The 117% is an estimate by Gartner. Don't forget that both are estimates.

As to your point, I am not aware that the headlines where all these numbers were bandied were comparing the iPhone growth with any industry average.

One Apple Insider article was all about the iPhone outpacing Motorola. That is not the result of the Gartner estimates.

The other report that Apple objected to was the Android phones outpacing the iPhone in the US. I doubt the data myself.

Neither report focused on Apple simply growing at a faster pace than the industry.

The whole point is that we get so engrossed, depending on our biases, who is ahead -- market share or growth rate. There was a time, the comparison was RIM vs iPhone. Then, it shifted to Android vs iPhone.

This is what sells for sites and other massmedia: Apple haters vs followers.

Both Nokia and RIM did lose marketshare, but if you consider sports races, it is the ranking as they step on the finish line that matters.

As to Apple not losing marketshare. This is not surprising at the moment. But consider this point, will you be able to assure that the iPhone always keep its marketshare growth when the totality of the Android phones overtake the iPhone?

Your point about the Android being in several carriers, I am fully aware of that. In fact, I use that point to argue that Apple should do the same to protect its marketshare and prolong its growth rate, especially in the US, and even worldwide.

These are neverending races.

CGC

Funny?

Android was starting off pretty small to get to this growth level. We'll see how it levels off the next couple of years. Apple also started off with a big growth rate, but with only one carrier in the US, that was bound to slow down, though it's still very high. With Android expanding the number of carriers the growth rate was bound to grow quickly, but now that they are on those carriers, will the growth rate continue at that level? I doubt it.

At any rate, Apple doesn't have to be number one, just significant enough. And so far, Apple's turning over 22% of app buyers to paid apps while Android is at 11%. That's important too.

In addition, fragmentation is a serious issue with Android. What will we see two years from now? Will the Android market look like the linux distro market? It's moving in that way, and Google will have to do something to control it or we won't be seeing Android phones after a while, but phone with the names of the GUi's put on them but the various manufacturers and phone companies.

It's already haphazard enough so that new phone are coming out with old versions of the OS, and can't run many new programs. Considering how difficult it is to upgrade Android phones, and how the upgrades lag the market, that's a problem.

'Great shot kid, that was one in a million.' Han Solo.




Lemon Bon Bon.

As a programer, I wouldn't dream of writing software for Android for that reason alone.

...bring UNIX to the masses...

That says it all! Funny, I've never thought of it in that way. I'd bet that 70% of Apple users don't know what UNIX is, not to mention that they use it all the time.

.

I never understood why users were supposed to care, and I'd wager that the number is closer to 95%.

Nokia has been sliding for several years now. RIM's growth has slowed. LG's marketshare is also down. Samsung is about even. MS's Win Mobile is going away fast, and there's no way to know if their new Win Phone 7 will catch on. Palm has no marketshare, and we'll have to see if Hp can do anything useful with them. Both Sony/Ericson and Motorola have lost big shares.

So where are we? Only the iPhone and Android based phones are showing smartphone growth. So, yes, Android has grown quickly. As I say, it's because they started with one carrier with one not very good phone (smallest carrier too!), and have expanded to all the carriers with better phones from a number of manufacturers.

I would have expected a lot of growth from all that. But where do they go from there? How much more growth will they get? Interesting that subscribers on Verizon and Sprint have said they would drop their Android phones for iPhone if thy were available on their carrier.

So what growth will Apple have if they become available on all four carriers? What will that do to Android's growth?

In every market where the iPhone went to all or several carriers they became the dominant smartphone. In Japan, on the smallest carrier, they are 72% of the smartphone market. Thats in a country that skeptics said they would never do well.

In S Korea, a country will 50 million people, they've sold over 700 thousand phones in six months, and the rare is increasing. It's the largest smartphone there now. Again, on the smaller carrier.

In China, it started off slowly, because it had no 3G, no WiFi, was selling for over $1,000, etc. But sales have moved up pretty well, and the new model is expected to do very well. Thats not with the biggest provider, which has stated recently that they want the phone.

So, we'll see.

You must be crazy, Bill Gates like him or not was an excellent business man & was the driving force behind his company that changed many things for us today.

I am the proud owner of a substantial amount of AAPL, I am very pleased to see this recent news for Apple

However you must not belittle "Sleazy comment" people for the great things that have come from the hard work of their hands.

You got a star from solipsism!

CGC

Thats what I was trying to say, just having a larger market cap doesn't make you the "worlds largest tech company". Thats a ridiculous assertion.

If Apple stays the same company they will only get that big if they change their customer. If everyone starts demanding a high quality product then they will not end up like Microsoft. Microsoft is a slave to their partners and their partners only care about the low end because they can look at it solely as an economics problem when they cut out the high end of the market. I think the high end of the market is growing as people have been burned by buying low quality products, so it could happen.

Yeah it does. Apple is currently more valuable than MS. Why don't you ook up what market capitalization means.


PS: I can understand the trolls jumping on some of the threads but now they are even clogging up up the financial threads. I guess this should be expected more as Apple grows.

Why not? They are the largest by that metric. If you mean by number of employees then companies like Foxconn are probably larger. Market Cap is a much better metric then market share. All the market share metrics I see are like comparing the market share of a sub-compact to the market share of a luxury sudan.

I agree. This more indicates that Apple is the world's most valuable tech company. After all, what's the "size" of a company worth? Its expenses? "Large" and "great" often mean two different things to any stakeholder.

Any way you slice it, helluva job, Apple.

Also, P/E and market share are incredibly relevant, particularly in relation to each other. Apple's slightly high P/E would be problematic if they'd already saturated the market. Perhaps counterintuitively to some, 20 is a very low P/E for a company with Apple's sustainable growth record and future growth prospects as evidenced by massively improvable market share in most of its lines.

I'd call it a bargain anywhere under $400. And I believe Apple's market cap will easily exceed Exxon-Mobil's by year-end.

Those criticizing Apple (and Apple supporters) tend to think that Apple supporters are being inconsistent; as in this instance, we are lauding Apple growth (in share price, or market share or what have you), but seem to be saying that it isn't important when others show a growth in numbers? Apparently, Apple supporters are fickle hypocrites? Sounds like that is your feeling too, when you ask what the counter would be?

Well, it's really just the opposite. No one here is saying growth figure numbers are important when Apple shows good numbers, but they are not important when a competitor shows good numbers. On the contrary, Apple critics are constantly pointing out that Apple has a low market share comparatively and that Apple should do what others are doing (such as race to the bottom against handset makers, and license their OS against software producers). Apple supporters, as here, are consistently pointing out that it matters what is being compared to what, and how. Apple supporters are really only rejoicing at Apple gains when measured AGAINST ITSELF. That really should not be hard to comprehend. The difference is subtle, and seems to be lost on analysts, but it makes a difference nonetheless.

How can anyone with half a grain of sense really doubt that Apple is doing phenomenally compared to almost anyone else, in almost any way that things could be measured. These boards and those on similar sites are just full of stories, constantly, over the last three years about how the analysts just do not get it, still. Who is right? Oh, Apple hasn't broken 15% market share, they must be doomed!

I think several others have pointed out why this particular example, just like other examples of Apple being doomed, isn't an issue. Yes, you are right, some upstart company may come along tomorrow and surpass Apple, Apple surely must not become complacent! Yet, Apple is still looked at like some kind of upstart, like they just happened on this lucky situation yesterday, and just completely lucked out because SJ is some master of distortion and propaganda and magically, but dishonestly, convinces everyone that its cool to buy Apple products even though they represent form over function.

Good grief, Apple has been very patient and has planned well ahead, laid excellent, prescient foundations, and has executed well all along the way to get where they are today -- this has been some 12 years in the making (more if you count the NEXT years). If there is some unknown, unseen company that has been working like this so that they can surpass Apple tomorrow, then where is it? Apple is pretty good at spotting talent, spotting trends and knowing where to invest. They could buy Adobe with pocket change, but won't. Apple finds little startups we have never heard of.

So, the question remains: what company is really "outpacing" Apple in this instance? Google? They are giving their OS away for free. While MS built their wealth on their OS, Google is banking on being able to put their search business on more devices. Everything else Google has done, just as everything MS has done outside of Windows and Office, is really not helping them a great deal -- except that it just provides more places to dump their adware crap. Google is really following the MS model and inciting a race to the bottom among its hardware partners. It took MS 12 years, Google is already there. Roughly Drafted (http://roughlydrafted.com) has a recent article on this. To increase or hold their marketshare, handset makers are doing two for one deals. As others have pointed out, Apple's small marketshare earns them 1/3 of the profits of the entire industry.

So, the counters you ask for are what they always are, because Apple supporters do try to remain consistent in their own small way if you give them a little credit:

1) Apple is selling handsets primarily (not the OS), and the better comparison would be Nokia, RIM, Motorola, HTC, etc. The iPhone OS and software and other Apple service products exist to both differentiate and add value to Apple hardware products. And oh what a difference they make.

2) The iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad together represent a more unified platform, and thus a wider customer base that is more attractive to developers and that can sustain a better ecosystem of apps, than do all the extant versions and manufacturer- and carrier- customized flavors of Android. Yet, in this case, apparently the iPhone numbers for Apple the include the iPod Touch, go figure. Well, we won't include them either when being excited about the number of iPhones that Apple is selling quarter over quarter and year over year; but any discussion of OS market share SHOULD include them. Because if you look at OS-related markets, besides telephony, the iPhone OS is ahead hands down: app purchases and downloads, internet traffic.

3) As was pointed out about P/E and company growth, 807% of a little is a lot easier to achieve than 117% of a lot more. Especially since a lot of new handsets, from a variety of manufacturers, just launched on a variety of carriers. Why hadn't the Android market grown significantly in its first couple of years? Why did it take until it's third year to effectively move out of the starting gate? It's thus two or three years behind. Where's it going to go except to take further share from MS Mobile OS, Symbian and RIM? Apple isn't peaking and soon to be overtaken -- Apple has plenty of room to grow and is about to launch a new model and a new version of the OS.

I'll consider it, but I'm changing the terms of the wager. Whoever (which means both of us) does the wager can't post for a year during the wager and whoever loses the wager can't post for a year. And no, you can't create alternate users to get out of this That ought to keep you happy... right, troll? Of course, this means that neither you or I can post and create comments about anything on this site, and the world will be happier for it.

So, the iPhone I'm betting is going to be the dominant one in a year or two. Just simply because it's the superior platform and its development tools are unrivaled. Of course, we won't even know whether you or I abided by the rules of the wager, so this whole bet could very well be moot
Unless you want to stick to it, and solemnly swear that you'll agree to abide by the rules of the wager (since it's a 2 way street), or ban yourself from these forums

But we already knew the answer would be truthfully "no" from you. And from me, your friendly anti-troll commenter, I will swear if you do

Oh BTW, this posting limitation might as well apply to all the other trolls too if I take this wager

Whoever posted about extremeskater having a stroke... that was hilarious.

Nope, have to disagree there.

Apple have the 'loyal' users (not the best description) that are a huge percentage, albeit the PC to Mac group is swelling the ranks. Almost all 'long term' users are fully aware of UNIX, as aware as the Intel switch and OS X. There are millions of we older 'wiser' users still in the installed user base.

And we couldn't be happier BTW

EDIT: well maybe a little bit happier - richer, more wise or both?

Apologies "krabbelen", I wanted to re-post your comments in full dude, however using only my phone I couldn't highlight the best.
He'll it was ALL good man. Kudos.

I got a laugh out of this. So what's your point? How ineffectual MS is? It really doesn't surprise us, you know.

So, MS can tout how big their R&D dept is, how big their R&D budget is. I don't think I would brag about that. They have a load more employees than Apple too, but it still takes them 10 years to get an OS finished and out the door.

I think MS love their committees and marketers and psychotherapists and people who come up with their little dance numbers too much for Apple to be really worried. MS seems to pit different teams against each other, too. So, you have one example -- and that seems to show how MS is desperate to get new developers to look at the rest of their dinosaur tech as relevant and future-proof. Talk about distortion field!

Fundamental techs, like what? Firewire, next gen video codecs, network and printing protocols, USB, FlashRAM, universal connector thingy, computer in a pocket instead of in a bathtub, security, next UI paradigm, devices that are poised to revolutionize whole industries, what? Apple is leading in a lot of directions.

But hey, it's all about the numbers, isn't it: R&D dollars, R&D dept, MHz, Feature list, number of dance partners to stab in the back, whatever. Keep playing the game that Apple isn't.

That's not what they were implying. They were implying that Apple is the most valuable tech company. That's how I read it. We all know that Hp alone sells more than $125 billion a year, and that IBM is close to that, just to mention two very big concerns in the sector. But Apple is worth more than either.

I am not at all surprised by the observations, and am aware of them. I even followed, "Japanese hate the iPhone" report. As an Asian myself, I thought that was misleading. Similarly, there was a lot of reselling of the iPhone before it ever was sold in China.

There is a place for the iPhone in every market. However, unless Apple caters to the vast majority of the phone users, i.e., as to functionality or what people desires or expects of a phone, as Apple tried to do with the iPods, the "smartphone" iPhone will not be a phone for everyone.

This is akin to the PC market. Apple Macs do indeed have a significant share of the high end products, especially notebooks. But overall, Mac marketshare of the total PC market will remain smaller than the Wintel OS, even if Apple will continue to gain more converts.

I do not have a crystal ball, but individually there will be fluctuations of the phone manufacturers. Who would have thought for example, that Motorola, already forgotten for a bit, when iPhone vs RIM was the hot topic, suddenly came up with an Android phone. Nexus One was supposed to be the killer. But, HTC which I believe did not do well with its early versions of Android came up with what is considered even by some reviewers to be competitive.

The fact that the Android is a royalty free OS, makes it attractive, especially to Asian phone manufacturers and even those in Western countries. More than likely, India phone companies (which is an entirely different economic philosophy from other Asian countries) would likely base their phone products on the Android.

Each and everyone of these local or targeted Android OS adaptors can tailor and produce a plethora of Android phones to target specific consumer groups.

Android therefore can gain a total marketshare from the collective efforts of "increasing" phone manufacturer adaptors.

Will this happen? Or will everyone gravitate to the iPhone, based on the early trends noted about the iPhone, as it tries to penetrate individual markets?

We will really never know. And judgement is really a matrter of the time frame when we select the "temporal end" of a race.

Before Nokia, there was Motorola. Then RIM gained traction, especially in business, and the likes of people, like Obama. Until recently, who would have thought that Asian manufacturers would go beyond "contract manufacturers", and produce their own brand phones.

Just by its sheer size and protectionist policy, I would not be surprised if local Chinese phone manufacturers will comprise the lion's share of the local market.

There was a time that Japanese (then Korean) cars were considered inferior.

Fortunately, technology doesn't standstill. The next "Steve Jobs" may not even be an American, nor even a Westerner.

CGC

Speaking of little dances, how's the Retail Store working out for you there MS?

Wow! Thanks for that Dave!

I think we can pretty much agree on most things here. You're right markets fluctuate over time. What was big, becomes small, and visa versa. Who ever thought that Motorola would drop to such a small marketshare? Ten years ago? No one!

I remember when Samsung had less that a 5% marketshare early in this century when I first bought their i300 color Palmphone. Who thought they would become one of the largest manufacturers?

With Apple vs Android, the picture is less clear. After all, Apple is a manufacturer of phones, and Google is a developer of a free OS. Very different. It's possible that at some point, Android will become the most widely used phone OS, but at what cost? Will it become so fractionated that it will no longer become Android in most peoples eyes? With manufacturers putting their own, often not compatible GUIs on their own phones, and giving them names, will people think of these phones as Android phones? Its possible they won't, especially since some of these companies are tarting their own app stores, and many apps may not crossover the lines of one phone to another.

So will a Samsung Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a BADA phone? Will an HTC Android phone be known as an Android phone, or as a Sense phone, etc? Will Verizon limit Google marketplace sales in favor of it's own store and apps? I don't think we will know that for a couple more years.

Very well said cg...I've heard it described in other ways, too. Profit Margin over Market Share. And I've certainly heard of the '80-20' rule, i.e., 20% of the population drink 80% of the beer! (Question: Who does Budweiser advertise too? Answer: Horses, specifically, Clydesdales!)

And I know although, ~70% of the US economy is driven by the 'consumer,' the top 10% of the US consumers drive 50% of the US economy. But I never thought to think of it as a "20-80" strategy" on the part of Apple. Spot on!

Best

Again! Well said iVlad

Good analysis and good questions...my feeling is no. Does anyone outside this message board really think of 'Symbian?' Google is going down the road that MS did with their Windows OS...distribute a boatload and the 'user experience' be damned. Today's news confirms that's a flawed strategy! Again very thoughtful analysis, Mel!

Edit: Your word, 'fractionated' describes Google exactly...where, I believe, Apple is targeted, focused and therefore successful!

Very good questions.

It's not clear to me how many Android handsets would have to be sold for Google to have the same cash flow as Apple gets from selling one iPhone.

What would that multiple be? Even if it's in the upper single digits, could Google ever achieve that kind of share? And, even if it does, will it simply be a volume play (like PCs) than a value play (like Macs)?

Excellent take on things! When they fire What's-his-dick' from Google, you should apply for the job! And 'partner' with Apple the way it should have been done in the first place!

Google has proven they can make a boatload of money from 'pennies-a-click' advertising, though!

Seriously, you're right and I never considered it. Apple needs to get into 'Search' and the advertising revenue quickly! And with MS on the ropes, as it were, there's an opportunity for Apple to do Bling right and tell Google to 'take a right at the light into the night!'

This way Apple will have all the bases covered.

Apple has beaten MS in the OS wars, beaten RIM and everyone else in the Smartphone wars, beaten Sony, Dell, MS (zune) in the MP3 player wars, beaten Walmart, Target, Best Buy and everyone in the music wars and beaten everyone in the 'retail stores' ($/SF) business, now they need to take on that evil Google in search....

...Google is putting out subpar software williy-nilly, mobile phones, TV, Office, photo management, etc., etc, products for a fractionated user experience!

Maybe in your circles, they do. But mostly, overwhelmingly, they neither know nor care.

Have to agree with you there....my estimate is 80% (probably way more) of the users of all 'computer' devices are using email, web access/search, text messaging and maybe a little word processing! And that's just about it!

Most don't know of Symbian, unix, linux, redhat, etc., etc.

For the record, I have only bought Apple computers since 1988 for my personal use. Before that, I was initiated in the environment of Ataris, Commodores and the Apple II's. The Apple IIs was what started me with Apple.

Even before the portable computers, I had to struggle with relics of all sorts of huge computers used in school research laboratories, including a prototype of the Unix computer.

My succeeding computers were all Macs, the iMac and the iBook. My next computer is definitely going to be a Mac.

When I am in a position to decide, at work, I prefer scientific/research products that would be run by an Apple product. Unfortunately, not all scientific instruments are run by Mac computers. I insisted that my computer at work was a Mac, one was worth $5000 in 1994 as opposed to $1000 or so for Dell computers, at the time.

Computer prices have since gone down.

My family is planning a business in California. If that will be realized the facility(ies) will use Macs, iPhones and iPads, and even Mac-based server(s) to integrate them. The business rep in Boston already gave a decent discount, and will continue to coordinate until transition when the business starts.

During the dark days when there was a buzz that Apple was about to become "extinct", I even bought a "second Mac" to ensure I have a spare computer for a long time, in case Apple did go bankrupt.

Fortunately, Apple overcame its difficulties. I wish Steve Jobs will "live forever", but that is unrealistic. I am sure Apple will survive even after Steve Jobs leaves the helm. I read some blogs ones speculating about "company culture" infused by its founder(s), that will live on. I hope something like that happens with Apple.

The Mac community then were more close, Since we did not have much support from IT, the people especially in universities, helped each other. At the time, the Mac communities I had been involved with never spent any time lambasting PC products. like the "favorite sports" today. We are, after all PC users, since we have to work with all sorts of equipment in the laboratory, many of them are Wintel PC based.

When any of the people I know ask me about my computer preference/ I tell them why I use Macs. But, I don't disparage any of them prefer a Wintel PC. My enthusiasm with Apple products eventually persuaded a frient to buy an iPhone whcih in turn persuaded others to buy one. Those that could not have the iPhone because they are so wedded with their RIM phones, some bought the iPod Touch.

It goes without saying that I am not an Apple hater.

I only made a wager to TechStud, when he claimed that he did not know anyone who was interested with the iPad and implied that it would be of interest to Apple "fanbois". He declined.

The wager posted here, similarly was intend exclusively for solipsim, partly triggered by long standing differences about some issues about the iPhone with respect to other phones and mobile OS.

One last thing, however much I disagree with a person, I try to avoid using terms, like tiresome, or whatever. I simply place a cut-off when the exchanges get too long.

CGC

The only problem with an Apple Labs is that Apple has been there, done that, and almost went tits up! When Steve came back apple had almost completely lost the ability to push and ship a product out the door. I really doubt in the near future that Apple will do much more then modest increases in R&D budget.

Very thoughtful CG...to pick up on one of your points...I too started very early with macs. A classic with a 4-6" screen. I made flow charts and reports that 'wowed' my executive staff...even in black and white....go figure!

I too flirted with moving to PC's in the dark days of Apple's troubles....I remember distinctly standing in a CompUSA (remember them? They could've been the Apple stores of today!) next to a German engineer consulting here in the US. And he said to me, 'I don't know what you get paid an hour, but I get paid $300/hr and I don't want to spend it dicking around with Windows rebooting, reinstalling, downloading fixes, etc., etc.' In other words, even then the upfront investment for an Apple was worth it. And he was right! I never looked back! I 'pay' for the latest OS updates, the latest HD, the latest iPhone, etc., etc. For the productivity aspect!

Jeez, Oz...I haven't thought of that in ages! Very Good! I think this is what they mean by a 'poignant' remark! Yours, not mine!

Right! Compared to my company...Apple is in a different universe! Good show, Stevo!

You have set the terms of the wager entirely in your favor, 1 free OS with several phone models and manufacturers versus 1 manufacturer's OS and models, and yet you still could possibly lose.

BTW You obviously still don't get it, this is all about profitability not market share.