SV150: Apple, Inc. earns more than HP, Google, Intel & Cisco combined
A listing of Silicon Valley's top companies points out that Apple now brings in more revenue ($174 billion) than second place Hewlett Packard and third place Google combined, and earns more money ($37 billion) than the rest of the top five together.
The SV150 is compiled by the region's San Jose Mercury News from Bloomberg data and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings of the companies
Despite its leadership position in revenues and profits, investors have valued Apple with a market capitalization that's only about 70 percent of the combined value of HP, Google, Intel and Cisco.
The region's eleventh largest firm, Facebook, has a market cap that's nearly a third the size of Apple's, despite revenues that are just 4 percent of the iPhone maker's, and profits that are less than 4 percent of Apple's earnings.
The SV150 is compiled by the region's San Jose Mercury News from Bloomberg data and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filings of the companies
Despite its leadership position in revenues and profits, investors have valued Apple with a market capitalization that's only about 70 percent of the combined value of HP, Google, Intel and Cisco.
0412sv150_175.pdf
var docstoc_docid="168450959";var docstoc_title="0412sv150_175.pdf";var docstoc_urltitle="0412sv150_175.pdf";
var docstoc_docid="168450959";var docstoc_title="0412sv150_175.pdf";var docstoc_urltitle="0412sv150_175.pdf";
The region's eleventh largest firm, Facebook, has a market cap that's nearly a third the size of Apple's, despite revenues that are just 4 percent of the iPhone maker's, and profits that are less than 4 percent of Apple's earnings.
Comments
Apple’s down $3.87. This must be why.
EDIT: Instead of direct sarcasm, take it now as semi-direct pseudo-sarcasm.
2) Interesting that Google has a higher profit margin than Apple
and that MS doesn't make the top 11.edit: I see now this only for Silicon Valley.
That was close on Friday. Everything I monitor was down that day, and most were down more than the 0.74% that AAPL was down.
I lose days all the time. The passing of time means next to nothing to me. Thanks for the fix.
No surprise since their research and development costs for consumer products are virtually nonexistent; deferred to Apple and dependent upon Xerox.:smokey:
I know you're kidding but it's also a good time to note that Google is one of the top spenders of R&D int his industry by both a dollar value and by a percentage of their sales.
Apple has been increasing their R&D dramatically so I do expect some great things from them within a couple years.
Google does some interesting things but they lack clarity of vision resulting in spending ridiculous amounts of money on projects that either never reach fruition or are repealed when Google fails to capitalize on the market.
So /sdps?
Most companies (and people*) don't seem to have the proper focus. I think we all agree it's annoying that Apple is so secretive and waits so long to release a new product category or some case no category at all (like an iOS-based home server) but when they do release something they do have a way of making it the only way forward from that point on.
* I count myself as one of those people. I have ideas and if I focused on a single idea I think I could make it great but I like to spread out my interests which means I'll likely never discover anything or do something better than any other person in the world before me.
edit: Oops. Forget to add don't.
The extra stimuli we have now is part of the reason we no longer see the likes of a Mozart, or Michelangelo.
Even in their time there was so much stimuli compared to the generations that preceded them. There has to be that something special in the individual to make them focus on a single concept so intently. One could describe it as an unhealthy obsession (but like genius v insanity, one's level of success probably determines if it'll be considered healthy or unhealthy). Fraunhofer lines are a great example of this.
Neil deGrasse Tyson mentioned Joseph Fraunhofer on last week's Cosmos episode. For those that don't know, those lines that Fraunhofer hated seeing in his lenses are what we now use to accurately determine the chemical makeup of the heavens.
Further evidence that profits and market caps are not directly connected to each other.
What's with that ignoramus Joe Nocera over at the nytimes.com today? How much is Samsung paying him under the table--or is this quid pro quo Samsung receives for spending millions on ads in the NY Times? He states Apple refuses to settle its intellectual property disputes with other companies, when it's only Samsung that Apple refuses to settle with because Samsung refuses to commit to not copying Apple designs. Apple has settled long ago with virtually every other major handset maker. Apple is the only one suing over nonessential patents that Samsung chose to infringe. The Office of the President of the U.S.A. has effectively affirmed the legitimacy of Apple's legal pursuit involving nonessential patents and the illegitimacy of Samsung's countersuits over FRAND patents. The present trial has revealed that it took a huge team of experts at Google to settle on copying Apple's swipe-to-unlock technology. What a crock of b.s. the pro-Android, anti-Apple crowd is spewing over this one patent of Apple's alone.
How an that be?! We all know that Apple is doomed! Doomed, I tell you!!!
Of course they're connected. Through the expected future growth in profits. That's why Google's PE ratio is ~30, while Apple's is ~13. (Price = EPS*PE)
Rightly or wrongly, the market expects much faster profit growth out of Google. It also expects that Apple's profits won't grow as fast as even that of the average company in the market, let alone Google.
Apple just has to prove them wrong. And they will, for those who wait.