Apple fourth on 2020 Fortune 500 list, passed by Amazon

AppleInsider

The 66th Fortune 500 list was released on Monday morning detailing the largest corporations in the United States, with Apple slipping a bit to the number four spot.

Apple is on the Fortune 500 for the 38th time

Apple was ranked third in 2019, with Amazon pushing them down one by moving into the number two position. Apple saw $260 billion in revenue, behind Exxon with $264 billion and Amazon with $280 billion. Walmart continues to be the number one company for the eighth year in a row with $523 billion in revenue.

Apple's revenue fell 2% with $55 billion in profits, a 7% drop in profits year-over-year. Apple is still the most profitable tech company, beating out Microsoft's $39 billion in profit. However, Fortune notes that the market holds Microsoft as the most valuable company by stock, at a $1.38 trillion market cap. Apple is not far behind at $1.33 trillion, with Amazon in third at a $1.2 trillion market cap.

Amazon pushed Apple to the number four spot

Fortune goes on to detail Apple's finances, stating that iPhone sales fell 14%, which is 55% of Apple's total revenue. Apple services grew 16%, and makes up 18% of the total revenue. Wearables grew 41%, while only making up 9% of the total.

The numbers are all based on revenue generated in the fiscal year 2019. Apple has appeared on the Fortune 500 list for 38 years. This entirety of the Fortune 500 ranking represents two-thirds of the U.S. economy with $14.2 trillion in revenue.

ihatescreennames

I’ve never understood why Fortune ranks by revenue and not profit. I remember for years and years GM and Ford were at the top of the list and if I recall correctly GM was usually 1. All those years of earning the most revenue didn’t help when it came time to bail them out. 

lkrupp

ihatescreennames said:

I’ve never understood why Fortune ranks by revenue and not profit. I remember for years and years GM and Ford were at the top of the list and if I recall correctly GM was usually 1. All those years of earning the most revenue didn’t help when it came time to bail them out. 

Well, Microsoft is 21st on the list with less than half the revenue of Apple yet Microsoft’s market capitalization exceeds that of Apple. So I don’t what any of this has to do with the success or failure of a company. If you are listed on the Fortune 500 then you are a successful company, period. People like to see lists and make comparisons I guess.

Kuyangkoh

Revenues are just numbers....same w market capitalizations....it can changed in a heart bit. Much just like covid-19 did...Profits in the meantime tells the health of a company, its survivals and its ability to switch products or services because they have money to burn....thats just me I guess 

smiffy31

Almost certain that Exxon will have a lowering of income with the Covid reducing fuel use and the price dropping.

randominternetperson

ihatescreennames said:

I’ve never understood why Fortune ranks by revenue and not profit. I remember for years and years GM and Ford were at the top of the list and if I recall correctly GM was usually 1. All those years of earning the most revenue didn’t help when it came time to bail them out. 

I agree.

The weirdest part of counting revenue is that if someone buys a MacBook from Amazon (or Walmart), it counts as $1000 in revenue for Amazon (or Walmart) and $800 for Apple (or whatever the wholesale price Apple charges Amazon for a MacBook).  Seems biased in favor of retailers.

Beats

Wow Apple really slipped. Yes I know this is revenue count.

randominternetperson

Beats said:

Wow Apple really slipped. Yes I know this is revenue count.

Yeah, barely a quarter trillion dollars a year.  

CloudTalkin

ihatescreennames said:

I’ve never understood why Fortune ranks by revenue and not profit. I remember for years and years GM and Ford were at the top of the list and if I recall correctly GM was usually 1. All those years of earning the most revenue didn’t help when it came time to bail them out. 

The short answer is tradition and optics.  

The longer answer is revenue has traditionally been seen as the measuring stick of a growing company.  It's also traditionally been the less objectionable public facing number.  Revenue is also a bigger number so in the vein of "bigger is better" attention grabbing headlines, it's a more attractive stat to get the reader's attention.

Profit numbers have primarily not been mentioned in polite company.  In certain circles, big fat profit was associated with greed, especially when it was the measuring stick almost exclusively associated with financial services/banking, big oll, and big pharma - 3 industries with less than stellar PR.  The tech industry in general, and Apple specifically, sort of changed the narrative by making it kinda okay to celebrate big profits at big margins.  Though tech stalwarts are starting to get accused of greed more often.

For those who want to see profit, Fortune's lists are sortable by various categories.  But I doubt they'll ever change from leading with revenue.  It's just better marketing to show a larger number and it lacks the downside of profit's perception of greed.

chasm

randominternetperson said:

The weirdest part of counting revenue is that if someone buys a MacBook from Amazon (or Walmart), it counts as $1000 in revenue for Amazon (or Walmart) and $800 for Apple (or whatever the wholesale price Apple charges Amazon for a MacBook).  Seems biased in favor of retailers.

I agree with your overall comment, but just wanted to mention that a retailer's wholesale cost on an Apple product (of almost any kind) is astonishingly close to the retail price as a rule. I think most people would be surprised how little a retailer makes on sales of most Apple products -- but they drive traffic into a store (especially those that sell other things), so that's the way it works.

cgWerks

CloudTalkin said:

ihatescreennames said:

I’ve never understood why Fortune ranks by revenue and not profit. I remember for years and years GM and Ford were at the top of the list and if I recall correctly GM was usually 1. All those years of earning the most revenue didn’t help when it came time to bail them out. 

The short answer is tradition and optics.  

The longer answer is revenue has traditionally been seen as the measuring stick of a growing company.

I think it is also because revenue is more closely linked to potential, think of a moving train. If you have the revenue, you can *attempt* to adjust the profit margin and wildly impact the outcome. If you focused on profit, you could have a company with a more 'fashionable' thing that could have high profits today, but be gone tomorrow. So, I think it is seen as a better indicator of stability.