Apple is bigger by market cap than Microsoft, Google, Amazon & Facebook combined
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
I know a lot of companies that don't make a lot of money but strive for true innovation (Eg. Tesla Motors). Money is not everything, you know...even a prostitute makes a lot of money..and that doesn't mean that the prostitute is better than the average, faithful woman...because she stands for something true, unlike the prostitute.
And the last five years they created or helped create: The Smartphone market The Tablet market The App market The Locationbased market
I was talking recently to someone who knew Apple well, and I asked him if the people now running the company would be able to keep creating new things the way Apple had under Steve Jobs. His answer was simply "no." I already feared that would be the answer. I asked more to see how he'd qualify it. But he didn't qualify it at all. No, there will be no more great new stuff beyond whatever's currently in the pipeline. Apple's revenues may continue to rise for a long time, but as Microsoft shows, revenue is a lagging indicator in the technology business. [1]
Apple seems to me one of the scariest companies in the industry right now. I predict that although they'll give lip service to "building great products" there simply won't be enough executives who believe it like Steve did, and like the vast majority of corporations of their size, they'll prioritize profits over everything else.
All of Apple's products from now through the next year or two was designed and developed when Steve Jobs was alive as was revealed in his biography.
So this idea that Apple is somehow on their way down is ridiculous. Also all of Apple's releases for the last few years have been iterative.
I'm not sure why you think this statement essentially disagrees with grandparent comment. All this says it that there's some backlog. What happens after one year or two?
Still, nothing actually innovative there.
From Wikipedia:
Innovation is the creation of better or more effective products, processes, services, technologies, or ideas that are readily available to markets, governments, and society.
You don't think Apple fits that definition?
4.8 Inch Display vs 3.5 Inch Quad core processor vs Dual Core processor 4g vs 3g
And, no lawsuits from Samsung. Who is more innovative, now?
The innovation in a modern handheld device is about so much more than the base hardware spec.
Makes sense to me.
Many talk about fragmentation on Android all the time, just wait and see how much fragmentation, nightmares and hell this Retina resolution would cause to designers.
http://tablettrends.wordpress.com/2012/03/19/the-retina-ipad...
So, according to Steve Jobs, a faster iPad/MacBook/iPhone with a clearer screen is the opposite of innovation. Apple died when the iPad came out, but they can still grow through a strong brand presence and law suits.
secondly, there is nothing like an obvious patent, if a patent is defensible then its very much obvious that it wasn't obvious. Remember, Apple hasn't won a case against a small startup. Samsung in itself is a pretty big company and has all the resources to fight Apple and hence I think its more just.
that being said, I dont think apple is all rosy, they do bad things but they also make really awesome product. If it were not for apple, you would still be typing on a physical keyboard on your cell phone.
If it were not for Apple, we would be seeing better phones than the iPhone with amazing designs (read as 'rounded corners'), without any limited functionality (Eg. Universal Search). I do not support Samsung completely, because I do believe they DID cross a line by making their phones resemble too similar to the iPhone.
But I don't agree with Apple winning based on a bunch of BS patents can be claimed as innovative. And I don't agree with Apple saving the market by making really awesome products. Nor do I agree with these patents being non-obvious. Rounded corners, slide to unlock, bounce-back...seriously?
If it wasn't for Apple, eventually someone would have made it, because the technology was already available before and it wasn't like Apple invented them all.
Here's an image that might interest you:
Rounded corners by themselves are not what made the case; it's that rounded corners, having the same grid layout, same connectors, same screen-edge "rubber band bounce-back", same coloured icons and claiming those as "obvious" when it was demonstrably proven that these things were not at that time, were what made the jury decide in Apple's favor.
Apple does NOT have a patent on rounded corners any more than Coke has a patent on soda bottles.
No I wouldn't.
I dread the times we no longer have a choice to type on a physical keyboard. Not one Android/iOS phone would now convince me to throw away my N900.
But, I could've argued in your direction too - I really miss physical keyboard. Typing on touchscreen is just plain wrong, imho.
Would you defend murder and rape too? Both are crimes, both are immoral, both are as old as hills.
It is wrong to take advantage of a woman. Women become prostitutes because they have no other reasonable way of making money; or they need quick money for drugs/rent/baby food/etc.
I may not be a religious person (since I became an adult) but I hold the belief that sex should be sacred. It should be kept between 2 people who want to connect with each other. We have sex with each other for intimacy, not just for a short burst of ecstasy. If that was the only reason we had sex with each other we'd be no better than dogs.
Of course. But prostitution is consensual and it isn't just about "no other choice" - it just might be the most financially sound choice, or maybe they don't have inhibitions and sexual guilt after a religious upbringing.
> Women become prostitutes because they have no other reasonable way of making money; or they need quick money for drugs/rent/baby food/etc.
Those are the prostitutes you know about. This represents a tiny percentage of all the people in the world who have sex for money, directly or indirectly.
> I may not be a religious person (since I became an adult) but I hold the belief that sex should be sacred.
You sure make a big deal about recreational coitus and the consenting acts of others.
> It should be kept between 2 people
My goodness, what would you ever do if you had a million dollars? It's actually quite awesome with 3. Just saying.
> If that was the only reason we had sex with each other we'd be no better than dogs.
I'm not sure we're better than dogs regardless of how or why we mush our genitals together. Dogs don't kill other dogs because they think their imaginary friend is better, and they won't judge you for having sex for money.
I wonder how many liberals would marry a prostitute/support their daughter or son's prostitution 'career'/would turn to prostitution themselves.
> This represents a tiny percentage of all the people in the world who have sex for money
Highly dubious about your statement here. You/we have no way of confirming such a statement.
Actually, dogs have a very different sexuality. They don't have sex all year round. Humans are special.
Tell that to my dog's poor teddy!
Your hyperbole is phenominal, truly.
Not in my world but your spelling definitely is.
"One reason often given as to why prostitution is immoral is that it tends to involve coercion. In most cases, people do not freely decide to become prostitutes. In some cases, they are driven to the profession by desperation and a lack of other opportunities for employment. In other cases, they are forced into prostitution by others. In some cases, people are enslaved and forced to be prostitutes."
Make forcing people into prostitution illegal then, not prostitution itself. You aren't stopping people from forcing other into prostitution, you're just punishing the person who was forced.
This isn't meant to be pro- or anti- legalization of prostitution, I've just never liked that argument.
But since it isn't in many countries it is a haven for people trafficking, child prostitution, kidnapping, drug abuse etc. The sooner we shine a light on these darker parts of society the better everyone will be.
Anyway, that's off-topic.
Talking about a company's market cap doesn't mean money is everything, just as we wouldn't conclude "desktop backgrounds are everything" if the article was about Macbook's desktop backgrounds.
It's not everything. But it's something.
At first they were interesting stats, but in reality it isn't overly useful information.
The case could be made that those companies are undervalued or that Apple is overvalued but ultimately the comparison itself isn't very meaningful without any kind of opinion/analysis behind it.
I think it is pretty amazing, and only recently remember when it was big news that Apple were worth more than Microsoft.
I don't expect this to continue. They've picked some seriously big fights recently. From prior observation, I have always seen that it only ends bad.
Apple's stock price is based not on current or even future value, but on being big and a low-risk investment for mutual funds and other institutional investors. Can we stop pretending it's a measure of success, value, or consumer preference?
Let's end this silliness. Do we really believe Apple is more valuable than Google + Microsoft? Do we really think they impact more users, or have a greater reach than those two companies combined? Nearly every computer in the world runs Windows, and Google organizes the world's information and delivers it to more people than anyone else.
Apple sells phones, and occasionally a computer, but not very many of either relative to their markets. Roughly 60% of their valuation and revenue come from a rapidly-aging product in a mature market.
If I were on Apple's board, I'd be terrified of what that stock price represents - that my job is now only to continue existing. Not to do great things, not to risk everything on a new product, and not to have vision or leadership. Just to continue existing.
Well, it does. If it didn't, then the stock market would mean nothing.
Market cap reflects the present value of future cashflows (basically future profits). Supermarkets tend to have very low profit margins, and there are physical and regulatory limits to their growth. The stock market is reflecting investors' prediction that Facebook's future profits will be bigger than several supermarket chains' combined. If you have reason to believe that is false, try and short $x worth of Facebook stock while buying $x worth of UK supermarkets stock. (Actually it's a bit more complicated than that in practice due to different currencies etc, so don't do it at home.)
Apple - 11.6 billion
Microsoft - 5.11 billion
Google - 2.89 billion
Facebook and Amazon both < 1 billion
Apple - $26bn Microsoft - $23bn Google - $9.7bn
So Apple edged past Microsoft in 2011. It is still some way from overtaking all of the companies combined.
Let's say one could choose only one of the groups: either have Apple while MS, Google, Amazon, and FB does not exists, or there's no Apple and the rest is there.
Would anyone really choose the first scenario?
</tangential>
Interesting world.
I fully expect Microsoft to follow the IBM model and focus on services. I'm sure they'll still make an OS and hardware - IBM does too. But their money will come from services.
It's clear to most people Apple isn't worth the money the stock markets assign it - well over half their cap is investment in the brand.
If they ever do anything to damage that or if they do something even remotely wrong, a whole lot of people are going to lose a whole lot of money.
It costs money to keep short positions open - there are several examples of people who exited short positions in the subprime-mortgage bond market just before the credit crunch. They were convinced that the market was going to crash, but they didn't know exactly when.
I said it depends on Apple doing something wrong and I can't predict when that'll happen or what it'll be but here are some suggestions: Making the iPhone 7 out of cheese or Tim Cook farting in the wrong direction. Either way, if the markets have shown us anything in the past, it doesn't take much at the moment to send traders into sellmageddon mode.
Deleted comment
The dividend is an indication that they have too much savings. Share repurchasing is an indication that the company believes its shares are undervalued.
Or am I missing something?
I predict that dislike or even hatred toward apple will begin to expand until it equals or surpasses that we see of Microsoft today. It will no longer be "hip" and once this image slips - Apple will plummet.
This coupled by other tech companies (including all other smartphone manufacturers) banding together and defeating Apple's garbage patent claims (they own a patent on a perfect rectangle as part of a UI design?) will spell an end of a great run for Apple where innovation boomed, but was overcome by greed -leading to their eventual downfall.
There are legitimate reasons to suspect that Apple's most innovative days are behind them. (For instance, my guess is that, barring the Apple TV which the late Steve may or may not have bequeathed them, they have no "next big thing" in the pipe.) But the ones you describe are not among them.
And there is no evidence that Apple's image hasn't been tarnished at all in the eyes of the general public. I see no reason that the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini will again be record breaking sellers for Apple this year.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/245493/apple_to_samsung_dont_...
Legal brief here - section 2-40 (p 10): http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/807407/Apple_Reply_Expert_...