Apple's Market Cap Exceeds Google's

Lawrence Person writes "Mac Daily News was one of many Apple-followers to note that Apple Inc.'s market capitalization exceeded Google today. That means that the combined value of all Apple's outstanding shares of stock exceeded the combined value of all Google's outstanding shares of stock. Apple's stock is worth $157 billion and change vs. Google's $156 billion. Other companies Apple has surpassed in market cap include Cisco, HP, and Intel. Also, Apple is now worth 3 times the value of Dell Computer, despite Dell's founder and CEO declaring over a decade ago that if he ran Apple, he'd 'shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders.'"

Comments

Well let's just be honest here

[Erie Ed]

Look at the price of iPod's, iPhone's, Mac Books, and their other products. They are selling them at an incredible profit. Not hard to see why apple is worth so much. As much as I hate apple I have to give them credit.

Re:Well let's just be honest here

[MacOSXHead]

Why would you hate Apple?

They have succeeded with products that people want to pay for.

They have contributed much to the open source community.

They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

They give developers a great platform for either open source development or Mac development without charging for developer tools.

They have created an exceptional market for independent developers to make REAL money writing for the iPhone.

I guess Apple is bad because they make money.

Mod this guy up to a ten.

Re:Well let's just be honest here

[peragrin]

That's just it if you bought an HP you would have the exact same problems if you spent the same amount of money.

You want a really high end notebook your going to shell out for it one way or another.

Re:Well let's just be honest here

[Anonymous Coward]

My biggest problem with Apple is their culture of silence. They very often don't even admit they have bugs that are talked about in forums etc (for example, pre 10.5 printing to windows printer shares were broken for a while).

This gets VERY bad when you start talking about security vulnerabilities.

Re:Well let's just be honest here

[Kjella]

And right now, Macs are the wedge in the door of the Microsoft stranglehold. Linux might slip in, but it's Macs doing the ramming. For example this report puts Macs at 7.9% and Linux at 0.8%. Maybe it's envy that Macs are so popular, but it's stupid. I've very long been a fan of Opera the web browser, but it got a lot more pleasant when we passed 10% "not IE" due to Firefox. I'm quite certain that running Linux as I am will become a lot more pleasant if we pass 10% "not Windows" due to Macs. The positive thinking rrowd could say it would promote cross-platform solutions. The machiavellians can say it's divide and conquer. In any case, Macs are good for Linux. Including shamelessly copying the good parts while still letting you run xfce if you want...

Re:Well let's just be honest here

[Midnight Thunder]

The funny thing is that I've seen a lot of Mac fans cheering each quarter at the new record profits and at the same time get very defensive (or even offended) when someone suggests that Apple is selling their products for a lot more than it costs them to produce (yes, including fixed costs like R&D etc) compared to most of their competitors.

They are probably worried that this fact will detract people from buying Macs. The simple truth is that people buy the computers and other hardware despite this fact, even first time buyers. While you could save a few bucks by going elsewhere, it isn't always about saving money.

To bring in the car analogy: people still buy Mercedes cars, even though you probably get just as much out of a Honda. It is the seemingly unimportant things that make a difference.

Re:Well let's just be honest here

[radish]

OK. I don't normally swear on /., but this is bullshit.

And I don't normally reply to posts replying to mine, but hey - yours is special :)

First, the $2500 MacBook Pro you price has a 512MB video card, an option that is not available on any of the Dell Studio series. You should be comparing to the $2000 Macbook Pro, which has the 256MB video card

OK, fine, the graphics cards are different - my mistake. $1200 different? If you say so! But whatever, if you want to use the $2000 Macbook Pro that's fine, just add the $50 for the HDD upgrade. But then we only have a 2.4GHz cpu, so the Dell is now faster and still something like $800 less.

And once you include things like Wireless-N to match the Mac

Did you even read my post? It was a pretty easy to comprehend list. Wireless N was already included in my price.

and the Ultimate version of Vista to match OS X,

OK if you insist, add $150 for Vista Ultimate (wouldn't we be installing Ubuntu anyway??). Now we're down to $650 difference.

And most Mac users don't buy RAM from Apple

So Apple overcharge? Say it isn't so!! I thought that was the whole point of this discussion :) Regardless - 2GB is the least you can spec on these machines so your argument is redundant.

And then you end up paying more to Dell for a backlit keyboard, camera etc

$50 for the keyboard (didn't see that), camera is included. Now we're at $600. Keeping count at home?

OK, so the final tally by your specs (some of which I don't agree with - such as Vista Ultimate) still has the difference at $600 for a $2050 Macbook Pro. That's what, 30%? Quite a markup (particularly as with your spec I have to have the case in white, Dell let me choose!). I personally don't think magsafe is worth that much but YMMV.

But dishonest exaggerations like yours are just stupid.

Pot, meet kettle.

Not too much of a shock, really.

[scott_karana]

Not really a shock.

One company's based on ubiquity and mindshare. The other's the same though less so, but actually retails physical items.

Re:Not too much of a shock, really.

[Onan]

You're right, a company that sells services rather than goods can never be sustainable in the long run. That's why all power companies, telephone companies, cleaning companies, shipping companies, security companies, doctors, lawyers, and accountants all went out of business decades ago.

Re:Not too much of a shock, really.

[amorsen]

hence the command: "DO NO EVIL!"

Google's motto is "Don't be evil". The difference is subtle but significant.

insane

[hcdejong]

How can a company with $24B in sales, $3B in profit, and $40B in cash and assets (2007 figures) have a market cap of $160B?

Re:insane

[Opportunist]

Because in today's economy, the worth of a company isn't what it is, but what it could be. Or rather, what analysts expect it to become.

And when analysts don't know jack about what they analyse and assess, you get a dot.com bubble.

Re:insane

[hcdejong]

But even then: say I bought all of Apple's stock. If I relied on dividend alone, it would take me 53 years to make a profit on my investment. The only way I could profit in the short term is by trading the shares. It's devolved from a long-term profit projection into a pyramid scheme, IMO.

Re:insane

[mjc82]

...it would take me 53 years to make a profit on my investment.

Given it's been 13 years (Nov-1995) since they last paid out a cash dividend it's going to take you a lot longer than that! They use the profit they make to re-invest and increase shareholder value. In the last 4 years alone the share-price has gone up by a factor of 10!

Seriously though, market valuations are very much based on market sentiment and prediction of future market sentiment based on projected company performance, i.e. how people "feel" and expect to "feel" about the company. It's messed up but its how the market seems to work.

It's better to look at relative performance of various companies to gauge whether prices are sane. Google's P/E (price/earnings) ratio (~30) is still high compared to other mature tech companies, which can be translated as meaning that Google is still expected to grow pretty quick, it's just that Apple (~35) is expected to grow slightly quicker.

Re:insane

[sumdumass]

Actually, money is just a marker for value and worth. It is true that more money then value or worth can exist and cause an inflation scenario. But as long as people are creating value and worth (lets call it wealth from here out), they are creating money. This is especially easier to do with the banking systems in place that allow loans from debt.

And no, the total amount of money isn't limited. Well, it is but not buy an arbitrary number of printed bills and coins. It's limited to the amount of wealth in circulation which is why factors like the GDP and so on are so important in gaging a countries wealth. It is also a main reason why the easiest way to spur a stagnant economy is to lower taxes and capitol gains rates.

Re:insane

[malchus842]

But businesses will never drop Wintel. Never.

Just like they would never leave IBM?

In the last 5 years, I have seen significant uptake in Apple computers in the corporate world, from small to large. I work for a fairly large financial services firm and all of our Unix/Linux admins have Macbook Pros. And they are spreading to other groups as well.

Never say 'Never'!!

Re:insane

[mattwarden]

What you say is true in an innovating economy. However, the point Ron Paul makes is that because the government does NOT hold the money supply constant, there is a severe punishment to anyone who saves or invests their income rather than spending it through consumption. There is even a school of thought that gains more and more steam every year that the government inflates that says you should save next to nothing and spend everything, since (the school of thought says) you are more likely to be saved by the government's social programs than by trying to fight the government's inflation through retirement savings.

Take away the idea of inflation and replace with a 5% yearly tax on your savings accounts (of any type). Do you get it yet? It's the same damn thing (except worse since that 5% doesn't get fed back into the economy by the government).

Legs to stand on

[SuperKendall]

Well, when you factor in a rapidly growing computer market (for Apple) with lots of growth potential left, a rapidly growing music market with lots of growth potential, a rapidly growing smartphone market, a rapidly growing mobile applications market...

And so on.

The thing of it is, Apple can still miss in a few categories and still have tremendous room for growth. They have many legs of stability holding up their table of success (I daresay that's the most awful metaphor you'll encounter this week).

The market rewards innovation, mindshare, and success. Apple has all three...

If after that you are still mystified - buy mutual funds.

Too be fair

[Repossessed]

A little over ten years ago, liquidating Apple would have made sense, whatever else I might think about the company and the products, Jobs is a fucking miracle worker, and we need more business leaders with his ability (if maybe not ethics).

Re:On the one hand ...

[Daengbo]

You nailed it. Saying Google isn't a real business is like calling your local TV station a sham.

Yes

[Colin Smith]

The stock market is a mechanism by which monetary inflation is captured and transferred to the wealthy.

HTH
 

More...

[BitterOldGUy]

If Apple were to completely revamp their OS or even get rid of it, it wouldn't have that much affect on their sales. If they went all Wintell and just slapped an Apple logo on a Dell, but still have their iPod and other products completely integrated, I still don't think there would be much of an affect on their sales. I think the only folks who would care are the die hard Apple Computer fans - the iPod and fashion crowd wouldn't care.

How about this....

What business is Harley Davidson in? Not Motorcycles. They're in the image and fantasy business. Middle aged professionals buy them and pretend to be careless free spirit rebels on the weekends and then on Monday, they're back to being the Sam the accountant or lawyer or engineer. I saw quite a few "bikers" with their Harley Davidson logo'd leather attire (huge business for Harley!) and Rolex watches. Real motorcycle enthusiasts, from what I'm told, prefer BMW or something Japanese: Harleys are junk.

What business is McDonald's in? Business process. When someone buys a franchise from McDs, they're buying a way to do business and a name for the burger joint that they open.

Estee Lauder was famous for saying that she was in the business of hope not cosmetics. She sold women the hope that they can look young and beautiful like her models.

My point is that if Apple were a computer company, they'd be making the crappy margins that Dell and the other PC makers are making.

Re:Why I hate Apple

[falcon5768]

I think the OP is confusing AppleCare phone service (which is 90 days) with their actual warranty which is 1-3 years depending on if you buy the AppleCare plan. And as anyone who buys a Apple product knows, you ALWAYS buy the Protection Plan contrary what is normal practice for other electronics. I have gotten 2 brand new laptops out of that extra 200 bucks you pay since they will go through hoops to fix things even if its not entirely their fault.

Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user

[stewbacca]

Ahhhh, you lost me at "real work". Nice try, but the "real people" use "real computers" argument ran dry about 5 years ago.

Re:Full disclosure: I'm a Mac user

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Just like the "usability" argument that Mac users like to trot out died about 13 years ago......

Spoken like someone who hasn't been to a usability or UI design conference... ever. Apple designed UIs are the gold standard of the industry, including the OS X interface. It sure isn't perfect and experts discuss the flaws regularly, but compared to everything else out there it's not much of a contest.

Re:yes, let's be honest

[99BottlesOfBeerInMyF]

Apple is using a lot of open source code, and they have released some open source code themselves. But what have they actually contributed to the open source community? I can't think of any significant piece of Apple software that runs on any Linux distribution.

Apple has made very significant contributions to what is now Webkit, to zeroconf, to the shared BSD subsystem, etc. But you have a very real point. When Apple invents something from scratch and contributes it (like LaunchD) it is occasionally cloned, but rarely do developers take Apple's code and run with it. This is important, but ties into your next comment.

They have raised the bar for software/hardware technology in general.

With what? Quartz, HFS+, Cocoa, Darwin, and XCode do not "raise the bar" on anything. Apple fans like to point to USB, OS X, Bonjour, Quicktime, and similar technologies, but Apple's contributions there were either to adopt an existing standard that was coming anyway, or to take an existing technology, tinker a little with it, and release it under their own name.

Apple has raised the bar. They took many rough standards and turned them into powerful and usable tools (zeroconf). They introduced innovative UIs (dock and expose). They took old and crufty parts of UNIX and redesigned them (LaunchD, basic directory structure, ACLs). They introduced powerful technologies that are all their own (OpenStep, signing framework, system services).

Despite all this and despite their popularity, the OSS community has a lousy track record of adopting those technologies and ideas. Their still isn't a dock clone that has all the functionality of Apple's. There still isn't a major Linux distro that ships with a dock or expose working by default. None of the Linux distros I've used have successfully cloned Apple's ubiquitous application of zeroconf. No Linux distro has yet copied OpenStep or even tried for compatibility with OS X. If you talk to Linux on the desktop users (people who should know what the competition does) 99% of them don't even know what Apple's system services are and if you explain it, they eventually agree it is really cool, but way too much work for them to try to clone.

There are a lot of reasons for this state of affairs. In some cases Apple has not played as nicely as they could, with licensing issues and their culture of secrecy. In many cases Apple makes sweeping changes to optimize OS X for the desktop and there is no central authority in the rest of the OSS community to mandate the same or even develop a real consensus. In many cases, Linux developers are a lot more interested in Linux as an appliance or server and specifically don't want to make changes that will help for a desktop but may add bloat for other uses. In some cases the OSS community is simply ignorant of what Apple does because they don't use Apple products due to philosophical differences or simply because Apple is not as common as Windows.

Whatever the reason, my perspective is Apple gives and takes from the OSS community about as well as many other mixed contributors, but because they are working in the desktop OS space and because of the reasons above, their contributions are ignored by Linux on the desktop developers (which is the only relevant market they're innovating in). Apple has been pretty good about adopting useful stuff from Windows and Linux (virtual desktops, filesystem improvements, misc code) but while their are projects to try to clone some of Apple's new tech, for the most part those are small projects and they are not integrated into mainstream Linux distros. That's one of the reasons why gOS's adoption of the dock was both encouraging (yay OS X feature parity) and disheartening (poorly done with only a little bit of the functionality).

In short I think you're right that the OSS community is not benefiting much by what Apple has been doing, but I think that is largely the fault of the OSS community for not takin