Slashdot Mirror
Apple Surpasses Microsoft In Market Capitalization
je ne sais quoi writes "Today Apple surpassed Microsoft in market capitalization, a metric of the perceived worth of a company. At around 2:30 pm EDT, the total number of Apple shares were worth $227 billion, whereas Microsoft's were worth $226 billion. Both companies' stocks ended the day in the red, and have dropped in value since the Greek crisis began, but Apple's share price has been falling less quickly. Of American companies, only Exxon-Mobil has a higher market cap at this point at $278 billion. According to the article: 'This changing of the guard caps one of the most stunning turnarounds in business history, as Apple had been given up for dead only a decade earlier. But the rapidly rising value attached to Apple by investors also heralds a cultural shift: Consumer tastes have overtaken the needs of business as the leading force shaping technology.'"
Consumer tastes have overtaken the perceived needs of business as the leading force shaping technology.
There, fixed that for you. The day of the PHB making decisions based on the novelty of the promo mugs and pens they just received is coming to an end. Thank god.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Apple's PE ratio is also 2x of MSFT, Walmart, IBM, GE, XOM etc...
And don't forget that they're the underdog and can't be investigated for anti-competitive behavior!
meep
"Microsoft hasn't really been growing for a decade" is only true in the broader, "hahahahahaha" sense:
http://www.microsoft.com/msft/download/Yearly%20Income%20Statements.xls
Deciding just how much they grew is sort of a difficult exercise, as both 2000 and 2009 had 'interesting' business events, but the low end argument is that they increased earnings by $5 billion, which is about 50% of their 2000 income. It is also about 80% of Google's earnings (which is an interesting comparison, because Google is widely hailed as a success, whereas people often say that Microsoft hasn't don much).
It wouldn't be insane to argue that they increased income by $7 billion, a 100% increase over their 1999 earnings, and it wouldn't be shocking to see them back near $18 billion for 2010 (they have already reported $14 billion of income), which is a $9 billion increase over 2000.
Of course, none of those numbers account for inflation.
So really, what happened is that Apple grew a whole bunch more.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
when the vast majority of them can surf the web/IM/email with an iPad.
Yes, because of course web/IM/email are the *ONLY THREE THINGS* done on any PC in an average home... absolutely no-one writes or prints out any documents, plays any 3D accelerated games, uses their home PC to stream movies to a media player, uploads and edits photos from their camera, rip movies and music for convenient storage, etc. etc.
And *OF COURSE* nobody ever has more than one application running at once on a home PC, laptop or netbook.
So an iPad is a *PERFECT* replacement for them.
Gentoo Linux - another day, another USE flag.
And... we're still using the borg icon for Microsoft and yet using the actual Apple logo. Maybe we can get some update graphics on the site?
Is that AAPL is grossly overvalued. Especially when you consider price to earnings and return on equity. Microsoft sells 8 billion more per year than Apple (59 bn vs 51 bn), and keeps a larger percentage of it as profit. Sales growth has also been greater for MSFT than for AAPL. And Microsoft pays a dividend to boot, Apple doesn't.
But I guess like everything else Apple, it's no surprise that their stock is overpriced as well. Feel free to buy it.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
I'm wondering if Microsoft has simply plateaued. Yes, they'll sell lots of the flagship products, but I suspect for the most part these are people buying new computers and/or upgrading Windows or Office installs. There's a point at which growth is going to stall out, which is why Microsoft has burned considerable amounts of money trying to branch out, and burned money they have. How much money have they blown on the Xbox, on the rebranding of MSN every four or five years, on Zune?
I'm no fan of Apple, but where Microsoft seems at times like a crazed octopus just wildly flinging out its arms trying to hit on the next BIG THING, Apple has taken a much more disciplined approach, and for the most part over the last decade has simply kicked ass. Jobs has steered the company in an extremely profitable direction, translating Apple's hardware expertise into product niches that exploded. There was a time when Gates was that good at reading the market, but Ballmer is just a mean-spirited one-dimensional bean counter (to be fair, even Gates screwed up plenty, nearly missing the growing importance of the Internet, but Microsoft had the sheer dominance to push out a horrible OS with the worst TCP/IP layer in history and sell it). Jobs is a monopolistic megolomaniacal whackjob, but he goes got a good market compass.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Not that I'd argue MS has done anything different than they always have, just seen a lot more press on Apple and rather dubious strong-arm moves. For example
http://www.sevensidedcube.net/business/2010/apple-investigated-for-abuse-of-power-in-the-online-music-market/
You're just being short sighted if you don't consider smart-phones and tablet devices to be computer equipment.
Before the iphone, nobody would have considered a non-user-programmable phone a smart-phone, same thing with pda's, tablets etc
no, these things have general purpose input capabilities, general purpose programs and installable 3rd party applications
Without jailbreaking? or requiring cash for the apple development kit and abiding by their rules? apple has set back general purpose computing more than any other company, what they are great at, is making 'appliances'.