Slashdot Mirror
Apple Is Now the Most Valuable Company In History
derekmead writes "Apple, as of this morning, is valued at $621 billion, thanks to a stock price that spiked at $663.10 per share (and that has risen this afternoon). That finally beats Microsoft, who previously held the record for most valuable company in 1999 at $619 billion. Incredibly, Apple has almost doubled its valuation in the last year, when it topped Exxon-Mobil for most valuable American company with a valuation of $346 billion. It's not the cleanest comparison, but to give you an idea of how much $621 billion actually is, only 23 countries had a GDP higher than that in 2011. So, basically, Apple alone is worth more than what 200+ countries in the world could produce in an entire year."
Issac Newton knew a thing or two about apples. What goes up must come down.
(/local/home/curiosity)-#who -u|grep thecat|cut -c 44-49|xargs kill -9
Everything in the piece is a fact. There is no commentary on why this might be good or bad.
If you actually read right to the end of the article, it states that adjusted for inflation, Microsoft is still over $850 billion. So while Apple is a gigantic company, it hasn't broken any records.
DISCLAIMER: I'm neither a PaidMicrosoftShill(tm) nor affected by the Apple Reality Distortion Field(tm)
I'm going to have to say no.
Based in 2012 dollars, Microsoft's 1999 value of $619 billion would be equivalent to $851 billion today. Apple still has quite a ways to go.
Let's compare meaningful value.
If Apple stops pumping iPods, iPhones and iPads tomorrow, what's the worst that will happen?
If Exxon-Mobil stops pumping out oil and refining gas, diesel and jet fuel, what's the worst that will happen?
I'm thinking maybe the metric being invoked here is inadequate to describe the two companies relative importance and thus their ultimate value.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
If Apple stops pumping iPods, iPhones and iPads tomorrow, what's the worst that will happen?
Mass riots of Fanboys would commence and might be worse then running out of gas.
What would be the value of the British east india company in today's dollars?
I can't believe Apple is more valuable than the British East India company, or any number of other ventures. You need to measure it in terms of global GDP at the time, or gold, or silver. All of these measures have their flaws (e.g., discovery of vast ammounts of gold in the New World distorted its value for a while). If you're just talking nominal US dollar value then fine; but that's not all of history. It's not such a simple thing to measure.
What article/summary did you read? It apparently wasn't the same one I read, as everything was simple facts and completely unbiased. I know people here like to hate on Apple, but to hate on something factual is just...sad.
Apple is replaying their history during 90s.
It's eerie, really. Soon after Macs began its success, MS sold their graphical OS through just about all hardware makers, Apple sued and lost, and Jobs's got ousted, and Apple shriveled up. Just replace "ousted" with "died" and MS/Windows with Google/Android.
Fuck systemd. Fuck Redhat. Fuck Soylent, too. Wait, scratch the last one.
http://www.sqlite.org/apple-and-sqlite.gif ;-)
If Microsoft stops supporting Windows, Office, and other software tomorrow; Business IT structure would probably collapse.
Ever heard of the British East India Company?
Facebook, a nothing income company that hasn't even found a working business model: IPO for 100 billion. Apple, a maker of expensive shiny trinkets, the largest market cap on the street. Benjamin Graham would have a lot to say about times like these. I sure hope most of your money is in bonds right now because this next one is going to hurt even more than the last one. But go on chumps, keep buying into the bubble. It's going to go up forever and we'll all be rich!
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Let's not confuse what a company is worth with what a company costs.
If the major oil players stopped production cold, you wouldn't have so much of a "brief period of instability" as say, "mass societal collapse and widespread starvation".
Whether Exxon by itself would be enough to trigger a collapse is a good question, but I'd say the consequences there would still be somewhat worse than a "brief period of instability".
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/country_names_and_code_elements_txt.htm
According to ISO there are 249 of them
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Several things.
1. It would NOT collapse. All those computers would not suddenly stop working.
2. Only business IT structure that is build on Microsoft would even need to be concerned.
Okay, I'll take back #1. Okay, maybe you're right. It would collapse. Without Windows updates, just how many weeks could an IT infrastructure go before it would be hopelessly compromised beyond all possibility of repair.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Let's compare meaningful value.
If Apple stops pumping iPods, iPhones and iPads tomorrow, what's the worst that will happen?
If Exxon-Mobil stops pumping out oil and refining gas, diesel and jet fuel, what's the worst that will happen?
I think option #2 is best, I can live in an iMicrocosm, as long as I get clean air and water to breathe and drink.
If Exxon stopped pumping oil, instead of a truck delivering your iPhone, it would be carried on the back of a Unicorn and floated gently down a rainbow to your doorstep.
:wq
It was such a terrible comparison, given that there is a great comparison for companies when comparing GDP; and it isn't their market cap:
I really fail to see how iPhones, iTunes, and iPads are worth even remotely close to that number. Every one of those products are replaceable. Most become obsolete in a year. This could be the biggest bubble in corporate history. At least Microsoft had a monopoly when they reached that level. In fact, that is the only thing that kept them afloat (Windows OS).
And I don't dismiss that Google is in the same boat. A new technology could quickly wipe out 90% of their value in a year.
You are correct. But in the real world, only Exxon stopping would cause an increase in production at other companies. Exxon would be taking on so many charges that they would be heading quickly toward bankruptcy. Then their assets would get bought up to contribute to even more production by the other companies.
That would cause a short term spike in the price of oil/gas. It would be a HUGE spike that might spur alternative ideas (work from home) and technologies (natural gas, solar, hydrogen). But it would be short lived.
If Apple stopped production, people would switch to Windows OS, Android mobile, and Amazon/Google/Walmart music. There would be outrage, but the replacement by alternatives would be so quick, it would be done before Apple could even think about liquidating assets.
Bubble bubble bubble.
http://slopeofhope.typepad.com/.a/6a00e009898222883301761756d819970c-800wi
Gonna blow.
comparing GDP of a country to net worth of a company is a bizarre comparison anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue is sort of what you're talking about, and it ranks apple at 43rd, with 103 billion in revenue last year, whereas exxon, royal dutch shell and Walmart are all up over 400 billion dollars.
(point of interest, samsung is on that list with 247 billion).
The idea of meaningful value is sort of hard to pin down, because in both cases the answer to your question is: Their competitors would just sell more. It's not like there aren't other companies making tablets or phones or oil or jet fuel or the like. If you shut down one, their competitors will simply gobble up market share and assets.
In that sense the state owned companies that have state monopolies are the most 'meaningful' value, think state electricity company of China. If they shut down there's no other company to fix chinas power problems just waiting in the wings, but then it's not really realistic that the entire company could disappear overnight in a scandal either the way say a bank or apple could.
Market capitalization is just the total value of the company, it's not intended to reflect anything, two companies with equal revenue but one making a profit and the other not can have wildly different market capitalizations. Hitachi, IBM, Apple, Tesco, Freddie Mac, Bank of America Honda, Verizon, Nissan, and Nestle all have roughly the same revenue, total employees is meaningless because it doesn't count sub contractors, but apple is worth more than any 3 of them combined because they make a huge profit, and because they kept holding onto that cash rather than paying a dividend like everyone else would have. Which might have been part of the plan/fun of it all, pay out 100 billion dollars in cash, watch the stock drop by 100 billion dollars but get to claim the title for having been the most valuable company ever.
Yes, and I have to credit Apple for that.
This was back when Apple was all about technology and innovation.
Now it is all about perception and style. And trying to become a new monopolist. Apple's mobile OS doesn't even have real garbage collection.
I also think Apple's "most valuable company" status is just a matter of perception. If the stockholders were to get spooked and start selling, that value would vanish in the wind just like it can or has with so many other companies.
I was once a longtime card carrying Apple fanboy. What I never realized in my youth was that it never was about "the rest of us". The common man couldn't afford much of the cool Apple gear I got to play with as a developer. That's just like today. It's perception and style. Some people do have iPhones and iPads. Some people drive expensive cars. A lot of people drive Hondas and Toyotas and get Android phones with dual core 1 GB ram for $1 with a $100 gift card back on 2 year contract.
I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
Except the main premise: Apple is the most valuable company in history.
If you decide that stock value is the true valuation of a buisness, even though that would be totally incorrect...
and you decided that US Dollars, not adjusted for inflation...
Then I suppose you could make this claim.
But what is Apples value to the world compared to, lets say walmart? If apple and all its products vanished off the face of the earth right now... would it really cause a problem? If walmart closed all of its stores for just a month or 2... we'd actually have food shortages in many rural areas almost immediately. People would lose their homes due to the lack of a paycheck. Many smaller local business buy their inventories from walmart. Suppliers in China and India would have to lay off workers. Many people wouldn't be able to get prescriptions. Bug spray, insecticides, etc... could lead to increases in west nile and other disease. Literally 3 of the 4 horsemen... it's kind of funny really.
True:
XOM's total assets: $329B
AAPL's total assets: $162B
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=XOM
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL
However, over the last 4 years, Apple has grown it's assets roughly 50% per year. Exxon has grown it's assets by about 15% per year.
So, in about 3 years, Apple will over take Exxon for most total assets. Obviously assuming that they grow roughly the same over the next 3 years. Which people have been arguing Apple can't do for at least 5 years now.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Yes, there are alternatives, but unless you can get other companies to employ the alternative you can be screwed as well.
For one company I am only running a Windows server because it is required for their CRM platform. Could I create an alternative? Sure.... for tens of thousands of dollars (per programmer at a minimum) and about a years worth of custom coding. Not to mention support for all the 3rd party programs from other companies designed to download and sync data from their own platforms.
It's a web of vendor lock-in. Even if you are aware of the alternatives, and desperate to move to them, you could still be just as stuck.
I have been evaluating SaaS offering for the past 18 months looking for a solution, without finding one that even meets the minimum requirements.
If MS Office disappeared we could get over it. As long as no other company was trying to send us MS docs, or more often, complaining they can't read our docs, we will be just fine.
No Windows on the desktops? Still survive. No Windows on the servers? Screwed.
"Largest Technology Company, as of this morning, is valued at $621 billion, thanks to a stock price that spiked at $663.10 per share (and that has risen this afternoon). That finally beats Now-Second Largest Technology Company, who previously held the record for most valuable company in 1999 at $619 billion. Incredibly, Largest Technology Company has almost doubled its valuation in the last year, when it topped Non-Technology Company for most valuable American company with a valuation of $346 billion. It's not the cleanest comparison, but to give you an idea of how much $621 billion actually is, only 23 countries had a GDP higher than that in 2011. So, basically, Largest Technology Company alone is worth more than what 200+ countries in the world could produce in an entire year."
Can you reasonably argue that this is biased reporting? What company is it biased towards? It doesn't even say something like: "The maker of product". It even gives context to the value. When a technology company becomes (arguably) the largest company in recorded history, I expect to SEE IT REPORTED ON SLASHDOT .
And yet Apple contributes very little to the domestic US economy, i.e. no manufacturing jobs. What if Apple made its devices here in the US and accepted a value o 600 billion instead of 621 billion? I own Apple hardware but I hardly place Apple on any kind of pedestal.
So you believe Market-Cap as a metric is unabashedly pro-apple? Got it, I guess.
I've always thought market cap was an incredibly bad metric for measuring a company.
Just because a couple of fools are willing to pay an inflated price for a share on a particular day shouldn't mean that you can extrapolate to say the entire company is worth that much times the number of shares.
In fact, one look at the market depth for any company is proof enough that most people aren't willing to pay top price, and correspondingly, that the company's worth shouldn't be so directly related to the share price.
But banks tend to be willing to lend money to companies based on their market cap, so what would I know: I'm not an economist.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
The thing about trends is they never end, until they do. Just because some people were wrong about Apple years ago, doesn't mean they're wrong about Apple today.
Apple may be extraordinarily successful, but its success is based upon a product line that is:
1. Almost entirely consumer driven, and
2. Incredibly undiversified.
That's an incredibly risky strategy. Most companies build successful long-term business by establishing well diversified product lines, or by building product lines and business relationships that establish long-term cash flow. Apple's bet their success on their ability to stay cooler than the competition. So what's a more likely scenario for 2022: that the world is still addicted to Exxon's oil, or that the iPhone 10 is still the hottest product on the market?
...Time to start shorting Apple.
Just looking at the first page-full of those, Åland Islands are an autonomous region of Finland, Bouvet Island is a dependant territory of Norway and the British Indian Ocean Territory is an overseas territory of the UK. The distinction between sovereign country and parts of sovereign countries and their dependancies is not so clear...
Here's Wikipedia's list of sovereign states. It lists 206, and separates them out nicely based on claims made against their sovereignty and the like. There are 203 sovereign states that are recognized by at least one UN member state, 2 that are only recognized by non-UN states but that have declared their independence and control some territory, and 1 that has declared its independence but is not recognized by anyone at all, despite controlling some territory.
"True" and "misleading" are not mutually exclusive. Apple may have the current highest market cap, but its only a record high if you do it in "dollars of the day"-- that is, Apples market cap today in todays dollars, and Microsofts 1999 market cap in 1999 dollars. It also tries to conflate "market cap" with "value" when the two are not even CLOSE to synonymous-- whats Facebook's market cap now, and what was it 2 months ago? Did the company start producing more or less, or could it be that "market cap" is simply the result of speculation, and not an actual measure of a company's long term value?
No, using market cap to label Apple "most valuable" is unabashedly pro-apple. It is a poor indicator of a company's ability to continue to generate revenue, which is a much closer definition IMO.
If my car runs out of gas, I'll have to ride my bicycle to work, but at least I can still listen to my music on the way with my trusty iPod. And as an added bonus, no war between China and Japan.
Have fun procuring some arable land to grow your own veggies and raise your own cattle.
somewhat worse than a "brief period of instability".
In much the same way, The Dark Ages was a short respite from learning, technology and engineering.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
I smell a bubble about to burst. If the market is this hyped up anything less than a staggering improvement will cause disappointment. Maybe it will all be ok but I'd be selling right now.
Bitter and proud of it.
Apple's P/E ratio is only 15.64. They're greatly undervalued.
I'm not sure how you can say that they are greatly undervalued. Any P/E over 17 is considered overvalued, and a P/E in the range of 10-17 is considered fair value.
So I would say that a P/E of 15.64 is on the high side of being fairly valued, but certainly not greatly undervalued. Greatly undervalued would be if their P/E was below 10.
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
> Apple is also safe because most of *those* people have never tried nor want to try an android device.
^ I stand by this. I meet people with iPhones all over the place, daily, who don't have a clue what Android has to offer. They never looked. They don't care.
Apple conducted a study on this.
Among people who wanted to buy an iPhone and choose Android instead:
Conversely JD Power and associates did the opposite survey and found the number one reason people choose Apple was battery life. An area where they are only beaten by 1 RIM model as a matter of fact.
#2 reason was Apple's high level of customer service after point of sale
#3 better integration
#4 singular vision
#5 better sales staff (I'm assuming they mean Apple stores as contrasted with regular carrier based stores)
#6 innovation
I read those and they seem mostly true in both directions. I don't personally agree with the "latest and greatest" and "technology" arguments on Android but I can see where Android customers might view Apple as too conservative.
OK I agree on you that Apple is overvalued, but many other people obviously believe it's the right value for the company.
Apple is more than iPods/iPads/etc. It's a company, it's an organisation that knows how to produce those things, how to market them, how to sell them, and, maybe most importantly, how to create new products in a way that no-one else has done before (even if based on old ideas, the actual product is something that didn't exist before). This know-how, this organisation, that is also what makes a company and what gives it value.
Most likely, Apple has internally prototypes for the iPad4, the iPhone6, various powerbooks, an extra thin Macbook Air, and who knows what they have. Having these upcoming products adds to the value of a company. Having the facilities and the people to develop new products adds to it. There is likely a whole lot of know-how on the shelf, things that work and things that don't. There will be ideas that can not be done yet, because the technology doesn't exist.
And then there is the pure brand value. The Apple Computer brand is very valuable: for example if you would have two absolutely identical tablets, one with the Apple brand the other without, they would sell at different price. There is immense value in that.
Valuing companies like Apple is very difficult. How much is the brand worth? How much is the employee's collective know-how worth? How much are their shops worth - other than their pure real estate value? How many successful products will they be able to put on the market in the upcoming year, five years, decade?
And that doesn't account for just Apple, that accounts for all companies. It's the sum of parts that's making a company, and by having those parts together it's final value is more than the sum of the parts.
A company like Exxon is relatively easier to value. They work with a physical product, they own huge amounts of real estate and physical infrastructure, etc. They also have a lot of know-how of course, but that's not their core product.
Let us not forget about the first company to ever break the $1 trillion mark. That was the Chinese oil company PetroChina which did it on November 06, 2007 (I think that is the correct date it doesn't specify in the article so I used the date line). The value has since pulled back quite a bit to reasonable levels and most of the shares were still held by the government but it was the first company to hit the trillion dollar mark.
Time to offend someone
"Some people do have iPhones and iPads. Some people drive expensive cars. A lot of people drive Hondas and Toyotas and get Android phones with dual core 1 GB ram for $1 with a $100 gift card back on 2 year contract."
Well put, a lot of the arguments I see from Apple fanboys is that "Most people seem to think the iPhone is the best", or "Apple obviously does X right because the majority of people have iPhones".
The whole argument is based on fantasy, Apple's global smartphone marketshare is 17%, their phone marketshare (including non-smartphones) is about 2%. The idea that Apple has any kind of majority backing their product is completely and utterly false. The same goes for Apple computers too - the fact is, the real fact is, that the vast majority of people don't choose Apple, they choose Android, they choose Windows, so the idea that Apple's way is the right way based on some kind of consensus simply isn't true. The only place it holds true is tablets, but even that early lead advantage is slipping away quarter on quarter now that there are decent alternatives out there.
The reality is that most people aren't interested in fancy stuff like you say, some are sure, but most just want a product that gets the job done and doesn't cost an extortionate amount regardless of what fucking shape or colour it is, or how much they can brag they spent on it.