11/29/2011 6:26:02 AM

The only chart that makes any sense is the last one. Everything else is comparing Apples to oranges.

11/29/2011 6:55:20 AM

^lol

11/29/2011 7:03:25 AM

Hey look, another stupid chart on the internet

11/29/2011 7:07:34 AM

Everyone knows that Apple's value is inflated.

11/29/2011 8:06:53 AM

Don't give me any lipster...hipster!

11/29/2011 8:23:23 AM

TWW is smaller than Apple.

11/29/2011 8:32:25 AM

^^^ way inflated. Its "value" far outstrips its profit.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 8:38 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 8:38:34 AM

Quote :

"Everyone knows that Apple's value is inflated."

um, you know that AAPL has a 13.6 P/E ratio right? That is really really low.

This is less than both the Mean (16.42) and Median(15.82) of the S&P 500.

I'm curious to see what metrics you used to determine it's value.

By comparison, P/E's of some other large companies

CSCO: 15.55
GOOG: 20.05
IBM: 14.36
AMZN: 102.35
GE: 11.32

Quote :

"way inflated. Its "value" far outstrips its profit."

source?

---

Not trying to advocate for AAPL. It's just idiotic the conclusions people come to based on their own perception of a brand rather than actual data.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 9:07 AM. Reason : .]

11/29/2011 9:04:47 AM

The denominator of the P/E ratio is revenue minus costs and then some other stuff I don't understand.

Apple's ratio is a direct result of the fact they can sell computers at $100s of dollars above costs, which none of their competitors can do. Same for the iPhones.

Apple's profits can be almost completely accurately classified as luxury spending. I'm amazed it ever got to this point. They've created a cult, and the amortized value of the cult is, yes, equal to their valuation. Sustainable? That's a whole different story.

11/29/2011 9:09:54 AM

Can anyone tell me if steve jobs was so smart why the cord for my phone charger is so short? Or why there is no @ key on the keyboard?

11/29/2011 9:58:45 AM

Nah he was smart because he convinced millions of gullible people that they don't need decently long cords or @ keys

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 10:09 AM. Reason : or 2 mouse buttons for that matter]

11/29/2011 10:08:32 AM

He is smart because you bought one anyway

11/29/2011 10:09:17 AM

Quote :

"Or why there is no @ key on the keyboard?"

huh

11/29/2011 10:10:34 AM

@@@@

Seems to work here

11/29/2011 11:00:53 AM

Admittedly, that seems like an Apple thing to do.

"Why is there no @ key, Steve Jobs?"

"because we favor the new HTML5 solution"

11/29/2011 11:03:38 AM

how much do people that stand in line for iPhones pay for them? is it like the retail price that most new phones, i.e. $500+?

and do the revenue numbers for manufactures that release phones for $200 on 2-yr new contracts only reflect that $200 value?

11/29/2011 11:04:41 AM

1% profits, 99% appeal.

11/29/2011 11:15:46 AM

I love those new Samsung commercials making fun of Apple users.

"I'm way too creative to use a Samsung"
"Dude you're a barrista"

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 11:18 AM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 11:17:26 AM

Quote :

""because we favor the new HTML5 solution" "

It was more like, " hey Google is really busting ass to make the web a powerful user experience and Adobe just got a new jackass CEO that is trying to grow his business by selling to large companies. It seems like Adobe doesn't know what the fuck they are doing anymore. Google seems to know about the web, why don't we join and help them."

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 11:22 AM. Reason : -=]

11/29/2011 11:22:22 AM

^If you know too much of anything about Apple and Google, you'll know that Steve Jobs had a terrible disdain for Google's CEO. I doubt they would have "wanted to help them" with anything, even if they thought the market was moving in that direction. Apple never 'followed' the market, they redefined it.

I'm not a fan of Apple products at all, but trying to say Apple made any kind of decision regarding their products based off Adobe or "helping" Google is just silly.

.......

One thought came to mind after seeing the OP's graphic: Apple is bigger than Big Pharma. The problem and solution are obvious... we must move to a single-payer system for iPhones to reduce Apple costs.

11/29/2011 12:02:06 PM

^ Help isn't the right word, but when a behemoth of the tech industry is going in one direction it's probably smart to follow them instead of going their own way. They could have ended up with a more stable platform to build off their strategy.

Adobe tried to commoditize web development on a platform that wasn't getting the love and care it needed. As a business they just were not focused on that goal, and if you aren't focused going against Google and Apple then no one is going to take you seriously.

11/29/2011 12:25:43 PM

Quote :

"Apple is bigger than Big Pharma."

False.

The infographic is horribly misleading for people that don't read carefully. It compares Apple's MARKET CAP to big pharma's ANNUAL REVENUES.

You could compare Apple's market cap to the sum of the companies' market cap that make up Big Pharma, and that's a valid comparison, although it is more obviously meaningless.

You could compare Apple's annual revenues against Big Pharma's revenues... same thing as above.

but comparing one company's market cap against the revenues of a sector is just misleading.

11/29/2011 12:35:51 PM

^ I was waiting for someone to say that

Surprised it took that long. Obviously, Apple doesn't have $370 billion in revenue... that would just be insane. I do wonder if you made apple to apple (revenue to revenue, or market cap to market cap) comparisons, if Apple would still be larger than the things in the graphic.

11/29/2011 1:06:56 PM

Well if you're going by just revenue: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue

Obviously since wal-mart is a retail store and only manufactures a small part of the stuff they sell, their actual profit is going to be a lower percentage of their ridiculous revenue than something like Apple or Exxon.

11/29/2011 1:11:29 PM

Quote :

"Apple never 'followed' the market, they redefined it."

loooool

Quote :

"Surprised it took that long. Obviously, Apple doesn't have $370 billion in revenue"

Apple had $109 billion in revenue for the last 4 quarters reported. Hardly "obvious", and I'm wondering if the word you were searching for is "Net Income" which was about $26 billion.

11/29/2011 1:22:55 PM

How is it NOT obvious that a company that has a market CAP of $370Billion would also not have revenues of that same amount?

Ok, let me qualify that with "How is it not obvious to anyone with the most basic understanding of the market?"

Quote :

"I do wonder if you made apple to apple (revenue to revenue, or market cap to market cap) comparisons, if Apple would still be larger than the things in the graphic."

In some cases yes, in others no

Quote :

"Obviously since wal-mart is a retail store and only manufactures a small part of the stuff they sell, their actual profit is going to be a lower percentage of their ridiculous revenue than something like Apple or Exxon."

While WMT does have a lower profit margin (4%) than XOM, XOM's profit margins are far from ridiculous (less than 10%). And as high as Apple's is, at ~24%, Microsoft's is quite a bit higher at 33%.

11/29/2011 1:35:02 PM

what is a 370 billion market cap?

11/29/2011 1:39:55 PM

Quote :

"How is it NOT obvious that a company that has a market CAP of $370Billion would also not have revenues of that same amount? "

Should I start listing companies that have a market cap less than their annual revenue? Is that what it's going to take?

Quote :

"what is a 370 billion market cap?"

The amount is 2.4% of US GDP or 0.6% of world GDP.

Market cap is the amount you would get by selling every last one of the shares of the company at the current market value. No such thing could ever practically be done, and the value of the shares is only loosely connected to a fair valuation of the company based on revenue, assets, and debt, and the assets and debt can be misrepresented in the first place.

[Edited on November 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM. Reason : ]

11/29/2011 1:42:10 PM

^^^^Give me any recent example where Apple captured a significant portion of any market-share by actually entering into an existing market. You can "loooooooool" at saying Apple redefines markets, but the iPod, iPhone, and iPad are all devices that had not hit mainstream consumers (maybe you could argue the Blackberry is a predecessor to the iPhone, but it wasn't casual consumer friendly) prior to their entrance into the market.

A good example of Apple trying to capture a portion of the market-share that they didn't redefine is the Macbook Pro. Outstanding device, but without planting the flag as the first in a revolutionary field, the number of people willing to pay $2+ for a laptop is slim.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 8:16 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2011 8:15:12 AM

Whats the new buzzword? Ultrabook? Apple basically killed netbooks before they were born with the macbook air and ipad.

11/30/2011 8:44:47 AM

I always thought the Macbook Air was a complete cluster fuck. The first one was terrible (battery lasted but less than my old IBM at the time) and I think the second one has been lost in the release of so many other devices.

What the iPad did was seize on the market of easily portable computing. I think netbooks will always be viable so long as their price point remains where it is. If more and more manufacturers start attempting to mass-produce lower priced tablets, maybe that will change.

Apple's strength has been, and always will be, in their ability to step out into new markets (or convince consumers that they have created a new market, like they did with the iPhone), and establish their product as the benchmark that all other measure against.

11/30/2011 8:52:25 AM

your penis

11/30/2011 8:55:16 AM

^^ Need to check your facts. The air is blowing up, as are PC versions of it. And manufacturers are stumbling over each other trying to push out tablets. And the netbook market is declining.

Your post is written as if it were 2 years ago.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 8:58 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2011 8:57:17 AM

^^ My asking price is $500 billion, so in terms of market value I say no.

11/30/2011 8:59:42 AM

^^I took your advise and checked my facts. Ironically, they were correct.

Big manufacturers are still producing new netbooks. Just as I said in my previous post, the increasing producting of lower-priced tablets will make netbooks unprofitable. But for now, they are doing very, very well.

Sales of Netbooks:
2008: 14.6 million units <http://news.softpedia.com/news/14-6-Million-Netbooks-Sold-in-2008-According-to-Report-103555.shtml>
2009: 22 million units <http://www.lockergnome.com/blade/2009/05/05/apple-dismisses-netbooks-as-junk-netbook-to-reach-22-million-units-sold-in-2009/>
2010: 36 million units <http://www.myce.com/news/netbooks-to-top-36-million-units-sold-in-2010-32953/>
2011: 45.6 million units <http://www.ditii.com/2010/05/07/45-6-million-netbooks-will-be-sold-in-2011-idc/>

As far as the Macbook Air goes, all I was saying is that the first Macbook Air sank like a rock<http://www.slashgear.com/macbook-air-sales-dropping-fast-1310243/> and the second one is getting overshadowed by the mass influx of tablets as super-portable devices. The Macbook Air sales numbers are somewhere in the 1.4 million range (Apple estimates it will have sold 5 million MacBooks as of this holiday season and 28% of that is the MacBook Air). Compare that to the units sold for the iPad (+11 million units) or the popular Android tablets (+1.2 million). I'm not saying the MacBook Air isn't doing well for itself... just that it didn't make an explosive appearance on the technology scene since most people looking for super-portable computing first think "tablet", not "light laptop". Now if Apple's "light laptop" was in the price range of a netbook ($100-$200) rather than hovering around $1K, maybe they were see a part of those 45 million units sold that other netbooks are seeing this year.

...and those are 2011 numbers, not 2-year-old values. Just wanted to make that clear.

[Edited on November 30, 2011 at 10:15 AM. Reason : .]

11/30/2011 10:11:37 AM

You really can't compare the Macbook Air's sales with anything at this point, because the choice of a better small Macbook was taken away and some people will just buy Apple no matter what.

If you want an Apple computer under 1k then it's either a Macbook Air (11 inch, how the hell is that not a netbook?) or a Mac Mini.

11/30/2011 10:14:22 AM

^I'm trying not to focus on the 'fanboi'-ism of the argument, but you're right. MacBook Air's 1.4 million unit sales are probably inflated a bit since if you want a laptop containing OS and don't want to pay $2K, you're hands are tied. It's a confused little product that, IMO, is real big with college and post-college aged students who really like OS (or just think Apple is trendy), but either (a) don't have the cash or (b) aren't willing to pay the cash for a MacBook Pro.

I don't blame them.

11/30/2011 10:21:04 AM

I don't blame them either. The last thing the average college student needs is a computer that'll give them tons of headaches, and fanboism or no a Macbook will probably give you less headaches than a Windows laptop.

Plus the Air's netbook size is actually beneficial to those who want a laptop they can easily slide into whatever bag they're carrying around campus.

I just think that you have to call the 11inch Macbook Air a netbook. The only non-netbook thing about it is the processor/graphics combo (which may make the premium worth it, I'm not sure).

11/30/2011 10:33:53 AM

Quote :

"The last thing the average college student needs is a computer that'll give them tons of headaches, and fanboism or a $1000 computer when you can get one that runs anything an undergrad needs for half that price."

FTFY.

It's a machine with identity crisis. We'll at least agree on that much. I'm ok with people wanting MacBook Air computers if that's something they want. Who am I to judge. The only original point I was trying to make was that the MacBook Air is a good example of a product that didn't jump out and consume a large portion of the marketshare because there was no new market to capitalize on. Without that gimmick, Apples can't mount these massive profits.

I don't know how much Steve Jobs had to do with the actual development of new products, but if he was, I hope Apple has some other brilliant, original thinkers. IMHO, without that they'll stagnate.

11/30/2011 11:11:21 AM

If you need a computer to slide under a closed door but still be a decently powerful machine, a macbook air is what you're looking for.

But most people don't.

That goes for the windows ultraportables coming out now also. I mean I see the appeal I just don't think it's worth the premium. Then again I don't have a lot of money


Furthermore I think the calls for the death of the netbook is premature, generally they are both cheaper and have more utility than tablets, athough the lack of a touchscreen makes them seem less slick and high tech.

11/30/2011 11:28:42 AM