Apple is Now Bigger Than Microsoft

[T-Rexx]

On Wednesday (26 May 2010), Microsoft's stock price dropped 4%. That caused Mcrosoft's market capitalization to drop below that of Apple's ($219 billion for Microsoft vs $222 billion for Apple). In other words, Apple is now bigger than Microsoft, for the first time in more than two decades.

In truth, the two companies are neck and neck in vying for status as America's second largest company (after Exxon Mobile). Market fluctuations could reverse which company is standing on top tomorrow. But, Apple has experienced dramatic, persistent growth over the past five years while Microsoft has stagnated for a decade. The pace of Apple's growth has been astounding. In the last two years, Apple has nearly trebled in size, while Microsoft has remained unchanged.

Apple has introduced one outstandingly successful product after another, while Microsoft has suffered a string of relative failures: iPod, iPhone, iPad, iTunes store vs Zune, Vista, Courier, and Windows Mobile. The HP Slate, which Steve Ballmer proudly showed off at CES as an upcoming Windows 7 success, has been delayed and may be converted to WebOS Linux. Windows Mobile has dropped to just 6.8% of smart phone market share, down from 10.4% last year. Windows Mobile is now in FIFTH place amongst smart phone OSs, behind Nokia, RIM, Apple, and Android. And Windows Mobile's long-overdue replacement, Windows Phone 7, won't be here for a few more months. It will have to struggle against firmly-entrenched and more dominant competitors when it arrives.

Microsoft continues to generate far more profit than Apple as a result of its Windows and Office monopolies. But Windows and Office account for most of Microsoft's profits, and that's not necessarily good for the long term future of the company. While Microsoft has been extremely successful in defending the monopoly position of its franchises, the future may not lie in proprietary desktop software applications. The decision by the market yesterday to value Apple above Microsoft is essentially a bet on the future. Apple dominates the mobile computing space, which Microsoft seems unable to crack. But mobile computing would seem to represent the obvious future of technology. Microsoft's success at defending its monopolies may not mean much, in the long run. These may soon become as useful as monopolies on buggy whips, whale oil lamps, and telegraph keys.




http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2010/05...f-microsoft-in-the-market/?mod=wsj_india_main

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/27/technology/27apple.html

 

[T-Rexx]

Just proves Bill Gates couldn't re-invent Microsoft. He needs to step down and disaccociate himself from that company. He's lost so much credibility. There's talent over at softie but with him still there the corporate culture won't change.
Sometimes a director needs to move on. He did his bit.

Bill Gates left Microsoft ten years ago, in 2000. The blue bar across the top of the graph in my OP above is interesting. Microsoft was enjoying a logarithmic increase in growth during the 1990s under Gates, even as Apple is experiencing now. As soon as Steve Ballmer took over in 2000, however, Microsoft's fortunes began to decline. Coincidence?

Open the code and move on and stop trying to licence the software world to death (it didn't work).

I share the sentiment for open-source code, but I have to say that both Microsoft and Apple have made unimaginable amounts of money by locking down the code and keeping users completely dependent on their companies for everything.

Apple in particular has been notorious, locking down not merely the code but also the hardware and even the licensing agreements for software developers. Did you know, for example, that Apple will not allow you to develop software for the iPad in a room that has windows? (They're required to be blacked out). It's beyond ridiculous.

 

[Yooper]

The Other Half bought some Apple stock when it was $35.

On paper, at least, we're not broke.

For now.

Unfortunately, there's no dividend.

 

[evanrick]

i still dont like either one. microsoft is obsessed with licensing software and apple licensing hardware.

 

[andysayshi]

In 1997, if you spent the cost of a new iMac - $4500(!!) - on Apple shares instead, it would now be worth $300,000.

 

[T-Rexx]

In 1997, if you spent the cost of a new iMac - $4500(!!) - on Apple shares instead, it would now be worth $300,000.

Microsoft bought $150 million in Apple stock in 1997.

If MS still owns it, it's worth maybe ~ $10 billion today.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WxOp5mBY9IY[/ame]


http://barnako.typepad.com/barnakocom/2007/08/did-microsoft-m.html

 

[seven2go]

i still dont like either one. microsoft is obsessed with licensing software and apple licensing hardware.

Maybe that's so they can have scores of buildings and pay hundreds of thousands of people?

It'd be some piss poor business practice to be in business to NOT make money.......

 

[Yooper]

In 1997, if you spent the cost of a new iMac - $4500(!!) - on Apple shares instead, it would now be worth $300,000.

The math is about the same [STRIKE]if you[/STRIKE] when we bought in 2004 (I think).



Stock splits are your friend.

I'm waiting for another one soon.

 

[MindBlast]

I share the sentiment for open-source code, but I have to say that both Microsoft and Apple have made unimaginable amounts of money by locking down the code and keeping users completely dependent on their companies for everything.

Apple in particular has been notorious, locking down not merely the code but also the hardware and even the licensing agreements for software developers. Did you know, for example, that Apple will not allow you to develop software for the iPad in a room that has windows? (They're required to be blacked out). It's beyond ridiculous.

Yeah that's ridiculous.

Windows as we all know isn't open-source, but at least Microsoft makes it easy to call the Windows API and do a lot of stuff with it when you're writing code. You can do basically whatever you want with it except change operating system processes.

Apple's APIs for MacOS are allegedly more restrictive, although I haven't ever developed anything for mac.

 

[BearBoi]

Further proof of the power of advertising and appealing to the trends du jour.

Well, hey, good on them.

 

[NineOfClubs]

Viva Apple!

 

[NineOfClubs]

Apples appeal to those with imagination, creativity, and ingenuity.

PC's are for those who are easily manipulated, exploited, for drones....

 

[Corny]

Apples appeal to those with imagination, creativity, and ingenuity.

PC's are for those who are easily manipulated, exploited, for drones....

cool. a mac is a pc by the way.

and if i look at the iPad sale start videos with the sheeps standing in line while the apple salesmen applaud them, and the people start chanting ... i really wonder who the manipulated drones are

 

[NineOfClubs]

^You can call a Mac a "PC".

But most people know the difference.

One is easy and fun, the other is difficult and work, made for those in corporate slavery.

 

[Corny]

the only difference between a mac and a pc is that apple has a small chip on it that mac os checks for. but even that doesn't make it different, it's still a pc, it's the same hardware.
the years of the power pc architecture are over.

 

[NineOfClubs]

the only difference between a mac and a pc is that apple has a small chip on it that mac os checks for. but even that doesn't make it different, it's still a pc, it's the same hardware.
the years of the power pc architecture are over.

Sure, it's all the same.

Whatever.

 

[MercuryJones]

I bought some Apple stock several years ago, soon after buying an iPod and then converting into a Mac household. That stock has done very nicely. Hopefully cashing it out will not happen for a long time, and it will probably have other ups and downs in the interim.

 

[Apollo]

Not bigger, more valuable.

 

[Apollo]

Microsoft is dead money...Apple investors have been rewarded big time!!!!

Should hit 300....wish I could buy some!

They should split to attract new investors on the insitutional level ...

Just proves Bill Gates couldn't re-invent Microsoft. He needs to step down and disaccociate himself from that company. He's lost so much credibility. There's talent over at softie but with him still there the corporate culture won't change.
Sometimes a director needs to move on. He did his bit.
Open the code and move on and stop trying to licence the software world to death (it didn't work). His biggest mistake was when DOS became defunct. I sold every share I had on that news. And what he did at Burroughs to try to ham up the old sperry univac crowd. Didn't work....

IBM works very nicely thank you and so does XRX....chump

lol Bill Gates doesn't work there anymore, he is doing his philanthropy work. Try picking up a paper sometime in the next day.

 

[rotary]

Sure, it's all the same.

Whatever.

It is the same. Why do you think you can run Windows operating systems on macs? The software is what's different.