Jobso and theMoss have a d8 (1 Viewer)

[Sam Posten]

Good recap:

http://www.macworld.com/article/151709/2010/06/jobs_d.html?lsrc=twt_jsnell

 

[Edwin-S]

I had to laugh as I watched that video of Jobs saying that they don't have the resources of other companies, especially when just a few seconds earlier the moderator had asked for Jobs's thoughts on APPLE surpassing MS's market valuation. It is amazing that he could say what he said with a straight face.

 

[Ken Chan]

Market cap is not a resource. Revenue is; cash in the bank is. Apple has a lot of that too, but it does not automatically translate into talented designers, programmers, and CEOs.

 

[mattCR]

This is a big misnomer about how actual "big" a company is. Google was worth billions the moment it started being traded, but it has never, not once, shown a profit. MS had $15B in profit last FY, Apple $8B. So, both of those companies did well.


As far as estimated assets, it's not even close, MS is like a goliath in comparison to either Google or Apple.


Google's total revenues last year were under $3B. MS's just a hair under $60B, Apple just a touch under $23B.


Apple isn't doing bad for itself. But no, it doesn't have nearly the resources of a Microsoft (assets + income estimated at a few hundred billion) IBM (assets + income in the hundreds of billions; it's yearly global is over $120B right now) or Intel (assets + income in the hundreds of billions)


Stocks are in part about people buying into something they believe in and saying this is what they feel it "could" be worth in the future, etc. etc. etc.

But, no, Apple doesn't have the resources. Apple has no manufacturing footprint to speak of (it farms most of that out to FoxConn, Asus and in smaller degrees Acer though in the last three years, almost all FoxConn)


They are an intellectual property house. Which is a big benefit in one way, it means they have less concern about the expense of retooling facilities, maintaining physical footprints, a lower employee base which means Apple will have far fewer pensions to worry about then others, etc. etc. etc.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mattCR
This is a big misnomer about how actual "big" a company is. Google was worth billions the moment it started being traded, but it has never, not once, shown a profit.

Huh?!? Google is an immensely profitable company -- unless I'm misreading this http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG

they made $7+B in profit Q1 of 2010 and Google has been profitable for a few years now at least.

 

[Ted Todorov]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Chan

Market cap is not a resource. Revenue is; cash in the bank is. Apple has a lot of that too, but it does not automatically translate into talented designers, programmers, and CEOs.

Correct.

Microsoft and Apple have roughly the same gross income, yet Microsoft spends seven times more than Apple on R&D -- meaning that MS has 7X the development resources Apple does. Jobs' statement makes perfect sense.

 

[mattCR]

Originally Posted by Ted Todorov

Quote:


Huh?!? Google is an immensely profitable company -- unless I'm misreading this http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=GOOG

they made $7+B in profit Q1 of 2010 and Google has been profitable for a few years now at least.

Argh, I thought I had edited that. Google hasn't shown a profit over debt, is what I mean. That's completely my bad. Your point is very valid. I'm just saying per Gross, Google is not in the same league as a MS or Apple.


Apple is not also in the same league for Gross as MS ($59.6B vs. $24.8B)


But the comparison of MS to Apple is also a bad one. MS isn't a hardware manufacturer, per se, whereas Apple is largely valued by it's hardware sales.