<i>Apple will hit the magical $200 billion market capitalization number before IBM does</i>

But, Microsoft will hit that even before Apple does! Ha Ha!

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
<i>Apple will hit the magical $200 billion market capitalization number before IBM does</i>

But, Microsoft will hit that even before Apple does! Ha Ha!

First, learn to use BBCode. You use the square brackets, not pointy brackets.

As for your point, if Microsoft were to "hit" $200B market capitalization, it would be a disaster, as they're already worth nearly $300B.

IBM's market capitalization is now about $157B. Apple's is $98B.

What may be more useful is the P/E (Price to Earnings) ratios:

Microsoft PE = 22.13

IBM PE = 16.82

Apple PE = 35.71

Apple's stock is quite expensive, reflecting high expectations for growth.

It's rather interesting that Apple's P/E has remained so high. Time to delve into the Apple Finance Board here at TMO to see what the finance geeks thinks about that.

And, I personally imagine that Microsoft will remain far, far more profitable than Apple in terms of both gross profit and profit margins for the foreseeable future. Not that this is relevant to the topic of Mr. Yaren's opinion (as noted by glslusher).

And speaking of that point, I find the notion of Apple eventually having a higher market cap than IBM to be profoundly thought-provoking.

I like those PE numbers you mention. But I remember when Microsoft was a fast growing and innovative software company that was turning year to year growth rates similar to Apples now. (back in the 1980s and 1990s)

I believe the PE for Microsoft when it was cranking out Apples year to year growth rates was a PE around 100 to 160 making Apples current PE of 35.71 look like a real bargain.

Currently IBM and Microsoft’s last 3 year growth rates are not very good while Apples is great. Apple should have a higher PE which I believe should be around 60 to reflect the current growth.

If Apple maintains its current growth rate or if it continues to accelerate then Apple should exceed Microsoft’s Market cap within 5 years.

Quote

gslusher wrote:
Apple's stock is quite expensive, reflecting high expectations for growth.

Another term used for that is "overpriced" "overvalued" etc.

Quote

gslusher wrote:
As for your point, if Microsoft were to &quot;hit&quot; $200B market capitalization, it would be a disaster, as they're already worth nearly $300B.

Get past the square vs pointy details, and try to appreciate the sarcasm that was intended. Microsoft's market cap was half a trillion just a few years back. So what direction has it been moving in relative to Apple's? Seems reasonable to extrapolate their projected market cap reaching 200bn before Apple gets there. Get it?

I love the Microsoft geeks be them techies as well as investors.

They despise Apple for forward thinking and deisgn and they can't take it that they are big and getting only bigger due to forward thinking, proper market strategies and design products that work and are easy to use.

Now before you all jump my butt. Just Stop. If you had AAPl in your portfolio you would be happy as clams. Stop with the old song and dance.

It is always us and them.

How many apps of MS does Apple have working with its OS? Several.

How many does Apple have running in Windows/Vista? One iTunes.

How many ipod sales, laptops and hardware does MS sell. The zune is dead and nothing will make it work like an ipod.

Apples market share on music 72% market share, 3.5% computers, and both growing.

So what does it all mean. NADA Except when it comes to the money investors make.

I break it down like this. Some folks drive Chevys, I drive BWM and I will pay for performance, design, and frankly it just works, looks cool and when I break out my macbook pro everyone looks at it.

Just my two cents.

Quote

Guest wrote:
I love the Microsoft geeks be them techies as well as investors.

They despise Apple for forward thinking and deisgn and they can't take it that they are big and getting only bigger due to forward thinking, proper market strategies and design products that work and are easy to use.

Now before you all jump my butt. Just Stop. If you had AAPl in your portfolio you would be happy as clams. Stop with the old song and dance.

It is always us and them.

How many apps of MS does Apple have working with its OS? Several.

How many does Apple have running in Windows/Vista? One iTunes.

How many ipod sales, laptops and hardware does MS sell. The zune is dead and nothing will make it work like an ipod.

Apples market share on music 72% market share, 3.5% computers, and both growing.

So what does it all mean. NADA Except when it comes to the money investors make.

I break it down like this. Some folks drive Chevys, I drive BWM and I will pay for performance, design, and frankly it just works, looks cool and when I break out my macbook pro everyone looks at it.

Just my two cents.

I get your points, but your accuracy is a tad off. Microsoft doesn't even make laptops, most of their hardware work is basically experimental, an attempt to broaden the markets they are in. The Zune, yeah, pretty much DOA, but XBOX is doing okay. Even still, you could cut the entire hardware line-up out of Microsoft and still not be impacting their bottom line very much. MSFT is a software company, heart & soul. Apple on the other hand is mostly a hardware company that creates a few software suites to make effective use of their hardware. iTunes, Quicktime, iPod, AppleTV (whoa, wait, AppleTV no longer has a link on the main www.apple.com page), Firewire, all the big name products aside from OS X which Apple does not sell will work with a system running Microsoft Windows. The BMW/Chevy analogy might be suitable. Extending the analogy a bit, Chevy's come in every configuration a person could want. You can get cheap & safe cars that are suitable for families, you can get sports cars that have the power & sex appeal, you can get SUVs from small, to mid-range to full size and crossovers, you can get pickup trucks, you can get vans, you can get commercial vehicles as well. BMW is pretty much a standard look & feel, take it or leave it. And just like the BMW ads say, you can put all you want into another vehicle, but you won't have that BMW logo. To get the BMW or Apple logo, you'll pay a premium.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:

Quote

gslusher wrote:
As for your point, if Microsoft were to &quot;hit&quot; $200B market capitalization, it would be a disaster, as they're already worth nearly $300B.

Get past the square vs pointy details, and try to appreciate the sarcasm that was intended. Microsoft's market cap was half a trillion just a few years back. So what direction has it been moving in relative to Apple's? Seems reasonable to extrapolate their projected market cap reaching 200bn before Apple gets there. Get it?

You didn't make it clear that you were being sarcastic rather than ignorant. A lot of that comes from not making the effort to register and log in. We know that Bosco's comments are very often sarcastic and/or tongue in cheek, but you look like every other "Guest" who posts, which includes quite a few for whom facts are a major intellectual challenge.

Quote

Anonymous wrote:
AppleTV (whoa, wait, AppleTV no longer has a link on the main www.apple.com page)

That's normal. Apple usually has the newest products on the main page. Though I don't see an article on TMO about it, yet, Apple just bumped the MacBook a bit:

1.83 or 2.0 gHz --> 2.0 or 2.16 gHz
160 GB max HD --> 200 GB
512 MB standard RAM --> 1 GB

You are certainlly correct with many of your observations, but I was merely pointing out that be you a tech head or invester bottom line is bottom line. Chevys sell, BMWs sell. But it is all a matter of what one chooses.

I for one see Microsoft as a very controlling oriented corporation. Controlling to the point that they don't take the customer into consideration when it comes to their products. They base their success and it is a great success on the their product base, basically but forcing the customer to buy their software upgrade or Os, but, and now but without taking fully into consideration what is going to be the impact when we launch. Vista case inpoint.

XP and prior Oses where dying a slow death. SPK2 was for the most part the saving grace for XP which was buggier and so no secure but for the most part they got a good running Os. They worked on Vista for how long? And now with what (7) different flavors to choose from and most won't work on their users base systems.

Create it and they will come. And I think we can see that the masses are non to happy.

Apple too had done basically the same thing when OSX first came out in beta. But, and here is the but, if you were the bet users you were the ginnie pig. By Choice. You could still migrate when the Os got tweeked a year and a half later. And but finally you knew that the migration to a new machine would affect you over the next couple, three four years. Nice and easy.

Xbox. MS did it all right. I can't argue with you on that. But let's take it a step further. I like Play Station.

I waited for playstation 3 I have 2 and I waited and waited, read on the news m ostly bad, and the two different price points for the systems. I'm not thrilled with it but, and there is that pesky but again, I love Sony. I always have, and always will.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that I loved the Walkman (the first iPod if you will) when it came out. I have a lot of sony.

Now me personally I have a Toyota PU. Why I love toyota.

I think the bottom line here is always the customer. Some companies get loyal customer with great products, other get customers with..., Well I think we all know. Nuff said.

Thanks for such a cool discussion board. You are all very nice and nobody got hurt.

Have a great weekend.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/

Quote

Guest wrote:

I for one see Microsoft as a very controlling oriented corporation. Controlling to the point that they don't take the customer into consideration when it comes to their products. They base their success and it is a great success on the their product base, basically but forcing the customer to buy their software upgrade or Os, but, and now but without taking fully into consideration what is going to be the impact when we launch. Vista case inpoint.

I agree, but I also see the same thing with Apple. You cannot use their OS without first paying for their hardware. In order to use an iTMS song that you've purchased on a portable device, you need to buy an iPod. In order to add music to an iPod, you need to install iTunes. The consumer does not have even have the choice of running Mac OS X if they do not want to pay the premium for Apple hardware, or find that having the exact same look for their computer as everyone else is not for them.

Quote

Guest wrote:

Apple too had done basically the same thing when OSX first came out in beta. But, and here is the but, if you were the bet users you were the ginnie pig. By Choice. You could still migrate when the Os got tweeked a year and a half later. And but finally you knew that the migration to a new machine would affect you over the next couple, three four years. Nice and easy.

Well, that's splitting hairs. Vista was also in beta, and you were a guinea pig by choice there if you chose to sign. Basically, that entire paragraph applies to both companies, the but is not a but. Upgrade paths exist from beta to release versions for all of Microsoft's operating systems, so yeah, no difference there.

Quote

Guest wrote:

I think the bottom line here is always the customer. Some companies get loyal customer with great products, other get customers with..., Well I think we all know. Nuff said.

Thanks for such a cool discussion board. You are all very nice and nobody got hurt.

Have a great weekend.

I agree, based on the return customers, well, I guess the numbers speak for themselves. We all already know what those numbers are.

Quote

Guest wrote:
http://www.apple.com/appletv/

Thanks, yeah, I knew how to get there. Actually, you have to click Hardware first from the main page. Other flagship products are accessible directly from the main page, AppleTV is not.