Market Cap Countdown:  AAPL vs MSFT

  • Avatar

    Posted: 22 April 2010 07:41 PM #31

    alcatholic - 22 April 2010 09:40 PM

    ... Did anyone become a billionaire off of AAPL’s rise since 1996, other than Mace, of course? wink

    How I wish this is true.  Welcome back.  Thot you’re annoyed with my views about certain iPhone developers.  At least five persons here made much more than me.  Actually I didn’t make much.  Merely allow a poor public officer (pay in civil service is very low) to become financially independent and don’t have to worry about retirement (ironically, after he had retired.).

    Signature

    Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.  - Steve Jobs

         
  • Posted: 22 April 2010 10:02 PM #32

    Mace - 22 April 2010 10:41 PM
    alcatholic - 22 April 2010 09:40 PM

    ... Did anyone become a billionaire off of AAPL’s rise since 1996, other than Mace, of course? wink

    How I wish this is true.  Welcome back.  Thot you’re annoyed with my views about certain iPhone developers.  At least five persons here made much more than me.  Actually I didn’t make much.  Merely allow a poor public officer (pay in civil service is very low) to become financially independent and don’t have to worry about retirement (ironically, after he had retired.).

    Hey, Mace, oh no, I wasn’t annoyed with anyone.  I just become increasingly involved in politics during the Bush years.  That struggle is now over.  smile  So, more free time to post and think about Apple again.

    BTW, I never bought Apple stock, even though I was close to buying when it was at $125 and then $80 last year.  But I thought we might buy our first home this year, so I didn’t want to risk any money in the stock market.  smile  Didn’t buy the home, however, so it was a missed opportunity.

    Anyway, my question was more about company insiders.  It just seems that there were no Gates, or Brin, or Page type billionaires produced during Apple’s rise from a $3 billion cap to todays roughly $250 billion cap company.  So, was this a case where the masses got rich and the company leaders just became mere millionaires?

    Signature

    Off again, on again…

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 23 April 2010 12:52 AM #33

    alcatholic - 23 April 2010 01:02 AM

    ...  So, was this a case where the masses got rich and the company leaders just became mere millionaires?

    I think SJ’s AAPL stake is worth more than a $B.

    Signature

    Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.  - Steve Jobs

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 23 April 2010 01:02 AM #34

    alcatholic - 23 April 2010 01:02 AM
    Mace - 22 April 2010 10:41 PM
    alcatholic - 22 April 2010 09:40 PM

    ... Did anyone become a billionaire off of AAPL’s rise since 1996, other than Mace, of course? wink

    How I wish this is true.  Welcome back.  Thot you’re annoyed with my views about certain iPhone developers.  At least five persons here made much more than me.  Actually I didn’t make much.  Merely allow a poor public officer (pay in civil service is very low) to become financially independent and don’t have to worry about retirement (ironically, after he had retired.).

    Hey, Mace, oh no, I wasn’t annoyed with anyone.  I just become increasingly involved in politics during the Bush years.  That struggle is now over.  smile  So, more free time to post and think about Apple again.

    BTW, I never bought Apple stock, even though I was close to buying when it was at $125 and then $80 last year.  But I thought we might buy our first home this year, so I didn’t want to risk any money in the stock market.  smile  Didn’t buy the home, however, so it was a missed opportunity.

    Anyway, my question was more about company insiders.  It just seems that there were no Gates, or Brin, or Page type billionaires produced during Apple’s rise from a $3 billion cap to todays roughly $250 billion cap company.  So, was this a case where the masses got rich and the company leaders just became mere millionaires?


    The other Steve (Waz) would be a billionaire if he didn’t blow so much of his fortune. The above mentioned were the company at the IPO. I don’t understand what you are getting at. I remember reading years ago that 70% or so MSFT employees were millionaires. Don’t think for a second that Cook and CO are not extremely well off. Heck, even Martha Stewart became an instant billionaire at her IPO. :bugeyed:

    Signature

    Adversity does not just build character, it reveals it.

         
  • Posted: 23 April 2010 02:33 AM #35

    It is probably a dumb question. So let me try to explain my simple thinking in simple terms.

    Gates is worth, what, $40 billion thanks to MSFT.

    AAPL is now worth as much as MSFT.  Why is no one associated with Apple worth anywhere near $40 billion?

    Bonus points for using the line, “simple answers, for simple questions.” :D

    Signature

    Off again, on again…

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 23 April 2010 02:52 AM #36

    Cause MSFT market cap was once $600 billion in december 1999, not only that but Gates has had 20 years to compound that money in other investments. Give Jobs the same amount of time after reaching $600 billion market cap and I bet he will have much more than 40 billion in his pocket.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 23 April 2010 03:15 AM #37

    I think the reason is because Jobs sold all his shares (except one) when he was ousted in the 80’s. I think he only got 10 million RSUs after coming back which was a small fraction of the share he originally owned. Gates probably kept all his shares until MSFT topped.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 23 April 2010 03:33 AM #38

    Also percentage wise I believe MSFT increased over 58,000 % if you were in at the beginning and out near the peak. While we are currently only at a little over 7300 % increase at our current peak.

         
  • Posted: 23 April 2010 04:24 AM #39

    deagol - 23 April 2010 06:15 AM

    I think the reason is because Jobs sold all his shares (except one) when he was ousted in the 80’s. I think he only got 10 million RSUs after coming back which was a small fraction of the share he originally owned. Gates probably kept all his shares until MSFT topped.

    If I recall correctly he received $400 million in Apple stock for the acquisition of NeXT. The shares, if I recall correctly, he promptly sold. It was Pixar that first made him a billionaire, not Apple.

    Besides, I don’t think it really matters to him how many more billions he can amass. He’s faced two major health issues in the past few years and I do think he’s more out to change the world than amass a fortune well beyond what it is today. Obviously he’s done well. How many more billions would make a difference?

    If you look at the history of the companies he has founded, he has taken a more egalitarian approach to spreading the wealth.

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 23 April 2010 10:24 AM #40

    As Deagol said, SJ sold all his shares in disgust when first ousted, so nothing like a Bill Gates - Paul Allen - Sergey Brin - Larry Page type of ownership was possible.

    Currently, Steve owns 5,546,451 shares (0.61% shares outstanding) - but these may be restricted
    He last exercised: 2007/08/15 (120,000 shares traded)

    MOST of Steve’s fortune comes from Pixar. It was a stock trade, so he is currently the largest holder of Disney.

    I agree with DT that personal fortune only goes thus far in his life. Additionally, he’s less interested in traditional philanthropy like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, but instead on changing the world through technology and taste.

         
  • Posted: 23 April 2010 11:52 AM #41

    Here?s to the stupid ones. The copycats. The followers. The compliant ones. The square pegs in the square holes. The ones who are afraid to see things differently. They?re fond of rules. And they are invested in the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. But mostly you can ignore them. Because they never change things. They hold the human race back. And while some may see them as the safe ones, we see stupidity. Because the people who are stupid enough to think that Apple can?t change the world, are the ones who don?t think.

    May Ballmer remain Microsoft CEO for as long as it takes.

         
  • Posted: 23 April 2010 01:16 PM #42

    simple answers, for simple questions:

    neither SJ nor Woz have accumulating billions high on their agenda

         
  • Posted: 23 April 2010 01:18 PM #43

    Zeke - 23 April 2010 02:52 PM

    Here?s to the stupid ones. The copycats. The followers. The compliant ones. The square pegs in the square holes. The ones who are afraid to see things differently. They?re fond of rules. And they are invested in the status quo. You can quote them, disagree with them, glorify or vilify them. But mostly you can ignore them. Because they never change things. They hold the human race back. And while some may see them as the safe ones, we see stupidity. Because the people who are stupid enough to think that Apple can?t change the world, are the ones who don?t think.

    May Ballmer remain Microsoft CEO for as long as it takes.

    GREAT - Zeke

    I love you for this one. This is a perfect update to the 1997 original.

         
  • Posted: 23 April 2010 05:23 PM #44

    So, now I wonder who benefited the most from AAPL’s rise to today’s market cap from it’s nadir in what 1996?  In that just a question of who owns the most shares?

    I guess it may be complicated, because a big shareholder in 1996 may have sold already.

    Maybe it isn’t knowable because we don’t have a situation where founders have kept their stock since the beginning. What about Mike Makkula or whatever his name is?  Is he still a big stockholder?

    Signature

    Off again, on again…

         
  • Avatar

    Posted: 23 April 2010 09:14 PM #45

    alcatholic - 23 April 2010 08:23 PM

    So, now I wonder who benefited the most from AAPL’s rise to today’s market cap from it’s nadir in what 1996?  In that just a question of who owns the most shares?

    I guess it may be complicated, because a big shareholder in 1996 may have sold already.

    Maybe it isn’t knowable because we don’t have a situation where founders have kept their stock since the beginning. What about Mike Makkula or whatever his name is?  Is he still a big stockholder?

    Not sure why u r so interested about this issue.  I’m aware that Apple has no big individual shareholder since 2004.

    Signature

    Stay Hungry. Stay Foolish.  - Steve Jobs