Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses It's funny. Laugh. Apple

Apple Surpasses Dell's Market Value 457

Posted by Zonk from the the-words-you're-looking-for-are-ha-and-ha dept.
bonch writes "Nine years after Michael Dell said he'd shut down Apple and give the money to the shareholders, Apple has passed Dell in market value, at $72,132,428,843 compared to Dell's $71,970,702,760. Analysts expect Apple to continue to outperform competitors, citing 2006 as 'poised to be the year of both iPod growth and, more importantly, Mac market share gains,' with earnings growing more than 35%. I should have bought stock two years ago!" We talked about the approach of this moment back in November of last year.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Surpasses Dell's Market Value More

Apple Surpasses Dell's Market Value

Comments Filter:

  • New Ad (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:10AM (#14470660)
    Dude, you're getting an Apple!
  • Apple has surpassed Dell in Equity Market Capitalization, but not total market cap.

    Dell has $600 million in debt, while Apple has none.

    The total market cap is equity plus debt. Think of it this way - if you spend the 72 or so Billion on Dell, you still need to pay off an additional $600 million before you truly own the company. One alternative is to issue another $600 million in stock, and use the proceeds to buy back the debt.

    • Michael Dell said he'd shut down Apple... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Savage-Rabbit ( 308260 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:05AM (#14470799)
      ... and give the money to the shareholders

      Market cap or Equity Market cap, does it matter? I bet Michael Dell really hates it every time somebody brings that quote up in conversation and every body starts laughing. It must be the first thing every new employee at Dell HQ learns:"OK, iPods, PowerBooks and anything else with an Apple logo is off limits and whatever you do, don't crack that Apple shutdown joke when Mr. Dell is within earshot, the last time that happened he punched the guy who told it and cancelled our christmass bonuses!"

    • Re:Market Cap: No. Equity Market Cap: Yes (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:25AM (#14470842)
      You are wrong, sorry. Equity value+debt is called "total capitalization." "Market capitalization" is the value that the market ascribes to the common equity value of the company. You are buying a share of this common equity. The fact there there exists debt is already baked into that determination in various ways based on how people think that such debt helps or hurts the company's future performance.

      The calculation you describe is grasping at a concept called "Enterprise value" which is total capitalization minus cash. Think about it. If you are going to add on the debt that company has to the total amount someone would need to pay to buy the company, because they would be assuming the debt, you should also subtract the amount of cash on hand. Finance 101, dude.
    • Isn't complaining about $600m when you are considering $72b basically a rounding error? That's like comparing two items that cost $10 and $10.08. It's almost negligable.

      • Re:Market Cap: No. Equity Market Cap: Yes (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        According to TFA: Apple has passed Dell in market value, at $72,132,428,843 compared to Dell's $71,970,702,760.


        The difference between their market values is only about $150 million, so no, it is not just a rounding error. Had the difference been like at least a few billion, then yes.

    • Everyone seems to be optimistic about Apple. So, its stock may be at a peak. Now may be the right time to short Apple's stock.

      The huge looming threat to Apple is Sony. Its management has refocused Sony on innovation and (if I recall correctly) hired a non-Japanese outsider to be Sony's CEO.

      iPod is a cool gadget, its innards are mostly built outside of Apple. Sony is an R&D and manufacturing juggernaut and could outengineer Apple to build a better iPod.

      • "Sony is an R&D and manufacturing juggernaut and could outengineer Apple to build a better iPod."

        So why haven't they done it yet? I mean, it's not for lack of trying. They've released 'ipod killer' after 'ipod killer' and Apple has gone from strength to strength. The reason that nothing has 'killed' the iPod is because it is a cool gadget. People want an iPod, not an MP3 player, and thats the main reason why Sony and Creative probably won't be able to 'kill' it for a long time.

        • Re:Time to Short Apple's Stock (Score:5, Interesting)

          by kesuki ( 321456 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @11:08AM (#14471204) Journal
          Sony _could_ have revived the 'walkman' name with a stylish portable mp3 player.. remember when everyone had to have a walkman? but sony was at odds with itself over DRM etc etc.. the last thing they wanted to be making and selling was a product that could be used to illegally trade mp3's. so, there were a lot of people trying to make a name in the portable mp3 market, and that's when apple hit with the ipod. and the ipod it was good, and people loved it, and the ipod became the 'walkman' of this generation. 'oh you're not cool, that's just some crappy mp3 player, too poor to get an ipod huh?'

          The cat is already out of the bag, and yeah, sony was well aware of mp3 players, and had the hardware and engineering guys who could have designed an efficient one. they were banking on the mp3 format to 'just go away' so their record label could make more money selling CDs. or something like that.

          Besides sony was focusing it's effort at dominating the video game sector, they've done an awesome job at it, and they've managed to 'launch' the psp (against nintendo's iron grip on the handheld market) in every major country except the UK. And all this for a system that won't have a respectable* game title for another year, and has no back catalog of compatable games.

          I know people who are very happy with their PSPs but most of them have hacked the firmware and are playing ROMs on emulators... frankly I'd rather buy a flash linker and play them on a cheap GBA SP, since DS linkers are still immature, and GBA linkers work with more systems than DS ones. http://www.gameboy-advance.net/nintendo_ds/neo-fla sh/neoflash-review.htm [gameboy-advance.net]

          for $300(or less) i can get a very nice car/portable dvd player with detachable screen(s). and i don't need to buy movies that only play on a psp, plus i can play dvd+-r's i've burned, or movies i've rented from netflix. so the movie playback capabilites don't impress me.

          the NDS however has several games i love, and several i wouldn't mind owning.. plus works with my old gba titles, which i have about 20 of or so. I am still worried about nintendo's long term strategy, but they've beaten everyone else out of the portable market, so if they keep on making awesome systems with awesome games, then sony will remain the 'other' portable gaming device.

          *= IMNSHO psps launch titles suck, a look at gamefaqs doesn't show much promise til you look at games with no us release dates, or release dates a year or more from now.

      • Re:Time to Short Apple's Stock (Score:4, Interesting)

        by dal20402 ( 895630 ) * <dal20402@mac. c o m> on Saturday January 14, 2006 @10:00AM (#14470974) Journal
        The huge looming threat to Apple is Sony.

        Wake me up when

        1. the PS3 comes out
        2. they make a non-fragile laptop; their stuff is cool-looking but much easier to break than an iBook
        3. people forget about the r00tk1t -- that made it into non-techy national news
        4. they come out with *any* non-absurd music player

        I was a huge Sony fan for many years. But they've really lost direction in EVERYTHING but game consoles; I'll believe they get it back when I see it.

        Even so, I think Apple's stock may be overvalued. It's valued for explosive growth; I think steady growth is more likely.

      • Whether meant as such (which I doubt), this is effectively the smoothest troll I've ever seen. I won't say that it might not be over-valued but really, in the face of the current market perception, do you seriously mean "Now may be the right time to short Apple's stock"?

        And, observing their (underpunished) missteps, you'd describe Sony as the "huge looming threat to Apple"? Don't you mean "lumbering"? I mean, Sony's in no danger of being described as beleagured but they haven't shown evidence of any of that

  • Times Change (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:16AM (#14470682)
    Situations change.

    What this has shown is that Apple was viable back then, and that Michael Dell doesn't have the necessary vision to run a company such as Apple.

    He has enough vision to run a business selling PCs. Enough capability to scale it up to its current dominant position. He may indeed be a better business person than Jobs - I don't know - but Jobs clearly has something he doesn't (apart from the emotional attachment to Apple).

    I'm sure he wouldn't say that today. Indeed I doubt he would have said it in 2000. But in 1997 it was certainly an option. An option that would have removed a competitor.

    • Re:Times Change (Score:5, Interesting)

      by deep44 ( 891922 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:30AM (#14470722)
      I don't know - but Jobs clearly has something he doesn't (apart from the emotional attachment to Apple).
      Correct, he has charisma. I couldn't pick Michael Dell out of a lineup if my life depended on it, yet I went out of my way to follow the Jobs keynote online the other day. That's the difference.

    • Re:Times Change (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kestasjk ( 933987 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:43AM (#14470902) Homepage
      I know I'm going to lose karma for this but there's more to Apple than Steve Jobs.. Attributing all of Apple's recent success to him is insulting to everyone working behind the scenes. Jobs' role is more of a public face than anything else, and he's damn good at this, but Jonathan Ive probably deserves the credit more.

      Besides if Dell had brought an iPod to market first they'd have called it the MJS P440 or the Musicon 5500.

      • Re:Times Change (Score:2, Insightful)

        by kestasjk ( 933987 )
        By the way has anyone seen the new Dell laptop which can play media without booting into Windows? If Apple did this market analysts would predict the end of TVs as we know them and Mac daddys everywhere would cream themselves, but when Dell do it no-one raises an eyebrow.. That's the Steve Jobs effect.

    • Re:Times Change (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timeOday ( 582209 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:44AM (#14470904)
      What this has shown is that Apple was viable back then, and that Michael Dell doesn't have the necessary vision to run a company such as Apple.
      Maybe. Probably. But remember, Dell wasn't Apple's CEO back then, Jobs was. Don't you think a competitor is more likely to sound the deathknell for a company than its own leadership is? Michael Dell would have been singing a different tune had he really been in charge at Apple.

  • Price Earning Ratio is What Really Matters (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xoip ( 920266 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:17AM (#14470683) Homepage
    Before you run out and buy your new Apple shares take a look at the P/E ratios.
    Apple 54.87
    Dell 23.71
    The run up in the price at Apple while, commendable is predicated on the hype around iPod and the assumption that will translate into sales of desktop machines.
    Tons of reasons to have concern.

    • Re:Price Earning Ratio is What Really Matters (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Saven Marek ( 739395 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:21AM (#14470693)
      This is the bit people fail to notice about a company. Apple for example aren't actually worth more than 70 billion but just their shares are. They're based on speculation and hope. This might sound like mac bashing but nothing at Apple indicates 70 billion in value anywhere. 6 billion in cash, some buildings and designs, some patents and about 1.5% of the market. with 5 billion revenue quarters. that's revenue not profit. so you're looking at maybe twenty billion at the tops in what something is worth.

        Looking at the fundamentals like you say is the important thing. Dell is a much bigger company and has almost 50% of the world market. That's more profit in one quarter than apple's entire value.

      The share market is a funny thing.
      • "The share market is a funny thing."

        At MacExpo Steve Jobs repeatedly pointed out that Apple shares are now 4 times faster and much more interesting compared to other shares.

        "Yes our shares are operating in the same market as other shares, but there's just so much more you can do with our shares compared to regular boring shares, it's amazing. Repeat after me: amazing Apple shares, simply amazing Apple shares."

        [/sarcasm]

      • Re:Price Earning Ratio is What Really Matters (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Dsm0nd ( 866962 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:43AM (#14470749) Homepage
        Sometimes, an image is worth that. Just that little shiny apple...

        Try to buy Coca-Cola. The buildings are not worth whatever they would ask for the company. Its just those two words in their name.
      • The P/E multiple indicates the expectation that investors have for future growth, because the market anticipates the success of a company (or lack thereof) moreso than it responds to it. Investors expect Apple to have substantially higher growth rate than Dell in the coming months/years. To get in on a piece of that action, you have to pay a premium, which is why the stock price - and hence the P/E ratio - is so much higher.

      • No it is not.

        The pricing of the stock takes into account future growth prospects. Dell might own about half the PC market, that means that they can't grow significantly in terms of units shipped. Maybe they can raise the price? No, they can't because the only reason people buy Dells is because they're cheap. So dell has no significant growth prospects.

        Apple on the other hand can grow in terms of units shipped plus they can sell their products at a premium. Some of the most fantastic ideas in the industr

      • Re:Price Earning Ratio is What Really Matters (Score:4, Informative)

        by Nept ( 21497 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:43AM (#14470903) Journal
        although for what's it worth
        apple - PEG Ratio (5 yr expected): 2.47
        dell - PEG Ratio (5 yr expected): 1.12

      • Some corrections (Score:5, Informative)

        by daveschroeder ( 516195 ) * on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:46AM (#14470919)
        First of all, Apple has close to $9 billion in cash and cash equivalents, not $6 bn, about $12 bn in total assets, and no long term debt.

        Then, you have the $5.7 bn revenue last quarter (not 5), including $1 bn in Apple Retail revenue, and the fact that revenues, profits, and unit sales are consistently increasing quarter over quarter, year over year:

        Total revenues [and profits] for fiscal year, in millions:

        2001 - 5,363 [(25)]
        2002 - 5,742 [65]
        2003 - 6,207 [69]
        2004 - 8,279 [276]
        2005 - 13,931 [2335]

        Not to mention record (and increasing) sales of all of Apple's products, from iPod, to iTunes Music Store, to the Mac platform, including servers and enterprise.

        You're also really wrong about Dell having "more profit in one quarter than apple's entire value":

        Total revenues [and profits] for fiscal year, in millions:

        2003 - 35,404 [2844]
        2004 - 41,444 [3544]
        2005 - 49,205 [4254]

        Yes, Dell is a bigger company (surprise?) and has higher revenues and sales. But over the last two years, Apple is growing at a faster rate. Much faster. Also, when you say "market share" you'd do good to include the market share of all of a company's money-making products, not just the figure you like. It's funny when people keep going around saying things like "Apple, with 1.5% of the market" seem to forget that Apple has over 80% of another huge "market". Does that market not count?

        Now we've got a transition to a commodity hardware architecture and platform, with the industry abuzz with what this could mean for Apple in the enterprise for a variety of reasons.

        It's funny that you state exactly what is wrong with a lot of people in the financial sector: not being able to look past next year, or even next quarter, for what something is "worth".

        Source for financial data: Apple [corporate-ir.net] Dell [yahoo.com]
        • But over the last two years, Apple is growing at a faster rate. Much faster.

          Bad dog! valuless metric! The relative growth rate of dissimilar sized companies is laregely meaningless. The growth rate of my company makes Apple look like they're standing still. I went from one employee and a net income of $150 to four employees and over $300,000. That's 300% and 200,000% respectively! Apple can't even come close to a 200,000% revenue growth. I win!

          • Every time I read slashdot, I keep wishing for a clear "rolling eyes" emoticon.

            Anyway, no, this is not a valueless metric with applied to Apple and Dell.

            Dell only has 3.5 times the revenue and twice the profit of Apple as of FY2005, and further, that margin is shrinking in the most recent quarter.

            Comparing companies of this size is perfectly appropriate. Now, when you're talking about a difference on the order of, say, a hundredfold (or a thousandfold), yeah, you're right. Except this isn't one of those cas

          • Re:Some corrections (Score:3, Insightful)

            by 2nd Post! ( 213333 )
            What do you mean by "dissimilar sized"?

            Dell employs roughly 63,000 people, where Apple employs roughly 75,000 (from Wikipedia)
            Dell's profits were $4.2b, while Apple's was $2.3b; so Dell isn't quite twice as profitable.
            Dell's revenue was $49b while Apple's was $14b; so Dell's raw income is a little more than three times bigger than Apple.

            If trends continue, there is reason to believe that in 2006 Apple will continue growing and be just as profitable as Dell, with probably half as much income.

            They are, mathem
    • The fact that they're that close really does say something, though -- Apple's earnings are nearly half that of Dell's. Given that a few years back, Apple would have been lucky to make 1 percent of what Dell made, that's impressive.

  • Attributed to? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CCFreak2K ( 930973 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:17AM (#14470686) Homepage Journal
    While moving the OS to a BSD-based (or BSD derived?) kernel, I think the iPod also contributed largely to their success. I mean, most kids at the high school I went to, they didn't want an MP3 player...they wanted an iPod. This ties in with marketing.

  • Current Snapshot (Score:4, Interesting)

    by oilisgood ( 161130 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:20AM (#14470690)
    It is interesting to note also that Apple is near its 52week high. And Dell is near its 52week low.

    Apple

    Price & Volume
    Recent Price $ 85.59
    52 Week High $ 86.40
    52 Week Low $ 33.11
    Avg Daily Vol (Mil) 25.269
    Beta 1.403

    Dell

    Price & Volume
    Recent Price $ 30.58
    52 Week High $ 41.99
    52 Week Low $ 28.62
    Avg Daily Vol (Mil) 22.084
    Beta 1.08

    • Re:Current Snapshot (Score:5, Informative)

      by SashaM ( 520334 ) <msasha@gmailTOKYO.com minus city> on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:38AM (#14470736) Homepage
      Yes, and Apple has been near its 52-week high for about two and a half years [yahoo.com] and pushing their all-time-high for about a year [yahoo.com].

    • Re:Current Snapshot (Score:5, Interesting)

      by luvirini ( 753157 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:58AM (#14470776)
      And funny thing too.. both partly because of Intel...

      Dell under pressure specially in the serverspace because they do not use AMD processors.. and Apple because the switched to Intel..

      Ofcourse the reasons go much deeper than that, including increased competition from even cheaper manufacturers from Asia for Dell and iPods for Apple and many other things.. But just wanted to reflect on the irony of Intel being a problem for one and good thing for other...

  • profile (Score:2, Offtopic)

    by dankelley ( 573611 )
    Who is this Michael Dell guy?

  • Innovation v commodity (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @08:32AM (#14470730) Homepage

    Dell's aim is to have the best supply chain and produce computers cheaper than anyone else, this means they don't really do any innovation its more of a Wallmart sort of play. Now you can get very big being a Wallmart type of business but the challenge is that Dell are in a field where competition has almost always been around innovation. From a margin perspective the aim of Dell is to operate at low margin but sell in bulk, Apple are aiming at high margin and selling decent volumes. The reason people pay more for Apple's stuff is the innovation and design, the reason more people buy Dell machines than Apple's is because of the cost.

    Two different models, its not comparing two similar businesses.
  • Aside from the crappy products, that statement alone was worth never buying another dell, ever. Arrogant prick.

  • Jobs has the charisma, but ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by barfomar ( 557172 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:40AM (#14470889)
    Apple better hope Jobs doesn't slip in the shower and turn into a vegetable (or have an MI etc).

    A lot of their success hinges on his charisma alone. Charisma is hard to value or replace.

  • Business Week... April 16th 2001:
    Q: That bad?
    A: Maybe it's a little bit different. But if you look at proprietary computer companies, whether it's Digital or Silicon Graphics (SGI ) or Apple (AAPL ), I think the fates are all relatively similar. We know how the movie ends. It's just a question of what happens in the middle. Apple has a very little customer base. If you look at the economics, it has been extremely hard for Apple to get a return on its R&D with a shrinking volume base. It's not to say that Apple's products aren't innovative or cool, but the economic factors here are so overwhelming, it's very hard for them to swim against that tide.

    Q: If you were running Apple, is there anything you could do to change that?
    A: I would never take that job.

    http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_16 /b3728067.htm [businessweek.com]

    • Re:An even better quote from Michael Dell on Apple (Score:5, Insightful)

      by fermion ( 181285 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @11:05AM (#14471193) Homepage Journal
      This is interesting because if a firm is selling other peoples stuff or depends significantly on the innovations of others, and does not add unique value, the firm logevity is limited.

      I mean look at KMart and Sears. Very good store with very good prices. Both added some value to through the product initially, through selection and location, but failed to continue to push that value. Walmart can in and they were toast. Dell is the same thing, but worse. Dell has the added cost of repackaging, but limited flexibility in terms of managing costs. OTOH, Apple has shown that will act aggressively to manage hardware cost, and is able to make changes to the OS to so do.

      Dell is succesful becuase they are able supply large number of cheap computers to large firms. As long as they can win contracts, they will survive. However growth is out of their hands. Growth depends on MS maintaining a release schedule that encourages fast upgrade schedules, which they have not done. Growth depends on firms growing enough to add machines, which has happened. Growth depends Windows providing enough value so that large firms double license at least some machines. Growth depends on new machine running Windows, and not *nix, unless of course Dell is so cheap that even with the MS license the machine is a good value.

      That is to say Dell has little control over it's future. It may decide to risk the MS gravy train and set out on it's own, but no one at Dell sounds that creative. At some point someone else will do MS Windows machines better, perhaps MS, or the desktop PC may become a thing of the past, and we will see how Dell does on low margins and low volumes. I mean, is anyone actually going to buy Dell at even a 10% markup?

    • You know, Michael Dell really has never liked proprietary anything. Nothing built at Dell is proprietary, except for the irritating OS on consumer PCs (you can get linux on your servers).

      It's not a shock that he hates Apple. I still don't understand why we all love Apple so much, they're the same evil, repackaged.

  • Shutting down apple (Score:5, Informative)

    by MECC ( 8478 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @09:55AM (#14470951)
    Is what would happen if Michael Dell tried to run a company that had to make quality products to stay in business.

    We've got dozens of dell servers (hundreds of servers total) where I work, and the dell servers have a 100% failure rate. That is, each and every dell server experienced a hardware problem that required replacing something. Although usually non-critical, no other vender even comes close. They may make passable desktops and laptops, but their servers are from hell.

  • We know how the movie ends... (Score:4, Informative)

    by clarencek ( 146670 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @10:19AM (#14471043)
    This is the problem with CEO's and their big mouths:

    --

    From: http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/01_16 /b3728067.htm [businessweek.com]

    Q: What is the future of Apple Computer?
    A: Silicon Graphics.

    Q: That bad?
    A: Maybe it's a little bit different. But if you look at proprietary computer companies, whether it's Digital or Silicon Graphics (SGI ) or Apple (AAPL ), I think the fates are all relatively similar. We know how the movie ends. It's just a question of what happens in the middle. Apple has a very little customer base. If you look at the economics, it has been extremely hard for Apple to get a return on its R&D with a shrinking volume base. It's not to say that Apple's products aren't innovative or cool, but the economic factors here are so overwhelming, it's very hard for them to swim against that tide.

    Q: If you were running Apple, is there anything you could do to change that?
    A: I would never take that job.

    --
    I would love to hear his response to those questions today...

    • Re:We know how the movie ends... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by calambrac ( 722059 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @11:24AM (#14471260)
      So, wait... a very successful CEO who built his company from scratch to market leader, not a Carly Fiorina or some other overpaid asshole, makes an observation that Apple probably won't survive with its proprietary offerings and such a small market share, and he's got a big mouth? In April 2001 (pre-iPod, days after OS X v10.0, in the wake of the bubble burst) would anyone have disagreed very strenuously with this conclusion? The Appleatchiks might have been always faithful but the rest of the world could be forgiven for doubting.

      In October of that year came the iPod, and in April of 2003 Apple opened the iTunes Music Store. Dell's failure was not that he was wrong in analyzing the fate of a company dedicated to making proprietary niche-market computers, but that he lacked the imagination to see that Apple wasn't always going to bank on proprietary niche-market computers. He says he would never take the job of Apple CEO. Honestly, would anyone have wanted Dell to head Apple? Would the iPod have come out under Dell? Would Apple have ever expanded into the media market under Dell? There's no way. He's just not that creative. So, thankfully, Michael Dell would never take the job of Apple CEO. So what?

  • Ego's (Score:4, Insightful)

    by thunderpaws ( 199100 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @10:38AM (#14471109)
    Style, flair, and innovation are Apple hallmarks with Steve Jobs at the helm. Dell is just another PC maker, nothing more. When Apple suffered through those other CEO's, the style, flair and innovation were missing. Apple never was, nor will it ever be just another personal computer company. Gil Amelio and John Sculley never really understood that.

    Dell has no real style, flair, nor innovation. Michael Dell sells PC's, nothing more, nothing less. The most creative thing he has done is build an odd sense of customer loyalty where Dell owners believe that their computers are better than other Windows PC's. There is a place for that, but in the end Apple excites the consumer PC market, and Dell along with others ride the waves.

    • Re:Ego's (Score:3, Insightful)

      by value_added ( 719364 )
      Style, flair, and innovation are Apple hallmarks with Steve Jobs at the helm. Dell is just another PC maker, nothing more. When Apple suffered through those other CEO's, the style, flair and innovation were missing.

      There's a point in there somewhere, but it's the wrong one. Last I checked, style and flair go over like lead balloons in the boardrooms of most companies, and I doubt any manager is going to base an important purchasing decision possibly worth millions of dollars on the recommendations of a tur

  • So what if it's the iPod that's doing it right now (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Solr_Flare ( 844465 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @11:29AM (#14471288)
    I have to ask this question because I can point to a very similar company in design standards that has the exact same situation: Nintendo. Nintendo certainly takes a share in the home console market but their real money maker is, and always has been since the early 90s, their handheld systems. Yet, despite that, Nintendo is the only console company out there that makes a consitant profit. In fact in over 50 years of company existance they have only had one single quarter where they posted a loss(they still pulled a profit overall for that fiscal year too).

    The comparisons between the two companies is also pretty similar when you look at it. Both companies are concerned about the user experience. Be it customer support, system design, interface, etc they both try to make it a special experience for the user. And, they use that positive experience to build a brand loyalty that helps to sell even more systems.

    Anyway, the point is even if it is the iPods that are helping to propel Apple right now, it isn't the first time this has happened to a technology company. And, the profit they make due to the iPod success can only help them to expand slowly into other markets as well as evidenced by the heightened interest in the new intel powered Apple computer platforms.

  • "Should have bought stock" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dada21 ( 163177 ) * <adam.dada@gmail.com> on Saturday January 14, 2006 @12:11PM (#14471441) Homepage Journal
    If you ever feel you should have bought a specific stock, print the story up and stick it on your "Thank God I didn't buy stock" wall.

    Buy a stock when it is priced at 6-8 times earnings and seems to have a productive, profitable product line that isn't a fad.

    Buy a stock when the SEC and the IRS turn back regulations and taxes regarding dividends -- so you can earn an honest profit from honest work instead of earning a "profit" from selling the overpriced stock to some other sucker.

    Buy a stock when the Federal Reserve lets interest rates change based on the market, not based on fantasy. Once interest rates are allowed to fluctuate freely, savings accounts will return a very nice and very safe return on your money. This is where most savings should go.

    The stock market isn't for long term savings but for risk taking and profit making -- both of these things have been destroyed over the past 25 years, and if you feel your 401K and your private accounts are "safe," they're not. Give it a little more time, and everything tied to the dollar will have a very nice price soon. Including foreign stocks on any market governed by a government that invests in US dollars as part of their reserves. You can't make wealth on inflation, friends.

  • Size doesn't matter (Score:4, Interesting)

    by patiwat ( 126496 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @12:52PM (#14471642)
    From the shareholder perspective, size (or more accurately, market share) doesn't matter.

    Take Toyota, for instance. It is not the world's largest car company in terms of sales. But it is by far the world's most valuable car company in terms of market cap. Why? Even though GM sells more cars, Toyota has been perfecting the world's most efficient production system for the past 3 decades. Shareholders know this, and expect that for every dollar of sales today, Toyota generates more profit than any other company. And they extrapolate this into the future: for every dollar of profit made today, Toyota will make even more profit compared to other companies. That's because the benefits of continuous improvement are cummulative - you can't just decide over night to have a world-class production system. It has to be developed over time.

    A similar thinking applies to Apple. Even though Apple sales are miniscule compared to Dell's, the market sees Apple products as giving greater profits per unit of sales, and sees those profits as more sustainable than any other company. Why is this so? Because Apple has a much simpler product range than Dell's (reducing the cost base), because it's average prices tend to be a bit higher (increasing margins), because it has products like the iPod that are truly unique and valuable from the consumers' perspective (increasing margins, both now and in the future), and because Apple products are addictive - after using an iPod or a iBook, it's damn hard to move back to a generic MP3 player or a commodity PC (increasing sales and profits in the future). Few other PC companies have such a magic mix, and that is what makes Apple so much more valuable compared to larger companies.

  • Go Apple Go! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gone.fishing ( 213219 ) on Saturday January 14, 2006 @01:57PM (#14471900) Journal
    How many times has Apple been on the mat and down for what seemed like the last time only to rise up and start fighting again? I don't know but it seems like a lot. I'm only familiar with Apple products in passing, I've never owned one and never had to do any real work on on so I'm obviously not an Apple fan but, I have a very real and healty respect for them.

    It really looks like Apple is making all the right moves. Their iPod product line has a lot going for it and their new computers sound really sweet too.

    Frankly I'm wondering what took them so long to join forces with Intel, from a marketing standpoint this sounds like a slam-dunk. In a short time I think we can see a lot more software running on the Apple platform (you can read this as Apple will emulate the Windows platform or actually run Windows or whatever you want). With more software availability, they will find a home in more business environments.

    For Apple, the business world isn't where it is all at. They seem to market to consumers, especially younger consumers very well. This means more Apple products in homes and dorm rooms too. In some ways, the iPod product line is a "taste" of the Apple world and since they like the taste, it isn't such a big step to move up to bigger products. This is especially true if the marketing mavens at Apple make sure their products work better with the iPods than Windows machines do -- this means that Apple will maybe offer very easy to use software for their computers to interface with the iPod as a standard feature. I would at least.

    Apple is posied for some great things to happen in the next few years. Steve Jobs is the right guy and this is the right time. I think it is pretty easy to say "Apple is back and here to stay."

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close