Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Apple

Apple Now the World's Most Valuable Brand, Knocks Off Coca-Cola 208

Posted by samzenpus
from the what's-in-a-name? dept.
cagraham writes "According to consultancy firm Interbrand's latest 'Best Global Brands' report, Apple is now the world's most valuable brand, with an estimated worth of $98.4 billion. Since Interbrand began issuing the report in 2001, Coca-Cola has previously always claimed the top spot, but fell to third place this year, behind both Apple and Google. Tech companies now make up six of the top ten brands, but only 12 of the top 200. The report comes a week after Apple reported record sales numbers, moving 9 million iPhone 5s and 5Cs during their opening weekend."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Now the World's Most Valuable Brand, Knocks Off Coca-Cola

Comments Filter:
  • Figures (Score:5, Funny)

    by i kan reed (749298) on Monday September 30, 2013 @01:57PM (#44994111) Homepage Journal

    Now that those brand-names raise only bile for me when I hear them, it figures the accountant class would value them.

  • Stock trending down (Score:2, Informative)

    by geekoid (135745)

    that's weird since Apple's stock is trending down over the last year, and coke is trending up .

    • by the computer guy nex (916959) on Monday September 30, 2013 @02:05PM (#44994193)
      Stock is trending down due to concerns over margins. Nothing to do with brand perception.
      • Mod parent up.

        There is only a loose correlation between good companies and good stocks. You might find the best company in the world but if stock is overvalued then the stock is lousy. Apple has long been priced based on very high earnings (i.e. profit) growth. It is not so much that Apple is declining but their competitors are catching up.

        • by Sir_Sri (199544)

          And they're running out of room to grow without a new transformational product.

          At this point a lot of the smartphones they're selling are just replacing the previous smartphone sold by apple 2 years ago. That's fine but it's not massive growth, or entering a new sector, so the price is going to reflect the expectation that they're not going to suddenly start selling 100 million new devices a year.

        • by geekoid (135745)

          Nope. Stock is trending down becasue there has been no innovation, and no Steve Jobs: whom the media loved*.

          Apple's stock is very much emotional based, and based on Steve Jobs vision; which he often delivered on.
          'It's concerns about margins' is what Apple* says to try and prevent a whole sale cash out.
          IMHO Cook doesn't have what it takes to ignore the board run off and then get people together to create something captivating. Then make people wan't it and feel special when they get it.
          Apple is loosing marke

    • Brand value != market cap
    • by Kelbear (870538)

      Valuation of intangible assets like a brand is (big surprise) very subjective. It's typically based on a combination of management data, management estimates, and extrapolation by the valuation consultants. Most likely it's primarily based on some estimate of how much of a premium Apple gets to charge it's customer for it's brand by carving that piece out of their margin and then extrapolating the income from that brand-distinction out into the future. Then they'd take that whole amount, then present-value

    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      that's weird since Apple's stock is trending down over the last year, and coke is trending up .

      Interestingly it's trending down if you look at the past 12 months, but up if you look at the last 6 or 48 or more.

      If you look at a 5 year trend it's constantly up until a huge bubble for the first three quarters of 2012. Anyone remember what that was about?

      • by geekoid (135745)

        Specifically it starts 1 year after Jobs death, about the time it takes the previous CEO's momentum to start to wear off.

  • by Dega704 (1454673) on Monday September 30, 2013 @02:09PM (#44994235)
    Soon they will replace Christianity as the #1 religion.
    • by Dega704 (1454673) on Monday September 30, 2013 @02:11PM (#44994247)
      "In Jobs We Trust"
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Which is why brands like Apple and Coke are actually quite worthless to anyone but themselves. Imagine if Christianity decided to create New Jesus. It would fail as hard as New Coke. It's a great brand for selling more Coke, but useless for almost any other purpose.

      This also means that those brands are potentially quite weak. If people ever go off Coke that's it for them. Apple could probably re-invent itself with a new line of products, if they can find someone to do it now Jobs is gone.

      Brands that are not

  • It's about time. Coca Cola merely sells sugar water.
  • Having had to go through the process of creating Apple IDs and using false information*, not to mention the harassment Apple foists upon people who use their phones, and now finding they've automatically shoved out iOS 7 on new phones with no way to downgrade**, all I can say is their user experience just plain sucks.

    If you wanted people to choose a title and phone number, why wait until they're installing an app to prevent them from continuing until they provide the information?

    If they wanted people to cho

    • by hondo77 (324058)
      Your security software vendor wasn't on the ball enough to port to iOS 7 in time, even though they had plenty of time to do it, and this is Apple's fault why?
      • by _xeno_ (155264) on Monday September 30, 2013 @03:34PM (#44995063) Homepage Journal

        Here's a better question: why doesn't iOS 7 work with iOS 6 compatible apps?

        That officially rules Apple out of being "the new Microsoft:" Microsoft has never been dumb enough to break existing apps on their OSes. If there's one thing Microsoft deserves credit for, it's the ridiculous extents they go through to make sure old apps keep working.

        Apple is the exact opposite way: if you allow Mac OS X to upgrade your iOS development environment, you will entirely lose the ability to target anything except iOS 7. There is no way to go back, other than to find "pirated" sources of older versions of Xcode. (Xcode is free, so "pirated" isn't quite the right word here, but you know what I mean - sources that don't use the Apple app store.)

        • by alexhs (877055) on Monday September 30, 2013 @04:10PM (#44995395) Homepage Journal

          if you allow Mac OS X to upgrade your iOS development environment, you will entirely lose the ability to target anything except iOS 7

          No. It's just that the new default is to build armv7(s) + arm64, and arm64 is not supported on previous iOS versions. Build for 32 bits architectures only, and you will be able to choose older targets.

        • by jittles (1613415)

          Here's a better question: why doesn't iOS 7 work with iOS 6 compatible apps?

          That officially rules Apple out of being "the new Microsoft:" Microsoft has never been dumb enough to break existing apps on their OSes. If there's one thing Microsoft deserves credit for, it's the ridiculous extents they go through to make sure old apps keep working.

          Apple is the exact opposite way: if you allow Mac OS X to upgrade your iOS development environment, you will entirely lose the ability to target anything except iOS 7. There is no way to go back, other than to find "pirated" sources of older versions of Xcode. (Xcode is free, so "pirated" isn't quite the right word here, but you know what I mean - sources that don't use the Apple app store.)

          While I agree with what you are saying, it is possible to install older versions of XCode right from the Apple Developer portal. In fact, I have XCode 5 and 4.6.3 installed both on my machine right now. I am using both actively, as I need to fix bugs for my client who is stuck at 6.1, and also work on making the app usable for iOS 7.

      • by geekoid (135745)

        iOS 7 seems to be one of there buggier releases. So I wouldn't be so quick to blame a vendor.
        Of course this all depends on what 'plenty of time is'. For it to be 'plenty of time' it need to be a year, min.

    • Their status as the new Microsoft has been cemented by the fact that you may find them completely unresponsive to and unsuitable for your needs, but you bought them anyway.

    • by sootman (158191)

      Hear, hear. Damn them for not being able to accommodate every possible obscure need and edge case!

      Are you really just now discovering that "they've automatically shoved out iOS 7 on new phones with no way to downgrade"? You mean, they are SHIPPING NEW DEVICES with the new OS, just like they've done the previous FIVE TIMES -- i.e., EVERY TIME -- they've released a new model?

      If you really, really, really needed devices with iOS 6, you had 10 days between the announcement of the 5c/5s and the first availabilit

  • "According to consultancy firm Interbrand's latest 'Best Global Brands' report, Apple is now the world's most valuable brand, with an estimated worth of $98.4 billion.

    No need to "estimate" Apple's worth. You just multiply the number of outstanding shares by the stock price and you get the exact value of the company according to the "free market".

    However, since Apple's stock is down almost 1/2 in the past year, I don't see how it's possible that suddenly in September of 2013 Apple has become the world's mo

    • by dkleinsc (563838)

      The value of the brand does not equal the market cap of the company.

      Basically, the value of a brand is the difference in price between a generic product and a basically identical branded product. For example, a generic 2-button blazer goes for about $120, whereas Brooks Brothers brand goes for $650, making the value of the Brooks Brothers brand $530. Multiply that by the estimated size of the market, and you have an idea of what the value of the brand is.

      • by PopeRatzo (965947)

        For example, a generic 2-button blazer goes for about $120, whereas Brooks Brothers brand goes for $650, making the value of the Brooks Brothers brand $530.

        You're conflating price and value.

        The value of the Brooks Brother blazer is not $530 more than the generic one. The price is $530 more.

        Ask someone who owns a Galaxy S4 or a Asus Nexus whether the Apple brand on the competing device is worth more.

        No, if you're talking about the "value of a brand" it's basically marketing, nothing more.

        • by dkleinsc (563838)

          No, if you're talking about the "value of a brand" it's basically marketing, nothing more.

          Absolutely. My point is that you can measure it by noticing how much more people will pay for an identical product just by slapping the label "Brooks Brothers" on it.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            So then we agree that saying the Apple brand has greater value than some other brand is just marketing?

            OK then.

        • The value of the brand is held by the brand owner, not by the customer. If someone actually pays $650 for a $120 blazer because it came from Brooks Bros, the value of the brand was indeed $530 to brooks bros.

          • by PopeRatzo (965947)

            If someone actually pays $650 for a $120 blazer because it came from Brooks Bros, the value of the brand was indeed $530 to brooks bros.

            IF someone actually pays $650 for the blazer.

            So we're right back where we started: How well is the company doing? I sell PopeRatzoTM brand vodka, which is made from fermented canned fruit cocktail. It will get you smashed, but it causes permanent brain damage. I charge $40,000 for a pint. I have yet to sell any.

            So my vodka is $39,994 than the cheap stuff in the liquor

    • So, according to your methodology:

      Apple Market Cap: 433.10B
      Coca-Cola Market Cap: 167.93B

      Oh by the way, I've discovered this great company that literally doubled its value over the past 12 months!!! You really should check it out before it takes over the world.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=NOK+Interactive#symbol=NOK;range=1y [yahoo.com]

  • "Brand" and "Knock-off" should be carefully used in the same sentence.

    For 10 seconds I thought that Apple was branching off and selling some new cola that tastes like Coke(tm).

  • First we get the ultrasaturated green in iOS7, and now blinking squares of ultrasaturated red to obfuscate what would otherwise be fully detailed in a table.

    There's a reason that everyone hated the blink tag and MySpace. It appears the design philosphy is, however, alive and well in marketing.

    For those who would prefer not to burn their eyes out: http://www.interbrand.com/en/best-global-brands/2013/top-100-list-view.aspx [interbrand.com]

  • How did this SlashBI trash get into a main channel here?

    Oh, "Apple". Never mind. Carry on.

  • by thammoud (193905) on Monday September 30, 2013 @07:05PM (#44996629)

    but where are the Chinese?

  • by lennier1 (264730)

    Don't care either way. I prefer Pepsi.

"Marriage is low down, but you spend the rest of your life paying for it." -- Baskins

Working...