Apple Is Now the Most Valuable Company In History 398
derekmead writes "Apple, as of this morning, is valued at $621 billion, thanks to a stock price that spiked at $663.10 per share (and that has risen this afternoon). That finally beats Microsoft, who previously held the record for most valuable company in 1999 at $619 billion. Incredibly, Apple has almost doubled its valuation in the last year, when it topped Exxon-Mobil for most valuable American company with a valuation of $346 billion. It's not the cleanest comparison, but to give you an idea of how much $621 billion actually is, only 23 countries had a GDP higher than that in 2011. So, basically, Apple alone is worth more than what 200+ countries in the world could produce in an entire year."
Selll your stock. (Score:5, Funny)
Issac Newton knew a thing or two about apples. What goes up must come down.
Re: (Score:2)
It's that kind of thinking that doomed the quants to a footnote in the (stupid) economic history of the late 20th century.
Re:Selll your stock. (Score:5, Interesting)
My pithy saying was gunning for +1 Funny, not +1 Insightful. I genuinely believe that Apple's influence has either peaked or is peaking. This doesn't mean that they aren't going to be the major player for a the foreseeable future. I find it unlikely that they will be able to maintain their rate of growth and if they start to grow much more vertically they are going to start getting a lot of unwanted government attention.
Additionally, past the iPad there hasn't been a whole lot of innovation coming from them. They haven't showed up in the 7 inch market yet. That is not to see that they won't sell a bajillion iPad mini's when they drop, but that is going to come primarily from within the segment of the market that they already own. The iPod was a great device that had no peer so it got a ton of people on the platform. The iPhone was a great device that had no peer so it got a ton of people onto the platform. The IPad was a great device that had no peer so it got a ton of people onto the platform. The mini isn't even out yet but already there are bunch of peers on the market that work pretty darn well, so I think the opportunity there is missed. We will have to wait and see where Apple will be innovating from here out, but I am betting that there days of first to market are shortening.
Re:Selll your stock. (Score:4, Interesting)
Up to and including the iPad there hasn't been much innovation from them. They have just been better at waiting for other companies to blow themselves up trying to market cutting edge stuff until the bugs are worked out and then are great at marketing when they come out with a product using technology that has stabalized.
iPod: they weren't the first digital music player or even the first with a mini-disk. But they were the first to have one that didn't suck because they waited. Same with iPhone: they weren't the first to allow surfing the net on your phone, that had been around for a while. They waited till bigger displays were available and bigger memory. Same with tablets. Tablets have been used for more than a decade. UPS and other couriers have had you sign for stuff on a tablet forever now. But Apple waited till better technology came around that didn't suck for the consumer.
I personally don't have any clue why they are priced so high. They don't have leading market share of anything except the upwardly full of themselves Apple fanboy/fangirl market. They are way behind market share of both PCs and laptops. Android outsells them by miles. Like, WTF? Mind you, maybe investors already have some thoughts about droves of people running from Windows 8. Until those people find out how much Apple overcharges. Still it will be good for a spike in sales.
Re: (Score:3)
The Rio Karma was every bit competitive with the iPod.
What Apple did was advertise. Outside of geekier circles, people didn't know there was a replacement for CDs out there... And when Apple told them, they became synonymous with it. A whole generation of people know MP3 players as iPods, and don't know that there's another name for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Really, then why did he get taken on the South Sea Bubble?
Bubble (Score:2, Informative)
Bubble bubble bubble.
http://slopeofhope.typepad.com/.a/6a00e009898222883301761756d819970c-800wi [typepad.com]
Gonna blow.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't say they wouldn't be on top, but they aren't going to be a growth stock as they have in the past. Additionally, if you think Apple will be immune from the anti-trust problems that you saw with Microsoft, I think you will be surprised in the coming years. It gets hot under the spotlight and with the way they are pushing the lawsuits around it is quite obvious that they are transitioning their posture to defend their share as opposed to growing it.
Re: (Score:2)
Pretty sure people were saying the same thing 4 years ago. Can't continue to grow that fast, that big, blah blah blah.
IF THEY GROW THEIR BUSINESS AT ZERO PERCENT, THEY'RE STILL MAKING A FUCK TON OF MONEY EVERY YEAR.
Fortunately, they've been growing their business at about 50% per year for the last five years.
Re: (Score:3)
IF THEY GROW THEIR BUSINESS AT ZERO PERCENT, THEY'RE STILL MAKING A FUCK TON OF MONEY EVERY YEAR.
If they grow their business at 0% then their current share price is way over-valued. It is because there is an expectation of future growth built into the share price that the share price is so high.
If Apple doesn't grow, and continues to just make the same fuck ton of money that they are making now, then the current share price is not supportable.
Not adjusted for inflation, obviously. (Score:5, Informative)
If you actually read right to the end of the article, it states that adjusted for inflation, Microsoft is still over $850 billion. So while Apple is a gigantic company, it hasn't broken any records.
DISCLAIMER: I'm neither a PaidMicrosoftShill(tm) nor affected by the Apple Reality Distortion Field(tm)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
If this is not a record, then let's restate it saying that Apple reached $621 Billion with a PE ratio of about 15-16. Microsoft set the record with $619 Billion with an PE ration of 88, about what Facebook had with all its hype. Adjusted for inflation, that $619 Billion record is something like $880 Billion. Yes, it was impressive.
To put this in scope, the second place company in the US is Exxon Mobile, trailing Apple by $200 Billion. Only 9 companies have a valuation of over $200 Billion.
The point is
Still not the first trillion dollar company. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Apple just paid they're first dividend.
Wow. I did not know that Apple just paid they are first dividend! My friend has an iPad and he says that it is hardware is well designed.
Re: (Score:2)
Mobile technology is in anything but a recession. Even if it were 1997, mobile couldn't be doing much better than right now. In fact, it might do worse as people could spend money doing things that don't make so much use of phones.
Inflation? (Score:5, Informative)
Based in 2012 dollars, Microsoft's 1999 value of $619 billion would be equivalent to $851 billion today. Apple still has quite a ways to go.
Re: (Score:2)
See an AC's reply above:
"except Microsoft's high valuation was at the peak of the internet bubble meanwhile Apple's high valuation is at the nadir of the great recession...also Microsoft wasn't paying dividends then meanwhile Apple just paid they're first dividend."
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I guess that doesn't make as interesting a headline. That fact is buried in most of the stories.
Re: (Score:2)
Both are tiny little fish compared to an establishment like "Standard Oil" which was well over a trillion, depending on who's imaginary figures you want to use.
Re: (Score:3)
Fortunately their market cap has grown at about 100% per year for 4 years now.
They'll catch MSFT's inflation adjusted peak before Christmas.
East India Company (Score:5, Interesting)
What would be the value of the British east india company in today's dollars?
Re: (Score:2)
Better ask a tea leaf.
Re:East India Company (Score:5, Interesting)
Comparisons with the British East India Company are tricky, mainly because the BEIC was a government corporation. The BEIC flew its own flag, maintained its own military, engaged in private warfare, and it's credit was backed tacitly by the British crown -- more like Fanny Mae, it Fanny Mae was a trillion-dollar sovereign wealth fund that owned half the real estate on the Asian continent, and had an air force capable of starving a city.
Even Shell or Exxon aren't really comparable enterprises.
Re: (Score:2)
Even Shell or Exxon aren't really comparable enterprises.
Shell or Exxon aren't, but Saudi Aramco [wikipedia.org] definitely is. I remember a story one of my professsors told us during a class on enterpreneurship (in the scientific field): he was working on a project for Saudi Aramco, and the price of petrol was temporarily down. He asked one of his superiors if that was causing them a problem. The answer "nah, this is only an issue for the small guys, like Shell."
Re: (Score:2)
The EIC didn't simply own a lot of land. They were effectively the sovereign rulers of India for about 80 years.
However, you're wrong to call them a government corporation — John Company was founded and controlled by private individuals. If they'd been an arm of the British government, they probably would have had less power than they actually had.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont know what is more disturbing, the fact that Fanny Mae had an air force, or that you would name a trillion dollar company after Mae's vagina...
Re:East India Company (Score:5, Interesting)
Donno but the South Sea Company in 1720 made a second round of stock offering and sold 1 million shares at 400 pounds each. That's 400 million pounds.
Adjusted for inflation that's about 720 billion pounds, or in US money:
1.2 trillion dollars
And that's not even the whole company
Re:East India Company (Score:5, Informative)
You're actually understating your case — shares eventually reached 1K. Then it became obvious that the company wasn't all that profitable and the shares lost about 90% of their value. Not likely to happen to Apple, of course, but it's a reminder of how investors can go crazy over a sexy stock.
Re: (Score:2)
in case you were wondering
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sea_Company [wikipedia.org]
British East India? (Score:2, Insightful)
I can't believe Apple is more valuable than the British East India company, or any number of other ventures. You need to measure it in terms of global GDP at the time, or gold, or silver. All of these measures have their flaws (e.g., discovery of vast ammounts of gold in the New World distorted its value for a while). If you're just talking nominal US dollar value then fine; but that's not all of history. It's not such a simple thing to measure.
Not for long (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple is replaying their history during 90s.
It's eerie, really. Soon after Macs began its success, MS sold their graphical OS through just about all hardware makers, Apple sued and lost, and Jobs's got ousted, and Apple shriveled up. Just replace "ousted" with "died" and MS/Windows with Google/Android.
The secret to Apple's success (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks. Made my day with that one.
But I now have a bit of hate for SQLite, which is otherwise a great product.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And here I am without mod points...
*publicly traded* company (Score:2)
It's hard to measure the value of private companies, but we should not ignore the fact that they do exists.
Not even close (Score:2, Insightful)
This is just too funny (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Benjamin Graham would have a lot to say about times like these.
I don't think he would be pleased with FB which is virtually worthless, but APPL isn't all that bad at a PE ratio of 15. In the worst depths of the recession it hit 11 and at the peak of the credit bubble it was around 44. The real story is recently, like 2 years ago, the PE ratio was running around 20. Insane as it sounds, APPL revenue is growing much faster than their share price.
Given a choice of govt bonds or savings account at roughly 0% or APPL at a PE around 15, eh, I'd chose APPL.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Given a choice of govt bonds or savings account at roughly 0% or APPL at a PE around 15, eh, I'd chose APPL.
I dunno about you, but I would choose AAPL [google.ca] instead of these guys APPL [google.ca].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worth? (Score:4, Informative)
Let's not confuse what a company is worth with what a company costs.
I would make a joke... (Score:2)
wondering how long it will be before Apple has its own armed forces, but [publicintelligence.net]...
Makes me happy (Score:2)
I don't work for Apple or even particularly like Apple products (I had a phase, so I still own a couple older models). But I do enjoy the benefits of money flowing into Cupertino and other South Bay communities. Job market in Silicon Valley is good, not just tech jobs but even construction is picking up a bit. The state and local governments are still pretty financially messed up.
But I do think one way to economic recovery is to make truck loads of money, then spend it. (sorry if that sounds like trickle-do
Re: (Score:2)
But I do think one way to economic recovery is to make truck loads of money, then spend it.
That's the only way to economic recovery.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you need truck loads of money in order to start spending? Can't you spend a little if you're making a little? One thing is certain, stock-piling a ton of money is one way NOT to help the economy.
Angry (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Angry (Score:4, Insightful)
Except for their 50,000 US employees. And the $4 billion a year the iOS app store sends out to independent developers, mostly in the US. And all those music industry people who make money from selling music on iTunes. There's a study that says Apple actually supports about 300,000 jobs in the US.
Yes, they support a lot of manufacturing jobs overseas, but it's pretty silly to say they contribute little to the US economy.
A Better Measure of Apple's Power (Score:2)
The Bubble Has Reached Its Apex (Score:2)
Bubble (Score:3)
I smell a bubble about to burst. If the market is this hyped up anything less than a staggering improvement will cause disappointment. Maybe it will all be ok but I'd be selling right now.
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Informative)
Everything in the piece is a fact. There is no commentary on why this might be good or bad.
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Let's compare meaningful value.
If Apple stops pumping iPods, iPhones and iPads tomorrow, what's the worst that will happen?
If Exxon-Mobil stops pumping out oil and refining gas, diesel and jet fuel, what's the worst that will happen?
I'm thinking maybe the metric being invoked here is inadequate to describe the two companies relative importance and thus their ultimate value.
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Funny)
If Apple stops pumping iPods, iPhones and iPads tomorrow, what's the worst that will happen?
Mass riots of Fanboys would commence and might be worse then running out of gas.
Re: (Score:2)
no only worse for the poor baristas at starbucks who have to listen to the hipsters and fanboys
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:If this article... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. It would NOT collapse. All those computers would not suddenly stop working.
2. Only business IT structure that is build on Microsoft would even need to be concerned.
Okay, I'll take back #1. Okay, maybe you're right. It would collapse. Without Windows updates, just how many weeks could an IT infrastructure go before it would be hopelessly compromised beyond all possibility of repair.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It would NOT collapse. All those computers would not suddenly stop working.
That's (possibly) true for now, but the path being trodden by Microsoft and Apple means its likely they will be or are building their OSs with remote kill switches - call it WGA+. Add that to the proliferation of rented services, cloud and otherwise and the world might find its infrastructure held to ransom
If there's any significant prosecution: Sorry, services withdrawn...
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, there are alternatives, but unless you can get other companies to employ the alternative you can be screwed as well.
For one company I am only running a Windows server because it is required for their CRM platform. Could I create an alternative? Sure.... for tens of thousands of dollars (per programmer at a minimum) and about a years worth of custom coding. Not to mention support for all the 3rd party programs from other companies designed to download and sync data from their own platforms.
It's a web
Re: (Score:2)
There aren't enough enterprise alternatives, and the reason is because MS does the enterprise very well. Also there is a lot of legacy software various companies use for their workflows, and those were written on MS software. Since MS software works well for enterprise, naturally they have no need nor desire to change.
Also, people forget that Apple is a hardware company - in particular, they are the iPhone company (the majority of their revenue is the iPhone. iPads, Macs, iPods, iTunes, and ATV combines
Re: (Score:3)
> Apple is also safe because most of *those* people have never tried nor want to try an android device.
^ I stand by this. I meet people with iPhones all over the place, daily, who don't have a clue what Android has to offer. They never looked. They don't care.
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Informative)
Apple conducted a study on this.
Among people who wanted to buy an iPhone and choose Android instead:
Conversely JD Power and associates did the opposite survey and found the number one reason people choose Apple was battery life. An area where they are only beaten by 1 RIM model as a matter of fact.
#2 reason was Apple's high level of customer service after point of sale
#3 better integration
#4 singular vision
#5 better sales staff (I'm assuming they mean Apple stores as contrasted with regular carrier based stores)
#6 innovation
I read those and they seem mostly true in both directions. I don't personally agree with the "latest and greatest" and "technology" arguments on Android but I can see where Android customers might view Apple as too conservative.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
So you believe Market-Cap as a metric is unabashedly pro-apple? Got it, I guess.
BTW Exxon-Mobil is responsible for less than 3% of world oil production. OPEC could easily raise quota to make up for that. They are the biggest refiner, so there may be a bit more impact there.
By current market standards, Exxon and Apple are both undervalued.
Re:If this article... (Score:4, Interesting)
So you believe Market-Cap as a metric is unabashedly pro-apple? Got it, I guess.
I've always thought market cap was an incredibly bad metric for measuring a company.
Just because a couple of fools are willing to pay an inflated price for a share on a particular day shouldn't mean that you can extrapolate to say the entire company is worth that much times the number of shares.
In fact, one look at the market depth for any company is proof enough that most people aren't willing to pay top price, and correspondingly, that the company's worth shouldn't be so directly related to the share price.
But banks tend to be willing to lend money to companies based on their market cap, so what would I know: I'm not an economist.
Re:If this article... (Score:4, Informative)
Apple's P/E ratio is only 15.64. They're greatly undervalued.
I'm not sure how you can say that they are greatly undervalued. Any P/E over 17 is considered overvalued, and a P/E in the range of 10-17 is considered fair value.
So I would say that a P/E of 15.64 is on the high side of being fairly valued, but certainly not greatly undervalued. Greatly undervalued would be if their P/E was below 10.
Re: (Score:3)
No, using market cap to label Apple "most valuable" is unabashedly pro-apple. It is a poor indicator of a company's ability to continue to generate revenue, which is a much closer definition IMO.
Re: (Score:2)
"If Exxon-Mobil stops pumping out oil and refining gas, diesel and jet fuel, what's the worst that will happen?"
They will be replaced and their assets promptly purchased by other companies.
Re: (Score:3)
comparing GDP of a country to net worth of a company is a bizarre comparison anyway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue is sort of what you're talking about, and it ranks apple at 43rd, with 103 billion in revenue last year, whereas exxon, royal dutch shell and Walmart are all up over 400 billion dollars.
(point of interest, samsung is on that list with 247 billion).
The idea of meaningful value is sort of hard to pin down, because in both cases the answer to your question is: Their co
Re: (Score:2)
Market value and strategic value are independent of each other. "Meaningful value" lacks quantifiable metrics.
What's the value of a company that designs and orders build contracts for entertainment devices? If the manufacturing is overseas?
What's the value of a company that refines aluminium and steel alloys? If they do this domestically?
Re:If this article... (Score:4)
Whether Exxon by itself would be enough to trigger a collapse is a good question, but I'd say the consequences there would still be somewhat worse than a "brief period of instability".
Re: (Score:3)
You are correct. But in the real world, only Exxon stopping would cause an increase in production at other companies. Exxon would be taking on so many charges that they would be heading quickly toward bankruptcy. Then their assets would get bought up to contribute to even more production by the other companies.
That would cause a short term spike in the price of oil/gas. It would be a HUGE spike that might spur alternative ideas (work from home) and technologies (natural gas, solar, hydrogen). But it wo
Re: (Score:2)
I really look forward to the gunfights over a can of ham.
Re: (Score:3)
somewhat worse than a "brief period of instability".
In much the same way, The Dark Ages was a short respite from learning, technology and engineering.
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Funny)
Let's compare meaningful value.
If Apple stops pumping iPods, iPhones and iPads tomorrow, what's the worst that will happen?
If Exxon-Mobil stops pumping out oil and refining gas, diesel and jet fuel, what's the worst that will happen?
I think option #2 is best, I can live in an iMicrocosm, as long as I get clean air and water to breathe and drink.
If Exxon stopped pumping oil, instead of a truck delivering your iPhone, it would be carried on the back of a Unicorn and floated gently down a rainbow to your doorstep.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't forget:
After a brief period of autocratic rule, communism will emerge
After a brief period of deregulation, standard of living will improve
After a brief period of driving in the oncoming lane, we'll buckle our seat belts.
Re: (Score:2)
After a brief period of instability, we'd be forced to switch to a more sustainable technological model based on renewable energies, reduce pollution, and save the planet.
I'd be interested in knowing what your definition of "brief" means in this context. I have my doubts it would be anywhere close to brief.
Re:If this article... (Score:4, Insightful)
If my car runs out of gas, I'll have to ride my bicycle to work, but at least I can still listen to my music on the way with my trusty iPod. And as an added bonus, no war between China and Japan.
Have fun procuring some arable land to grow your own veggies and raise your own cattle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
True:
XOM's total assets: $329B
AAPL's total assets: $162B
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=XOM [yahoo.com]
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL [yahoo.com]
However, over the last 4 years, Apple has grown it's assets roughly 50% per year. Exxon has grown it's assets by about 15% per year.
So, in about 3 years, Apple will over take Exxon for most total assets. Obviously assuming that they grow roughly the same over the next 3 years. Which people have been arguing Apple can't do for at least 5 years now.
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Insightful)
The thing about trends is they never end, until they do. Just because some people were wrong about Apple years ago, doesn't mean they're wrong about Apple today.
Apple may be extraordinarily successful, but its success is based upon a product line that is:
1. Almost entirely consumer driven, and
2. Incredibly undiversified.
That's an incredibly risky strategy. Most companies build successful long-term business by establishing well diversified product lines, or by building product lines and business relationships that establish long-term cash flow. Apple's bet their success on their ability to stay cooler than the competition. So what's a more likely scenario for 2022: that the world is still addicted to Exxon's oil, or that the iPhone 10 is still the hottest product on the market?
Re:If this article... (Score:4, Insightful)
It was such a terrible comparison, given that there is a great comparison for companies when comparing GDP; and it isn't their market cap:
I really fail to see how iPhones, iTunes, and iPads are worth even remotely close to that number. Every one of those products are replaceable. Most become obsolete in a year. This could be the biggest bubble in corporate history. At least Microsoft had a monopoly when they reached that level. In fact, that is the only thing that kept them afloat (Windows OS).
And I don't dismiss that Google is in the same boat. A new technology could quickly wipe out 90% of their value in a year.
Re: (Score:3)
OK I agree on you that Apple is overvalued, but many other people obviously believe it's the right value for the company.
Apple is more than iPods/iPads/etc. It's a company, it's an organisation that knows how to produce those things, how to market them, how to sell them, and, maybe most importantly, how to create new products in a way that no-one else has done before (even if based on old ideas, the actual product is something that didn't exist before). This know-how, this organisation, that is also what ma
Re:If this article... (Score:5, Interesting)
If you decide that stock value is the true valuation of a buisness, even though that would be totally incorrect...
and you decided that US Dollars, not adjusted for inflation...
Then I suppose you could make this claim.
But what is Apples value to the world compared to, lets say walmart? If apple and all its products vanished off the face of the earth right now... would it really cause a problem? If walmart closed all of its stores for just a month or 2... we'd actually have food shortages in many rural areas almost immediately. People would lose their homes due to the lack of a paycheck. Many smaller local business buy their inventories from walmart. Suppliers in China and India would have to lay off workers. Many people wouldn't be able to get prescriptions. Bug spray, insecticides, etc... could lead to increases in west nile and other disease. Literally 3 of the 4 horsemen... it's kind of funny really.
Re:If this article... (Score:4, Insightful)
"True" and "misleading" are not mutually exclusive. Apple may have the current highest market cap, but its only a record high if you do it in "dollars of the day"-- that is, Apples market cap today in todays dollars, and Microsofts 1999 market cap in 1999 dollars. It also tries to conflate "market cap" with "value" when the two are not even CLOSE to synonymous-- whats Facebook's market cap now, and what was it 2 months ago? Did the company start producing more or less, or could it be that "market cap" is simply the result of speculation, and not an actual measure of a company's long term value?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
What article/summary did you read? It apparently wasn't the same one I read, as everything was simple facts and completely unbiased. I know people here like to hate on Apple, but to hate on something factual is just...sad.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft = Borg
Apple = Ferengi
Re: (Score:2)
And thanks to them, it pushed everyone forward, which is why my mother now has an easier time with Ubuntu on her laptop than with Windows.
Re: (Score:3)
This was back when Apple was all about technology and innovation.
Now it is all about perception and style. And trying to become a new monopolist. Apple's mobile OS doesn't even have real garbage collection.
I also think Apple's "most valuable company" status is just a matter of perception. If the stockholders were to get spooked and start selling, that value would vanish in the wind just like it can or has with so many other companies.
I was once a longt
Re: (Score:3)
"Some people do have iPhones and iPads. Some people drive expensive cars. A lot of people drive Hondas and Toyotas and get Android phones with dual core 1 GB ram for $1 with a $100 gift card back on 2 year contract."
Well put, a lot of the arguments I see from Apple fanboys is that "Most people seem to think the iPhone is the best", or "Apple obviously does X right because the majority of people have iPhones".
The whole argument is based on fantasy, Apple's global smartphone marketshare is 17%, their phone ma
Re: (Score:2)
Who says they are?
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.iso.org/iso/home/standards/country_codes/country_names_and_code_elements_txt.htm [iso.org]
According to ISO there are 249 of them
Re: (Score:2)
Re:200+ countries? (Score:5, Informative)
Here's Wikipedia's list of sovereign states [wikipedia.org]. It lists 206, and separates them out nicely based on claims made against their sovereignty and the like. There are 203 sovereign states that are recognized by at least one UN member state, 2 that are only recognized by non-UN states but that have declared their independence and control some territory, and 1 that has declared its independence but is not recognized by anyone at all, despite controlling some territory.
Re: (Score:2)
"Apple alone is worth more than what 200+ countries in the world could produce in an entire year."
What's the betting that EVERY country in the third world hellhole that is AFRICA is in that 200+? Hilarious.
When do you think AFRICANS will be producing iPads and iPods? How about NEVER. How about some time after MONKEYS produce them?
I think the Africans will be next in line as cheap labor after the standard of living and incomes in China and India improve to their point where they are no longer cheap yet they will all want access to cheap imported goods. iPads aren't made in China because rural farmers are naturally good at assembling electronics, but because the $10/day they get paid for the work is much more than they'd earn on the farm and the work is much easier despite the long hours.
It will take years, perhaps decades, to get to
Re: (Score:2)
Is really apple worth more than the actual product of 200 countries?
No. It's a stupid measure made by stupid people that have a fucking clue about the thing they're getting excited by.
Value of a company : How much it would cost to buy
GDP : Domestic output of a country
One is a time based measure, the other a static representation of how much someone would pay for something if they were stupid enough to buy into the hype or had spotted the gullibility of the fuckwits that have.
I hope that if any of my pensions are invested in Apple that the idiot pension fund managers sell no
Re: (Score:2)
Value of a company : How much it would cost to buy
GDP : Domestic output of a country
Indeed, we should be comparing the market capitalization of a company with the inclusive wealth [economist.com] of a country.
A market cap of $622 billion is higher than the current inclusive wealth of Ecuador ($360 billion) or Kenya ($122 billion).
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting measure - and one that's a little flawed. Although I like the concept of counting education as having value, that value should drop as the supply of educated people rises.
So Kenya and Ecuador increasing their human capital would dilute the stock of educated people worldwide, leading to its value dropping everywhere.
Plus of course the evil insinuation that people have a value which can be traded for other forms of value such as natural resources or manufactured goods. Although in economics that's
Re: (Score:3)
"Largest Technology Company, as of this morning, is valued at $621 billion, thanks to a stock price that spiked at $663.10 per share (and that has risen this afternoon). That finally beats Now-Second Largest Technology Company, who previously held the record for most valuable company in 1999 at $619 billion. Incredibly, Largest Technology Company has almost doubled its valuation in the last year, when it topped Non-Technology Company for most valuable American company with a valuation of $346 billion. It's not the cleanest comparison, but to give you an idea of how much $621 billion actually is, only 23 countries had a GDP higher than that in 2011. So, basically, Largest Technology Company alone is worth more than what 200+ countries in the world could produce in an entire year."
Can you reasonably argue that this is biased reporting? What company is it biased towards? It doesn't even say something like: "The maker of product". It even gives context to the value. When a technology company becomes (arguably) the largest company in recorded history, I expect to SEE IT REPORTED ON SLASHDOT .
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, that's a poorly worded sentence. It should state that 200+ countries each have a smaller GDP than apple's market cap. It is written like they are combined.