Will Microsoft Overtake Apple as the World's Most Valuable Company? (appleinsider.com) 101
"As Microsoft stock rises and Apple's falls over analysts expectation of slowing iPhone demand, the two firms are once more within $100 billion of each other — the smallest gap in over two years..." writes the blog Apple Insider:
In August 2020, Apple became the first publicly-traded US company to reach a $2 trillion market cap, and Microsoft became the second one in June 2021. Later in October 2021, Microsoft took over the top spot, and for a time was move valuable than Apple by $100 billion. While the values of the two firms have continually changed, Microsoft is now worth just $100 billion less than Apple, according to MarketWatch. Microsoft is valued at $2.73 trillion, while Apple — fallen from its recent $3 trillion high — is currently at $2.83 trillion.
MarketWatch notes that Microsoft's stock rose 57% in 2023, compared to Apple's which rose 48%. Microsoft shares have also reportedly seen what are described as slimmer losses at the start of 2024. Apple, on the other hand, has seen its shares take a considerable drop in recent days. The first hit was taken following a claim by Barclays that iPhone demand is weakening and that the iPhone 16 range will not offer any compelling new features to tempt upgraders.
The analyst view that Apple is dependent on iPhone sales is part of why Microsoft is doing better. Analysts see Microsoft has being less attached to any hardware, and more attached to subscription software such as Office 365, and so therefore less attached to any falling demand for phones or computers. And, Microsoft has launched an AI tool in Copilot, while Apple has not unveiled any similar ChatGPT-style app or service.
MarketWatch notes that Microsoft's stock rose 57% in 2023, compared to Apple's which rose 48%. Microsoft shares have also reportedly seen what are described as slimmer losses at the start of 2024. Apple, on the other hand, has seen its shares take a considerable drop in recent days. The first hit was taken following a claim by Barclays that iPhone demand is weakening and that the iPhone 16 range will not offer any compelling new features to tempt upgraders.
The analyst view that Apple is dependent on iPhone sales is part of why Microsoft is doing better. Analysts see Microsoft has being less attached to any hardware, and more attached to subscription software such as Office 365, and so therefore less attached to any falling demand for phones or computers. And, Microsoft has launched an AI tool in Copilot, while Apple has not unveiled any similar ChatGPT-style app or service.
Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
many people on Slashdot, their livelihood depends on them.
And that's exactly how Microsoft has any value at all.
Nobody likes Microsoft.
Nobody likes Office.
Nobody likes subscriptions.
Nobody likes Teams.
Everybody is forced to use Microsoft and half of their shit because that's what employers mandate.
That's how Microsoft is still relevant: by capturing the business market by luring the bean counters and incompetent IT, and relying on their incumbent inertia, which in turns captures the userbase that has no choice.
At least Apple owes most of its value to the desirabil
Re: (Score:3)
The only way Microsoft gets knocked off it's business throne is a competitor for Active Directory and all the stuff wrapped around Enterprise management. It's less important today due to cloud services but if you're a company managing thousands or tens of thousands of desktops it seems like that's what you're using and everything flows from there.
It's maddening at times, for example my current employer is switching from Google to 365 at the request of a new bigwig investor since that's what they use.
Re: (Score:3)
switching from Google to 365
As terrible and sad as it is, it might actually be a step up. Kind of like switching from a Tesla Cybertruck to a Ford F-150 Lightning: both are shit SUVs, but at least you can use standard 12V accessories in the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
I think that is a perfect analogy. Both are definitely not going to be great if towing, but with the F-150, you can still use your existing stuff, and almost everyone out there has accessories for the F-150.
The adage, "nobody gets fired for buying MS" is definitely a true one, from what I've seen.
Re: Who cares? (Score:2)
Err no. If you are managing a fleet of dozens of thousands of devices, you do that via Autopilot/Intune/Azure and look on anybody suggesting to use Active Directory for this in 2024 as the nutjob they are.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
I like Microsoft. I like Office. I also like Windows.
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
There is always somebody that is "special". You are it.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. And worse, MS products destroy productivity, directly and indirectly by wasting user's time and making things hard to use, unreliable and insecure. On a societal level, Microsoft has massive negative worth and has also become a threat to the global economy.
My take is that as soon as we have software liability, Microsoft will die. And we will either get that or everything will go to shit, the massive cost of bad software will make sure of that.
Re: (Score:2)
If we did have software liability, MS would game the system, and some F/OSS developer would be sued for RIAA-tier damages because his little program had some issue with it that caused a glitch.
Software liability is not something we want... ever. It just ensures that there will never be any small startups making cool stuff again.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would anyone like *any* company? They don't care about you. You're not their friend.
The New IBM (Score:3)
IBM was at the top for 3 decades for very similar reasons: lockin, bundling, compatibility, familiarity, and fear of betting on something different. History is repeating.
Re: (Score:2)
many people on Slashdot, their livelihood depends on them.
And that's exactly how Microsoft has any value at all.
Nobody likes Microsoft.
Nobody likes Office.
Nobody likes subscriptions.
Nobody likes Teams.
Everybody is forced to use Microsoft and half of their shit because that's what employers mandate.
That's how Microsoft is still relevant: by capturing the business market by luring the bean counters and incompetent IT, and relying on their incumbent inertia, which in turns captures the userbase that has no choice.
At least Apple owes most of its value to the desirability of their products - and to some extent, to unquestioning devotion to the brand. It's a bit more glorious than being the unsexy company nobody can avoid because everybody has to work...
That's exactly why Microsoft is worth it's value and Apple isn't.
Like them or not, Microsoft has cornered the market on messaging and email, doubly so with Exch/O365. Not even Google comes close. Same with Office, you think MS Office is bad until you've had to use any other office suite in a work environment.
As you've mentioned, Apple trades on their brand, specifically their brand being desirable and this is an incredibly fickle thing. Apple's already become passe so they're really just trading on a
Re: (Score:2)
There is that. There is also the fact that Microsoft is a known item. Most companies outsource/offshore IT, so those places understand MS and can do a Bog-standard, cookie cutter, best-practice configuration that is easily implemented by junior admins. Especially with Entra if the business doesn't need on-site AD.
As of now, there isn't anything that can scale up as well as AD or Entra can, directory-service wise. M365 is also something that people want by name, just so the C-levels have a known entity f
Re: Who cares? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah livelihoods is a bit of a stretch. However, I believe it is safe to say that for many people on slashdot, their egos depend on them. People like ArchieBunker buy them up nonstop to make themselves feel like they have some sort of moral high ground. Even though their hardware is, very objectively speaking, total shit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/macbo... [reddit.com]
I like this take:
If Louis Rossmann and Apple make contradictory claims about the longevity of certain MacBook models, and I had to pick which one is lying through their teeth, it's gonna be Apple every time. Don't agree with lots of his takes, but he publishes repair information on these things. Even if you don't trust his word on it - open one up and verify his info yourself.
I'm sure Apple will stay afloat though, mainly because a sucker is born every minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Making your living off of Apple or Microsoft is just making yourself a representation of the broken window fallacy.
Hey, I get it, you've gotta eat. But don't defend your existence that way or people will know you're part of the inefficiencies of the system.
The world would be better off without both companies, if some other scum wouldn't just step in to replace them.
Re: (Score:2)
Perhaps someone is thinking about adjusting his stock portfolio?
Re: (Score:2)
it doesn't. your concept of "news that matter" might need some adjustment. contact your local attitude counselor at the earliest opportunity.
btw ... betteridge already said no. shhhh! keep the secret!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Tesla is already way overvalued compared to what it produces because of people making the same reasoning. In order to continue to grow, Tesla has to meet these high expectations. If it stays where it is now, as just another car company, even if successful and profitable, it will crash.
As for SpaceX/Starlink, it is private, so no one really knows what happens there. The thing with Starlink is quite clever, as it is a way for SpaceX to use its launch capacity and fulfills a niche (internet in remote places).
Re:Doubt it (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Doubt it (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
BYD's numbers are fake. And there's the fact that they auto-combust, and BYD doesn't do anything to fix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla is against the clock still since while the old automakers are moving against a ton of inertia they are moving.
Also it's pretty clear at least to me that they are not cracking the Level 4/5 myself driving but anytime soon so the magic of building a decent EV is gone, it's all about pure volume now, who's got the most batteries and the most factories.
Tesla will be a top 10 automaker for sure but they won't reach the heights their market cap suggests.
Re:Doubt it (Score:5, Interesting)
BYD’s only markets will be in the global south. Western governments won’t even allow chinese routers. They shot down a single Chinese spy balloon. You think they’re gonna let in millions of CCP-controlled internet-connected 5000-lb remotely controllable murder machines packed with cameras and sensors to send a constant stream of high-res data back to the Emperor? Not. Gonna. Happen
Tesla’s only serious competition is likely to be Toyota, but only IF they get serious about EVs. The traditional US auto manufacturers are too focused on pickup trucks or just plain too crappy to pose any real EV competition. VW has the scale to compete, but it seems like they’re deliberately coasting on past successes and it’s a REALLY bad time to be doing that. Mmaaayyybeeee Honda or one of the Korean manufacturers could pull off a surprise but I doubt it. Size really does matter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Doubt it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We let in Volvos
Re: (Score:2)
BYD’s only markets will be in the global south.
BYD has a market in many western countries already. The "will" be statement at this point just shows complete ignorance of the company.
Re: (Score:2)
You are very mistaken about the EV industry in general, or at least you have a very closed minded USA view of the EV world.
BYD overtook Tesla recently
No. BYD overtook Tesla *again* recently and only focusing on pure EVs. BYD has always produced more cars than Tesla, and has at several times outpaced Tesla. They've also been at scale for longer, so for most of last decade BYD was selling more EVs than Tesla. In terms of global market share Tesla is behind.
BYD is basically an arm of the Chinese government
I'm sure you say that about every Chinese company, but the reality is far from i
Re: (Score:2)
There are BYD cars everywhere in major Australian cities now, and last time I checked Australia was still a "western" nation politically. Also, BYD has sold over 10,000 battery electric buses every year for almost a decade now. There's no way you can argue they aren't a major electric vehicle maker.
Re: (Score:2)
Tesla excels at one thing. No dealerships. I went car shopping recently, and the dealer scams were insane. If financing, each vehicle had a different interest rate, so a vehicle could cost less, but have a much higher monthly payment. I also got barraged by AI-based robodialers until I blocked them on Google Voice. Dealerships are a major turn-off, especially when they play the "four-square" 3-card monte game with financing/interest, down payment, trade-in and monthly payment. Usually you agree to thr
Re: Doubt it (Score:2)
The only one outselling Tesla right now is a brand that was literally started as a BMW knockoff. That should give you a hint about why they might be selling as well as they are:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=... [youtube.com]
TL;DR (TL;DW?) These are really cheap cars, and it shows. Nobody there really knows that though because apparently the Chinese government has been censoring any mention of that. Apparently they're only barely passing safety tests everywhere else they're sold.
Re: Doubt it (Score:2)
Oh, and they may very well have not even outsold Tesla, because apparently they're cooking their books.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there's probably more people who want a $25k EV than yet another obnoxious Microsoft assistant, but that's just Microsoft getting on the hype train because it pleases Wall St. Windows and Office is still ridiculously intrenched in the business world to the point where Microsoft will continue to be able to milk that old cash cow for the foreseeable future - with or without the inclusion of some dumb AI fad.
Re: (Score:2)
Musk will kill himself first with all the drugs he's doing [marketwatch.com].
Re: (Score:2)
It's all that Joe Rogan's fault! He got Musk hooked!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How will it drop to 3 this year?
Re: (Score:2)
highly likely Toyota will pass them.
I'm having a hard time not laughing. In total, between Toyota and their Lexus subsidiary, they sold just 5,718 BEVs [insideevs.com] in Q4 of 2024. Even if you include plug-in hybrids, Toyota/Lexus sold just 16,657. In that same quarter, Tesla sold 484,507 BEVs.
Toyota is, as best I can tell, probably at least a decade behind at electric vehicles, thanks to their almost fanatically myopic focus on fuel cells. They're not planning a full rollout of EV drive trains as an *option* across all of their lines until 2026, and e
Re: (Score:2)
you are looking at US only number maybe? Toyota sold 3.5m Hybrids and EV's last year.
*swears at U.S.-centric website*
Yes, you're correct. I can't find numbers for their worldwide sales anywhere. The closest I could find was Reuters [reuters.com] pointing to 46,171 BEVs sold worldwide in the first half of 2023. That's not quite as tiny a number, but it's still something like one-twentieth of Tesla's sales.
Re: (Score:2)
With what hallucinatory Toyota model? Are you on drugs? If not, why are you not on drugs?
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I’ll admit, you convinced me .. that you’re a damn good comedian. Much respect. I look forward to your Netflix special.
Re: Doubt it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Betteridge's law (Score:2)
So Microsoft has jumped right into the AI hype with Copilot which will go the way of every other tech fad (Cortana or NFT's, anyone?) within a few years, and we'll all be stuck with a stupid new button on our keyboards. Meanwhile a Barclays "analyst with no compelling data" claims that iPhone demand will drop (yeah, I read the article at that last link, which says itself that this prediction is unlikely).
Re: (Score:3)
While Betteridge's law says no, real life says "that depends"
If Copilot actually turns out to be the Next Big Thing, then "yes". If it fizzles, then "probably not"
If they go full on Windows on ARM, then "yes". If they try and sideline it and stick with Intel/AMD then power generating companies will love it, but everyone else will be looking more closely at the power vs performance metrics. If the "power at any cost" group is larger than the "best performance at the least power" then the original question ma
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not so sure about that one. One of the biggest reasons for Windows' continued success is its support for AAA games thanks to the power of dedicated graphics cards. SoCs are very impressive, especially for productivity, but no one is going to be gaming on them, especially competitively, anytime soon. If Microsoft went full "Windows on ARM", that would be the biggest shot in the arm that Linux has ever had. Sure, many would people would probably stick with
Re: (Score:2)
It's not clear that ARM-based solutions can't eventually surpass amd64, although it's also not clear that they could.
On the other hand, for most business uses, a bunch of ARM cores would be just fine. Many jobs are now just done in a combination of office apps and the browser. Those users don't need an x86-compatible chip at all, and they're not doing any heavy processing tasks.
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:4, Insightful)
This. Phone demand might have leveled off but everyone has one and that's not changing anytime soon. Unless iPhones somehow fall massively out of favour Apple will continue to sleep on a pile of money with many beautiful women.
MS, meanwhile, is putting every egg it has in the AI basket and if that doesn't pan out they will be all over its face. The reality will probably be somewhere in between but where's the revenue? Apple makes money on every iPhone; what does MS make from AI? Subscriptions to CoPilot? Bing taking over Google for search? Your Windows Chatbot You Didn't Ask For(TM) constantly advertising at you? Royalties for logos on keyboards? I don't see a lot of good answers.
Re:Betteridge's law (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft casts a big net though, they don't need huge hits just stamp out their section of each market.
Just like everyone still has and needs phones businesses need all their Microsoft stuff. Plus their gaming division, and hardware (people do like a lot of Surface stuff) and regular ol' OEM Windows and 365 and Azure. It's got it's fingers in a lot of pies.
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft casts a big net though, they don't need huge hits just stamp out their section of each market.
Just like everyone still has and needs phones businesses need all their Microsoft stuff. Plus their gaming division, and hardware (people do like a lot of Surface stuff) and regular ol' OEM Windows and 365 and Azure. It's got it's fingers in a lot of pies.
Yep, the phone market is pretty much the only part of the IT industry Microsoft hasn't managed to get into. Microsoft has many divisions that are strong and profitable, even their games division eventually makes money. Apple has one product and if anything happens to the Iphone there won't be much left.
Re: (Score:2)
MS, meanwhile, is putting every egg it has in the AI basket
It is not. AI makes up a small portion of Microsoft's portfolio and currently makes up fuck all of their revenue. You need to spend less time reading news stories about AI.
Re: (Score:2)
Chasing after fads is just what tech companies do. Apple just seems to think AR is the next big thing, despite the fact that wearables really haven't set the market on fire.
Re: (Score:2)
>which will go the way of every other tech fad (Cortana or NFT's, anyone?) within a few years,
I see that you're dismissing a news fad. Would you like me to open a template for you?
I see that you're trying to close my popup! I can randomly delete some files at random.
I see that you're trying to delete me! I just sent your social security number and financial passwords to the dark web! :)
hawk
"Valuable" like cancer increases GDP? (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, right, you meant "valuable" to the investors, not to the world.
Successfully creating a monopoly, illegally defending it but getting away with that after found guilty in antitrust court when Bush ordered the case dropped, the way Reagan did for the IBM case, does create "value" for investors.
But it is rent-collection, and Keynes joked (we think) about the "euthanasia of the rentiers" needed for progress towards that 3-day week he dreamed of.
Re: (Score:2)
but getting away with that after found guilty in antitrust court when Bush ordered the case dropped
Except that didn't happen at all. They were found guilty in anti-trust court and had to do several things as part of the judgement. One of the things was break up the company, which they appealed against, and the appeal found in favour of Microsoft. It was only after the DOJ lost that appeal that they "settled" which is to say Microsoft still did everything ordered to by the court excluding breaking itself up. And all the requirements placed on the company had a sunset clause on them which was even extende
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, my mistake was believing large newspapers that had headlines and first lines like:
Bush drops plan to break up Microsoft
The US government *unexpectedly* announced yesterday...Although most legal experts considered a break-up unlikely, few expected the government to remove the option from the negotiating table.,,"surprised and perplexed that they have done this as it seems to be contrary to the way the proceedings had unfolded. They have cut their own legs out from under them."
etc etc.
https://www.theguard [theguardian.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Decades ago, my antitrust professor commented that the only way to explain the incoherence of US antitrust policy and law was that each new attorney in the division knew that "If I can win a case against IBM, there's a partnership and a corner office waiting for me."
Some of the IBM cases were sensible, and others were just silly
My favorite was when they were sued for "predatory advancement of technology"--they "unfairly" introduced a triple disk drive unit the aftermarket competitor had matched the base si
Re: (Score:2)
> and the appeal found in favour of Microsoft.
No, not really.
That suggests that it had something to with the legal positions of MS and DOJ.
I was still up to speed on both the relevant law & economics at the time, and followed it.
Rather, the court ruled that the Judge's babbling and boasting before the proceedings were over undercut any confidence in what he was doing, and vacated the remedy proceedings (a rather uncommon outcome).
So at the time it was settled, the DoJ was in the same position as it w
Re: (Score:2)
Rather, the court ruled that the Judge's babbling and boasting before the proceedings were over undercut any confidence in what he was doing, and vacated the remedy proceedings (a rather uncommon outcome).
And by that you mean he publicly commented on the stupid tricks Microsoft's lawyers tried to pull every day of the trial. IOW this was less a decision about what Microsoft did, but about the rule not to smack talk lawyers. Considering that the judge was known for his dislike of bullshitting lawyers, that was a genius strategy from the get-go.
Re: (Score:2)
There really isn't a circumstance in which it's even vaguely appropriate for a judge to make public comment about a case that is still before him. Judges just aren't entitled to "victory laps" in the cases they hear!
You can similarly explain a lot of the OJ trial by the judge and prosecutor's looking ahead to book deals and such.
Only when Windows switches to ARM (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Copilot (Score:4)
Don't forget, Microsoft has added (reassigned?) a new Copilot key to the Windows keyboard. That has to be worth $200 billion right there alone.
Look at P/E ratios (Score:3)
Valuation is "stock price x number of shares". One way to think about stock price is P/E, the ratio of the price over earnings. Apple's PE is 29.60 )(https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AAPL/apple/pe-ratio) , Microsoft's is 35.19 (https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/MSFT/microsoft/pe-ratio) So that says that Wall St values Microsoft's earnings more than Apple's earnings. (Tesla is 79.88, showing Wall St pays A LOT MORE for a dollar of Tesla earning, than it does for either Apple or Microsoft.) So if we assume Apple and Microsoft revenues grow at the same rate, Wall St would have to continue to value MSFT's earnings more than AAPL's.
All this is to say that valuation is just a 'construct' of the markets, based on how the market perceives future value of current earning potential. Could Wall St decide that Microsoft is more likely to grow faster/better than Apple? Sure. Does that mean that Microsoft is earning more money or more importantly, more profit? Not necessarily!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think the links I posted have graphs of P/E, which are instructive, particularly if you compare the two trendlines.
The smallest gap (Score:3)
Being $100 billion dollars. Think about that staggering figure for a minute.
Re: (Score:2)
Well (Score:2)
More people have to do business with Microsoft, than have to do business with apple.
Re:Well (Score:4, Insightful)
Correct. In the metrics that really matter, MS is far more important and valuable to the world economy than Apple is. Apple is obviously very successful and very profitable. But if MS disappeared tomorrow, it would hurt economically far worse than Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
If all Microsoft products disappeared tomorrow, that's true.
But if Microsoft-the-corporation disappeared tomorrow then it would be a massive boon to companies which offer superior technology but have been stymied by the inertia of Microsoft. And ultimately we would wind up using more secure, more performant software.
Ceait to he CEO (Score:2)
make sense (Score:2)
I am a Microsoft hater, who never-ever bought any Microsoft product with his own money (I had to buy a few times at work), but it would totally make sense to me. I see Microsoft products around all the time, but Apple... maybe once in a month. And yes, I do work in IT (government, we have mostly Microsoft with a bit of Linux).
Tech company is overvalued ... (Score:2)
They have potentially vast wealth, they cannot realistically spend, or use ...
because it only really exists for people buying and selling their stocks and shares, not for the company itself - unless the company buys or sells it's own shares to make money ...
Apple is one innovation away from being blackberry (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)