Slate‘s Jordan Weissmann puts Apple’s product lines into perspective versus other large companies (Tech or not).

iPhone revenues alone eclipse that of either software behemoth Microsoft or online retail giant Amazon. Businessweek (September 2013):

If the iPhone were its own company in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index, iPhone Inc. would outsell 474 of 500 companies; iPhone’s $88.4 billion in annualized revenue tops 21 of the 30 component companies in the Dow Jones industrial average—it would be the ninth-biggest stock in the Dow 30.”

Consider these two product lines:

iPhone = Google + eBay

iPad = Yahoo + Facebook + LinkedIn + Twitter + Group + Tesla

Truly insane.

 

 

 

 

iPad as well:

Source: Slate

Category: Consumer Spending, Technology, Valuation

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

3 Responses to “What If Apple Products Were Their Own Companies?”

  1. Concerned Neighbour says:

    You’d think with numbers like that they’d have more competition by now in the high-end/luxury electronics market. For example, I’d rather not pay the Apple tax, but I must admit their MacBook Pro line are the best laptops out there for form and function, at least for what I do. None of the Windows brands come close, even after all these years.

  2. Rob Dawg says:

    If Apple cash were a company…

  3. constantnormal says:

    And despite being as large and profitable as they are [which these charts do not allude to -- I'd like to see a version of these showing the profits from each of these companies, on an annual basis, to remove seasonal quirks], with analysts declaring that they cannot possibly grow any further, they are still finding new niches to insert themselves into and cause those niches to blossom into full-fledged markets.

    So long as there are niches in the global marketplace that are poorly exploited/served by the corporations of the world (I doubt that there is a shortage of these), there will be a way for large, dedicated companies to expand, even when they have fully fleshed out their past successes.

    By creating new businesses. Look at where Apple re-started when Steve Jobs came back — he cleared out a lot of products that competed only with each other, and settled on the iMac, a notebook line, a (single) professional desktop line, and the iPod. And look at where they are today, with products that could not be envisioned back in the late 1990s. The various iStores represent an entirely different direction of business expansion, which started with music and branched out into other forms of media and eventually software. And today that business alone pulls in as much revenue as eBay.

    This is what is killing Microsoft — look at how long and how much effort it took them to crack the video game console market (which was not a poorly-served niche market to begin with, which goes a long way to demonstrate how Microsoft is failing, and what they need to do to succeed), selling Xboxes pretty much at cost for year after year until they finally built a substantial body of loyal fans. And look at how much/little Windows and Office have evolved over the years, with new versions being largely cosmetic changes, milking the past rather than mining the future. That’s a somewhat different approach from “trying to do a few things very, very well” AND carefully selecting opportunities that are poorly served by existing products. I don’t want to beat up too much on Mr Softee, as these same issues plague most of the technology companies — a lack of vision, and an unwillingness to roll over their existing cash cows with new ideas.

    “Vision” is not dispensed from on high, it is either embedded in the fiber of a company, or it doesn’t last. Google has it. I suspect that Tesla has it. I’m hard-pressed to come up with another company that has a culture of vision and creativity. HP used to, and so did 3M and IBM — but no longer.

    Vision is not sufficient to guarantee success, but it is necessary. And if a company has vision and creativity, they can keep expanding forever, by expanding the size of the global economy. Yeah, they’re obviously not going to grow by 50% every year, but once you are sufficiently large, even single-digit growth represents a hell of a lot of money.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.