The New York Times published a story that states the obvious for anyone who has studied economics, that Apple's dominant position today is not permanent. They may be very clever and innovative thanks to the spirit (and curse) of Steve Jobs lingering around 1 Infinite Loop, but all fame is fleeting.
In a few short years, Apple has become the biggest company on the planet by market value—so big that it dwarfs every other one on the stock market. It dominates the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index as no other company has in 30 years.
Apple’s market capitalization—the value of all of the shares of its stock—is more than $758 billion, greater than any other company’s. Yet the Wall Street consensus is that Apple is still having a growth spurt. In fact, if Apple’s watches, phones, laptops and other gadgets and services keep generating favorable publicity—and if its quarterly earnings report on Monday is as strong as the market expects it to be—there’s a reasonable chance that Apple’s value will keep swelling. Not far down the road, it might even reach the $1 trillion level that some hedge funds predict.
Yet, IBM was once a huge computer company, the one to beat, not unlike what Microsoft became.
IBM thrived for years afterward, but just as [Steve] Jobs had predicted, it turned out to be vulnerable to disruptive change, as all big companies are. For decades now, IBM has engaged in a sometimes painful transition, and as it revealed in its quarterly earnings report last week, it is still hurting: Its revenues have declined and it has endured wrenching business shifts.
My take on this is pretty straightforward. I own IBM stock; I don't own Apple except in the form of an S&P mutual fund. While I use Apple computers and like them, I have little faith in Apple's long-term future, whereas I think IBM will be around and relevant for much longer once they get their business properly reoriented.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 27 2015, @02:52AM
They won't always rule, but with all their accumulated wealth, they are going to stay on top for a long time to come. When they do begin slipping, any semi-intelligent manager will keep the company afloat and at least somewhat relevant for generations to come. IBM hasn't faded into the sunset yet, and Apple is going to have a similar long run of relevancy.
And, I don't even LIKE Apple!
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @10:39AM
try an Orange, then. Yeah, I know they don't suffer comparison, but if you don't like Apple...
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @01:21PM
When they do begin slipping, any semi-intelligent manager will keep the company afloat and at least somewhat relevant for generations to come.
That's what they said about Micro$oft and then along came Ballmer...
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 27 2015, @03:21PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 27 2015, @10:13PM
Well ... Apple's earnings came out this afternoon. Net income rose 33% to $13.6 billion, or $2.33 per share, in the three months ending in March. Revenue rose 27%, to $58 billion.