Apple Passes Microsoft to Become Second-Largest U.S. Company by Market Capitalization

[jhu]

Well that was fleeting. MS is back on top.

market capitalization is so fickle, its a bearing on the psychology of the market, nothing else. Net Income, Revenue, EPS...those are more relevant metrics. When Steve Jobs retires, AAPL's market cap will drop 10%+ overnight. If he died instead, I bet 30%+ overnight. Is that a realistic measure of Apple? Ofcourse not...but it will happen.

qft.

Remember when Cisco was the most valued company in the world back around 2000? They had a market capitalization of slightly over $500 billion. Remember when GE was the largest company in the world by market cap?

Let's put it this way. Exxon, along with the other supermajors, own the world's energy supply. Apple currently owns "coolness." Which one is more fleeting?

 

[ct2k7]

Microsoft are like a rollercoaster right now. They lost $40 billion this week, and they're rising again.

 

[AidenShaw]

Microsoft Passes Apple to Become Second-Largest...

Microsoft are like a rollercoaster right now. They lost $40 billion this week, and they're rising again.

Microsoft has regained #2 - it's now $2B more than Apple.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=msft
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl

Rollercoaster is right!

 

[jhu]

Microsoft are like a rollercoaster right now. They lost $40 billion this week, and they're rising again.

The entire market is a roller coaster right now.

 

[rasmasyean]

Microsoft has regained #2 - it's now $2B more than Apple.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=msft
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl

Rollercoaster is right!

The real question is can Apple live up to the exuberance of the shareholders. If not, it will just crash when they are fed up with holding. A lot of it is also "iPad hype" that ppl gamble on...and ride the rolercoaster. It's not the same as Windows 7 hype because it's not really hype. It's just going to replace most of what is already Windows. Which is A LOT...and already factored into the price a long axe time ago.

 

[Scooterman1]

When you become strictly profit driven, this is what can happen. But keeping 1st, is another matter. Sooner or later.........

 

[rasmasyean]

MS Doesn't have any competition at the moment so there is no reason for them to become "innovative". But one of these years maybe, yes, they will need to start working again.

Everyone I know that uses Windows says "because they have to". This makes things very interesting.

To see Microsoft "innovation" you don't look at the consumer sector. Just Xbox won't make them shine.

What you have to look at is the industrial sector, where they have breached many markets and are one of the most expensive solutions you can buy. All these years Microsoft is really known for "Windows", but their core business has always been on the serious end. Only relatively recently have they've been "consumerizing" and admitedly, not always to a great result.

The backbone of IT owes a lot to Microsoft and much of it you never see unless you are employed by some large corporation and often even have to be in the IT department itself.

But I would describe Apple as concentrating on more of the "emotion" side. And MS as more on the "logic" side. When ppl get off work, they want to be happy. The motto "Any idiot can use it" applies. When they are in serious buisness mode, Apple products more or less make them laugh.

I know ppl like to rag of MS and that it crashes and is bloated and old and whatever, but remeber this. Bloggers jobs are NOT to inform you. Their job is to generate traffic and ad revenue....so they will write anything to start an OS war between WinTards, MacTards, and LinTards. If Windows flaws were really that true, the US Army (serious business?) wouldn't have just installed 744,000 copies of Vista snd MS Office.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/05/20/21389-army-migrating-computers-to-vista/

Think about that...

 

[Scooterman1]

MS Doesn't have any competition at the moment so there is no reason for them to become "innovative". But one of these years maybe, yes, they will need to start working again.

Everyone I know that uses Windows says "because they have to". This makes things very interesting.

You really need to know more people.

 

[clank72]

To see Microsoft "innovation" you don't look at the consumer sector. Just Xbox won't make them shine.

What you have to look at is the industrial sector, where they have breached many markets and are one of the most expensive solutions you can buy. All these years Microsoft is really known for "Windows", but their core business has always been on the serious end. Only relatively recently have they've been "consumerizing" and admitedly, not always to a great result.

The backbone of IT owes a lot to Microsoft and much of it you never see unless you are employed by some large corporation and often even have to be in the IT department itself.

But I would describe Apple as concentrating on more of the "emotion" side. And MS as more on the "logic" side. When ppl get off work, they want to be happy. The motto "Any idiot can use it" applies. When they are in serious buisness mode, Apple products more or less make them laugh.

I know ppl like to rag of MS and that it crashes and is bloated and old and whatever, but remeber this. Bloggers jobs are NOT to inform you. Their job is to generate traffic and ad revenue....so they will write anything to start an OS war between WinTards, MacTards, and LinTards. If Windows flaws were really that true, the US Army (serious business?) wouldn't have just installed 744,000 copies of Vista snd MS Office.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/05/20/21389-army-migrating-computers-to-vista/

Think about that...

The US Army is one of the largest Flaws in this country so that statement doesn't really do anything for me. But everything else you said I agree with. There is also more torrents for Windows too. I know guys that just use it for that.

But when it comes down to making life easier for the consumer and small businesses, I'd go with Apple ANY day.

When I can sit at home with my girlfriend and run a half a million dollar a year home base business with a 300% profit margin... running on 1 Mac with no MS software period, that is also something to think about....

So ya, you can be serious with Macs. If you want to.

 

[jacobj]

To see Microsoft "innovation" you don't look at the consumer sector. Just Xbox won't make them shine.

What you have to look at is the industrial sector, where they have breached many markets and are one of the most expensive solutions you can buy. All these years Microsoft is really known for "Windows", but their core business has always been on the serious end. Only relatively recently have they've been "consumerizing" and admitedly, not always to a great result.

The backbone of IT owes a lot to Microsoft and much of it you never see unless you are employed by some large corporation and often even have to be in the IT department itself.

But I would describe Apple as concentrating on more of the "emotion" side. And MS as more on the "logic" side. When ppl get off work, they want to be happy. The motto "Any idiot can use it" applies. When they are in serious buisness mode, Apple products more or less make them laugh.

I know ppl like to rag of MS and that it crashes and is bloated and old and whatever, but remeber this. Bloggers jobs are NOT to inform you. Their job is to generate traffic and ad revenue....so they will write anything to start an OS war between WinTards, MacTards, and LinTards. If Windows flaws were really that true, the US Army (serious business?) wouldn't have just installed 744,000 copies of Vista snd MS Office.
http://www.army.mil/-news/2009/05/20/21389-army-migrating-computers-to-vista/

Think about that...

Had you said the Israeli army I would have taken your statement seriously: but the US army? These are the guys that shoot down friendly planes with flashy missiles! The guys no longer make un-automated judgment calls do they? I assume that their Windows OS based app told them to get Vista: God help us all.

PS: how is work more serious than one's personal life. I agree that the variables at work are more variant and therefore MS having a more flexible user-driven experience is better. But that MS is for the "serious" person, I take umbrage!

PPS: I agree: at work I would never choose OS X over any Windows OS: I need the control and the innovation. However I wish their products were more developed before they started pushing them. I am so tired of people telling me that they have heard about this great thing called "Sharepoint". It is a nightmare.

PPPS: MS do themselves no favour in that regard: often, by the time they get a product to full functionality the interested parties have written it off as insubstantial and functionally lacking.

PPPPS: I should have said MS productivity apps instead of OS: e.g. Excel, Visual Studio, SQL Server Management Studio, etc.

 

[mccldwll]

Yeah, but those other companies aren't growing earnings all that fast, especially compared to Apple.

Forward P/E multiples are a better gauge, and with Apple expected to deliver $14-15 EPS this year coupled with $45 in cash, Apple's P/E multiple is only around 14x. I would have to disagree that Apple is WAAAAAAY overpriced. It may not be a screaming bargain, but it's attractive given its opportunities.

And FYI, Turley has consistently beaten the WS pro analysts every quarter for past couple years.

 

[rasmasyean]

Here's some interesting recent news...for you SharePoint/etc. lovers.


Top Server Market Findings

•Microsoft (News - Alert) Windows server demand was positively impacted by the accelerating x86 server market, as hardware revenue increased 31.5% and unit shipments increased 22.1% year over year. Quarterly revenue of $4.9 billion for Windows servers represented 46.7% of overall quarterly factory revenue. This is the highest percentage of server hardware revenue that Windows servers have ever represented.

•Linux server demand also improved sharply in 1Q10, with revenue growing 36.5% to $1.9 billion when compared with the first quarter of 2009. Linux servers now represent 18.4% of all server revenue, up 4.3 points over 1Q09.

•Unix servers experienced 29.0% revenue decline when compared to 1Q09 as customers waited for additional detail on the Sun-Oracle server roadmap. They were also anticipating a ramp of IBM POWER7 servers, which began shipping in Q1, and, separately, HP Integrity servers based on Intel (News - Alert) Itanium 9300 processors that were announced in April, following the close of Q1. Worldwide Unix revenues were $2.3 billion for the quarter, representing 22.2% of quarterly server spending (down 10.5 points over 1Q09).

•The market for non-x86 servers, including servers based on RISC, EPIC, and CISC processors, declined 25.9% year over year to $3.6 billion in 1Q10. This is the fourth consecutive quarter that non-x86 servers have been outperformed in the market by x86 servers. IDC believes that demand for non-x86 systems will improve in the second half of the year as leading OEMs complete important product refresh cycles, which will help drive server demand in the midrange and high-end of the market

http://it.tmcnet.com/news/2010/05/26/4811749.htm



Anyway's everyone has their "opinions" on the US Army...but here's something "Isreali" that was looking for .NET (proprietary MS language) programmers under "carreers" a little while back when I dug it up. They don't have those positions open now but... Autonomous ground vehicles represent the state of the art and the most difficult challenges in our R2D2 quest. Don't forget that Isreali's use mostly US weaponry. I doubt they go through the trouble of retrofitting it with OSX or even linux before they blow up Palestinians with it.

http://g-nius.co.il/index.php

 

[col sandurz]

The US Army is one of the largest Flaws in this country so that statement doesn't really do anything for me.

Just because you do not agree with a customer's philosophy or their decision making process does not discount the fact that they are making purchases which (particularly in this case) affect the market. Some industries are built on less than ideal decision making.

 

[clank72]

Just because you do not agree with a customer's philosophy or their decision making process does not discount the fact that they are making purchases which (particularly in this case) affect the market. Some industries are built on less than ideal decision making.

fair enough

 

[macintouch]

I don't see how it could get more scrutinized at all. Very few people say anything good about it even when everything points to the price going up.

I think the proper words would be "more followed" as opposed to more scrutinized. As far as I'm concerned, I welcome any sort of bad news. With the way that markets react to what most see as "negative" news, it gives investors good buying opportunities. Apple is a pretty solid company with a lot of money in the bank, and no debt, so I doubt they're going anywhere for a while.

 

[Avatar74]

Current P/E hardly reflects a price "heavily inflated by speculation," given the persistent numbers for expansion of nearly every product category. You can argue that Apple cannot maintain this rate of revenue and earnings growth, but analysts are surprised again and again on the upside. Unless you know something that most of us do not...

Yes, I do... (and not merely because I'm a financial analyst). Read Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor and Graham and Dodd's Security Analysis for a much better understanding of business valuation... against the grain of what the hypesters on Wall Street sell you. Value investing has been shunned by the majority since Graham's time during the Great Depression, and yet it has consistently generated wealth decade after decade.* Of course it requires more research and knowledge of interpreting financial statements, so naturally it's not as attractive to the common person as fooling themselves into believing one ratio can tell them everything they need to know about the business underlying the equity issue. It also requires patience and time horizons that don't put young brokers and analysts in Ferraris overnight. The rewards are exponentially bigger, but they take some time, intellect and considerably hard work... things that bankers, analysts and brokers seem rather averse to.

But, for sake of argument, can you tell me why you would prefer to use the current market price as a predictor of value rather than the actual operating assets and cash generating ability of the business?

One tells you what the average person is dumb enough to pay. The other tells you what a shrewd person, being the scarcer of the two individuals, would pay. Why you would you prefer the former?

The most vocal champion of the value investing method (as opposed to market price speculation), and Graham's only student to be given an A+, was Warren Buffett, who is one of the three richest men in the world, worth over $50 billion. His Berkshire Hathaway Int'l, which owns over 500 companies whole, trades at over $100,000 per share.

I would say he knows something most people don't.


* Read Buffett's "The Superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville" for an analysis of the performance of value investors over market speculators over a period of 40 years.

 

[AidenShaw]

Apple ends day back at #2

Microsoft has regained #2 - it's now $2B more than Apple.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=msft
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl

Rollercoaster is right!

For the record, at market close Apple $230.53B, Microsoft $227.86B.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Apple, on the other hand, should never have gotten this big doing what they do. This isn't entirely a technology story, this is a business management story. They kept their margins viable. While the rest of the world raced towards zero profit margin in pursuit of volume (sure we're making a tenth of what we used to, but we're selling twice as many!) Apple kept their margins sane. They've had the rest of the pieces in place too-- tech, design, cachet, MS backlash-- but keeping their profit per unit such that they didn't need to slit their own throats meant a lot.

There's one part you seem to be forgetting. How was Apple *ABLE* to keep their margins "sane"? Do you seriously believe for one second that Dell, HP, etc. *WANTED* to charge so little for their hardware? No way. They were FORCED to under the little thing we call COMPETITION. That is what is cutt-throat and forces down prices when it works right. It is the entire basis of Capitalism and it's supposed to benefit consumers and innovation alike. The problem here is that Apple HAS NO DIRECT COMPETITION for *HARDWARE* because anyone who wants OSX *MUST* buy from Apple. So OF COURSE that keeps Apple's hardware margins viable. You have no choice but to give up your entire software library and switch operating systems (pretty drastic for long time Mac users) if you want more choices and lower prices. And THAT is where the system and justice department FAILED the consumer and enabled Apple to go from little guy to MONSTER with such a small share of the operating system market. It simply would not be possible to pull this off if Apple had even one or two competitors for hardware out there.

Some of you say that's find and good and legal, but the TRUTH is it is NOT LEGAL. The Clayton Antitrust Act entire purpose is to PREVENT this sort of thing from happening by forcing large companies to compete. At some point Apple became too large to ignore and yet it was ignored anyway, probably based on this idea that their operating system is such a tiny part of the overall OS market. The problem is the OS market has very little to do with the hardware market other than that 10% that wants OSX has ZERO choices for hardware other than Apple. Why some of you cannot SEE that is just beyond me. I've seen every stupid argument under the sun, some even from self-professed lawyers on here and NONE change the fact that Apple is guilty of anti-competition practices and they ARE large enough to matter financially to those markets. Its not just numbers! It's PROFITS! At the end of the day, there are only two factors for the consumer and one for the company. For the consumer it's choice of hardware and price and for the company it's profit margins (they couldn't care less about choices and this is witness by the fact Apple's "desktops" are actually notebooks with larger non-foldable monitors except for the Mac Pro, which is priced just out of the stratosphere as far as consumers are concerned (and is currently OUTDATED for those price points as well; insanely outdated, IMO; they didn't even update the amount of ram or hard drive space as time went on and kept the prices the same despite declining value. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CHOICES!!!! You either buy one or you switch platforms and most Mac Heads would NEVER do the latter short of sacrificing a family member.

 

[appleseed76]

The problem is the OS market has very little to do with the hardware market other than that 10% that wants OSX has ZERO choices for hardware other than Apple.

Were you around during the Mac clones era? Somoehow I think not. This was when someone other than Steve Jobs was running Apple and allowed 3rd-party manufacturers to make hardware for the Mac OS. It was a disaster. I had the unfortunate experience of working on these POS machines for the better part of a year. One of the first things that Steve did when he rejoined Apple is axe the clones market. By developing both the hardware and the software themselves Apple can not only control the quality of their products better, they can move forward technologically at their own pace. Could you imagine what a mess it would be trying to get a product to work with dozens of other PC manufacturers machines? Different amounts of RAM, different architectures, Apples got enough variation to worry about in house without other 3rd parties screwing things up or slowing them down.

 

[rjohnstone]

Could you imagine what a mess it would be trying to get a product to work with dozens of other PC manufacturers machines? Different amounts of RAM, different architectures, Apples got enough variation to worry about in house without other 3rd parties screwing things up or slowing them down.

All those considered, Microsoft seems to have dealt with that model pretty well. Like it or not, a 90%+ market share on an installed OS base confirms that.

What's Apple's excuse?

As for moving forward at their own pace (desktop market).... I've seen snails move faster.

 

[Analog Kid]

There's one part you seem to be forgetting. How was Apple able to keep their margins "sane"? Do you seriously believe for one second that Dell, HP, etc. wanted to charge so little for their hardware? [...] The problem here is that Apple has no direct competition for hardware because anyone who wants OSX must buy from Apple. [...] The Clayton Antitrust Act [...]

[emphasis removed because it looked like a Zippy cartoon]

Wow, quite a rant there...

Yes, I think Dell et. al. wanted to charge so little. That was the plan-- drive the cost out. They then chased each in circles around the drain. Apple keeps being accused of running a broken business model by not following that course, but I suspect being among the top 5 valued companies vindicates their strategy.

Apple was also told that their walled garden approach of controlling hardware and software would never work. That they needed to be more open if they wanted to survive. Ditto on vindication.

There is nothing stopping anyone else from pursuing Apple's model. I suspect part of the reason so few companies do is because they harbor your broken view of competition-- that to compete means to make the exact same thing only cheaper. In effect, to compete on the basis of price.

Apple, on the other hand, competes on the basis of value-- which is the true level at which competition holds.

Price is an over simplification-- it's what some people call "ketchup economics". Price competition means to make sure that 2 liters of ketchup cost twice what one liter costs. Problem is that people get so fixated on ketchup they forget to compare whether the price of ketchup makes sense in the context of other goods.

What people really want isn't a lower price, they want a better value-- a ratio of what they get to what they pay for it. People can yell and scream about how Apple is a worse value for whatever dozen reasons, but the truth is that the market believes Apple provides better value in some sectors and that's where the money flows. Denying that is declaring a lack of faith in the free market.

As for the Clayton Antitrust Act and the rest of the caterwauling, I suggest calming down and studying a bit more. I can't say I've gone through an exhaustive study of the case law and precedent here but I see nothing in the Clayton act that prevents Apple from shipping a hardware/software combination-- which is good, because codifying the idea that there is only one form of competition would kill technical innovation.

 

[rasmasyean]

There's one part you seem to be forgetting. How was Apple *ABLE* to keep their margins "sane"? Do you seriously believe for one second that Dell, HP, etc. *WANTED* to charge so little for their hardware? No way. They were FORCED to under the little thing we call COMPETITION. That is what is cutt-throat and forces down prices when it works right. It is the entire basis of Capitalism and it's supposed to benefit consumers and innovation alike. The problem here is that Apple HAS NO DIRECT COMPETITION for *HARDWARE* because anyone who wants OSX *MUST* buy from Apple. So OF COURSE that keeps Apple's hardware margins viable. You have no choice but to give up your entire software library and switch operating systems (pretty drastic for long time Mac users) if you want more choices and lower prices. And THAT is where the system and justice department FAILED the consumer and enabled Apple to go from little guy to MONSTER with such a small share of the operating system market. It simply would not be possible to pull this off if Apple had even one or two competitors for hardware out there.

Some of you say that's find and good and legal, but the TRUTH is it is NOT LEGAL. The Clayton Antitrust Act entire purpose is to PREVENT this sort of thing from happening by forcing large companies to compete. At some point Apple became too large to ignore and yet it was ignored anyway, probably based on this idea that their operating system is such a tiny part of the overall OS market. The problem is the OS market has very little to do with the hardware market other than that 10% that wants OSX has ZERO choices for hardware other than Apple. Why some of you cannot SEE that is just beyond me. I've seen every stupid argument under the sun, some even from self-professed lawyers on here and NONE change the fact that Apple is guilty of anti-competition practices and they ARE large enough to matter financially to those markets. Its not just numbers! It's PROFITS! At the end of the day, there are only two factors for the consumer and one for the company. For the consumer it's choice of hardware and price and for the company it's profit margins (they couldn't care less about choices and this is witness by the fact Apple's "desktops" are actually notebooks with larger non-foldable monitors except for the Mac Pro, which is priced just out of the stratosphere as far as consumers are concerned (and is currently OUTDATED for those price points as well; insanely outdated, IMO; they didn't even update the amount of ram or hard drive space as time went on and kept the prices the same despite declining value. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CHOICES!!!! You either buy one or you switch platforms and most Mac Heads would NEVER do the latter short of sacrificing a family member.

Except the basis of Apple's success is NOT from the computer business. The only reason why it's up so "high" relative to old times is because of the iPod craze and introduction of the consumer electronics transformation. OSX and "computer hardware" has very little to do with their success. It more of less rode the fad.

Apple is still not well respected for thier computers. And one can argue a big part of Mac penetration compared to before is because it can also run Windows.

 

[bigpics]

And soon, World Domination! Muahahahahaha!

Yup.

I just wonder of whom and by whom.

 

[Lochias]

Yes, I do... (and not merely because I'm a financial analyst). Read Benjamin Graham's The Intelligent Investor and Graham and Dodd's Security Analysis for a much better understanding of business valuation... against the grain of what the hypesters on Wall Street sell you. Value investing has been shunned by the majority since Graham's time during the Great Depression, and yet it has consistently generated wealth decade after decade.* Of course it requires more research and knowledge of interpreting financial statements, so naturally it's not as attractive to the common person as fooling themselves into believing one ratio can tell them everything they need to know about the business underlying the equity issue. It also requires patience and time horizons that don't put young brokers and analysts in Ferraris overnight. The rewards are exponentially bigger, but they take some time, intellect and considerably hard work... things that bankers, analysts and brokers seem rather averse to.

But, for sake of argument, can you tell me why you would prefer to use the current market price as a predictor of value rather than the actual operating assets and cash generating ability of the business?

One tells you what the average person is dumb enough to pay. The other tells you what a shrewd person, being the scarcer of the two individuals, would pay. Why you would you prefer the former?

The most vocal champion of the value investing method (as opposed to market price speculation), and Graham's only student to be given an A+, was Warren Buffett, who is one of the three richest men in the world, worth over $50 billion. His Berkshire Hathaway Int'l, which owns over 500 companies whole, trades at over $100,000 per share.

I would say he knows something most people don't.


* Read Buffett's "The Superinvestors of Graham and Doddsville" for an analysis of the performance of value investors over market speculators over a period of 40 years.

Far be it for me to knock value investing, which you advertise with commendable passion. But you are reading far more into my comment than is there. My only point is that Apple's P/E is hardly surprising given its rate of earnings growth. If one believes, whether rightly or not, that this pattern will continue, then in the context of that belief, the stock is undervalued.

Your straw-man question, "can you tell me why you would prefer to use the current market price as a predictor of value rather than the actual operating assets and cash generating ability of the business?" -- telling me what I supposedly believe and then ridiculing it -- is something else.

You have no idea how I invest, or what in.

There's one part you seem to be forgetting. How was Apple *ABLE* to keep their margins "sane"? Do you seriously believe for one second that Dell, HP, etc. *WANTED* to charge so little for their hardware? No way. They were FORCED to under the little thing we call COMPETITION. That is what is cutt-throat and forces down prices when it works right. It is the entire basis of Capitalism and it's supposed to benefit consumers and innovation alike. The problem here is that Apple HAS NO DIRECT COMPETITION for *HARDWARE* because anyone who wants OSX *MUST* buy from Apple. So OF COURSE that keeps Apple's hardware margins viable. You have no choice but to give up your entire software library and switch operating systems (pretty drastic for long time Mac users) if you want more choices and lower prices. And THAT is where the system and justice department FAILED the consumer and enabled Apple to go from little guy to MONSTER with such a small share of the operating system market. It simply would not be possible to pull this off if Apple had even one or two competitors for hardware out there.

Some of you say that's find and good and legal, but the TRUTH is it is NOT LEGAL. The Clayton Antitrust Act entire purpose is to PREVENT this sort of thing from happening by forcing large companies to compete. At some point Apple became too large to ignore and yet it was ignored anyway, probably based on this idea that their operating system is such a tiny part of the overall OS market. The problem is the OS market has very little to do with the hardware market other than that 10% that wants OSX has ZERO choices for hardware other than Apple. Why some of you cannot SEE that is just beyond me. I've seen every stupid argument under the sun, some even from self-professed lawyers on here and NONE change the fact that Apple is guilty of anti-competition practices and they ARE large enough to matter financially to those markets. Its not just numbers! It's PROFITS! At the end of the day, there are only two factors for the consumer and one for the company. For the consumer it's choice of hardware and price and for the company it's profit margins (they couldn't care less about choices and this is witness by the fact Apple's "desktops" are actually notebooks with larger non-foldable monitors except for the Mac Pro, which is priced just out of the stratosphere as far as consumers are concerned (and is currently OUTDATED for those price points as well; insanely outdated, IMO; they didn't even update the amount of ram or hard drive space as time went on and kept the prices the same despite declining value. Why? BECAUSE YOU HAVE NO CHOICES!!!! You either buy one or you switch platforms and most Mac Heads would NEVER do the latter short of sacrificing a family member.

So OSX, an operating system used in 10% of the nation's computers, a clear monopoly with a stranglehold on the economy, is obviously covered by anti-trust legislation. I'd split the company, like the oil cartel, or the original AT&T, giving us OSX of Cupertino, OSX of Redmond, OSX of San Antonio.

 

[rasmasyean]

So OSX, an operating system used in 10% of the nation's computers, a clear monopoly with a stranglehold on the economy, is obviously covered by anti-trust legislation. I'd split the company, like the oil cartel, or the original AT&T, giving us OSX of Cupertino, OSX of Redmond, OSX of San Antonio.

It's even an inflated stat he used just for argument. It's 10% "internet usage logs" according to prolly the most favorable to Mac that logs Mac sites. The real average "internet share" is like 5%. And that's prolly inflated because since Macs small amount of apps makes them used on the internet more than PC's. Not to mention a lot of work PC's who don't get used as much as home PC's. They even have logs that show Mac share blips a little during holiday season when ppl are on vacation.