Google Surpasses Apple as World's Most Valuable Company

[Santabean2000]

Thread has gone off the rails with product debates. What Apple sells has almost no effect on the stock market. OSX on the iPad ain't going to move the market needle. Speculative investors want to see growth. They saw a flat iPhone and a declining iPad. Apple's two main revenue streams.

Eh? Umm, it has everything to do with what Apple sells. More sales equals more growth. Growth is what Wall St looks for. The big worry at the moment is that Apple relies too much on iPhone (and iPad), thus growth in other areas is all important.

Apple Watch has the most potential for growth, but it was released half baked.

One might argue that the original iPhone wasn't ready either, but the difference there was just how unique it was at the time; there was nothing like it. Apple Watch has no significant points of difference from competitors.

 

[Apple Corps]

This thread has some of the most astute commentary on this topic that I have read. For over two years I have been very critical of Cook and some of the executive team. The Cook lovers love to launch their rebuttals and deride my posts.

It is becoming so apparent that Cook is the Steve Ballmer of Apple (my signature for years). I fear we are in the middle of the lost decade for Apple.

The easy problem would be if Cook were simply dismal (as he is) in the PR area and interacting with Wall Street. The evidence is mounting that the real problem is far more serious - he is not a product guy / he is not a marketer / he is not an innovator. He is a supply chain person - not what is needed for Apple.

I'm wondering how long before (if) we see $105/snare.

 

[jdillings]

#LetsMakeAppleGreatAgain

 

[Fenez]

This isn't a huge deal...Apple is considered a value stock at the moment. It's not going to fall apart. Google is considered a growth stock for the time being. From a consumers stand point it should make no difference which company is the lead. As long as it pushes these companies to innovate we will benefit from it.

 

[Gudi]

Meanwhile Google is investing in all the right places: artificial intelligence (!!!), biotechnology, and they almost certainly aren't stupid enough to try and sell a Google branded car (they are likely to just license it out to carmakers).

However, you are certainly stupid enough to believe artificial intelligence is a good investment. Contrary to over half a century of research in that field with very minor outcome so far. But you've managed to convince me of one thing, it can't be too hard to build a machine that is smarter than a human. To meet human intelligence is not an overly ambitious goal.

 

[Rogifan]

Apple is really dependent on the iPhone. Way too dependent.

Google is dependent on advertising, but not as much as Apple is dependent on the iPhone. Google also has Android and other successful services, so if one fails or stops growing, it doesn't affect the company as much.

The problem is that the smartphone market is extremely saturated, and that really affects the iPhone's sales, which affect Apple. A lot.

The only thing holding Apple from falling off the cliff is iPhone.

What? 90% of Google's revenue comes from advertising. You can't get more dependent than that. And they may have other successful services but how much money are they making off of them? Android isn't a big revenue generator for Google either. It's not about Google being more diversified (they're not) it's that Wall Street views them as basically a monopoly and that any day now someone is going to build a better "mousetrap" and Apple will be finished. The way some analysts write about Apple you'd think they were one bad quarter away from going out of business. It's complete nonsense.

 

[timborama]

This thread has some of the most astute commentary on this topic that I have read. For over two years I have been very critical of Cook and some of the executive team. The Cook lovers love to launch their rebuttals and deride my posts.

It is becoming so apparent that Cook is the Steve Ballmer if Apple (my signature for years). I fear we are in the middle of the lost decade for Apple.

The easy problem would be if Cook were simply dismal (as he is) in the PR area and interacting with Wall Street. The evidence is mounting that the real problem is far more serious - he is not a product guy / he is not a marketer / he is not an innovator. He is a supply chain person - not what is needed for Apple.

I'm wondering how long before (if) we see $105/snare.

You're absolutely correct. I don't think anyone would argue Apples best days are behind them. Pick any metric you want to define "best"... leadership, innovation, quality, products, stock price, etc, etc.

 

[iBug2]

I hope Apple shares keep dropping so Apple buys back all its shares and finally becomes a privately owned company. Then nobody will have to worry about this anymore.

 

[monkmartinez]

I can say the same to you about Apple's other products. Besides that's not the message your post conveyed. You're saying Apple may as well close up business if the iPhone someday fails. Ridiculous! Apple keeps on reinventing themselves. Jobs got the Mac business to high success. Today virtually everywhere you will see someone with a Mac. After he got the Mac business going again he introduced the iPod and iTunes and they were nothing short of major smash hits. No other company that tried to copy the iPod and iTunes were successful. People said Apple was gonna die if the iPod finally died. Well guess what, they brought out the iPhone.

Then Jobs introduced the iPad and people laughed at Apple. iPad is now the biggest selling tablet in the U.S. You can go ahead and deny that Apple can't make it in life without the iPhone, but they're too smart to rely on one product. They've already proven that. Too bad you refuse to see that.

I don't think anyone will doubt the past because it is easy to see and analyze. What a lot of people doubt is the way forward. Count me in the group that has serious reservations about Apple going forward. Apple has had a great run, they may yet pull a rabbit out of the hat... but they had better do it soon. The economy looks dicey and and we may have heard the Silicon Valley bubble pop last month. Time will tell.

Compare the general utility of the companies in question: Apple vs. Google. How much money did you pull out of your own bank account to give to Google last year? Now ask the same question about Apple. Go back a decade...

I have given $25 dollars of my money to Google as a company in the last 5 years. I've given Apple several (several) thousand(my last upgrade 5 years ago). Yet, Google has found a way to make way more on me as a product... (most people give them ZERO dollars). Not only that, they provide incredible utility for me and, hazard to guess, a lot here via search, youtube, gmail and docs/drive.

As electronic gadgets become commoditized (xiaomi'ed), the trend toward simplification and cheap devices that speak to the network will gain steam. Apple is a big loser here. Furthermore, the network devices they do make are becoming more and more unfriendly toward people that like to tinker or don't have the capital to upgrade every year (Think the rest of the world). OSX/iOS are becoming more buggy, exactly when it needs to become rock solid.

My data has never been more portable with all the cloud services. The big loser in this space will be companies that stick with walled gardens and autocratic policies. Most apps that people use in professional settings, sans heavy graphics/video, are going cross platform or, more aptly, THE WEB.

Apple is in big trouble. I am a die hard OSX aficionado and I refuse to upgrade my mac until I can take RAM on and off at my leisure. I am not afraid to switch. I ditched the iPhone with iOS 7. What I've found is that I am more worried about data integrity and portability. That is, data that is agnostic to OS and services. If you are 100% apple, you are beholden to the whim of Apple, that is a suckers bet.

 

[Apple Corps]

I hope Apple shares keep dropping so Apple buys back all its shares and finally becomes a privately owned company. Then nobody will have to worry about this anymore.

The stock price is the symptom - the underlying issues are what you should be equally worried about.

 

[thekeyring]

Apple is really dependent on the iPhone. Way too dependent.

Google is dependent on advertising, but not as much as Apple is dependent on the iPhone. Google also has Android and other successful services, so if one fails or stops growing, it doesn't affect the company as much.

The problem is that the smartphone market is extremely saturated, and that really affects the iPhone's sales, which affect Apple. A lot.

The only thing holding Apple from falling off the cliff is iPhone.

Are you freaking kidding me? Without iPhone Apple is as profitable as Google or Microsoft.

I miss the days not too long ago when the people on this forum actually had a grasp on reality.

 

[69Mustang]

Eh? Umm, it has everything to do with what Apple sells. More sales equals more growth. Growth is what Wall St looks for. The big worry at the moment is that Apple relies too much on iPhone (and iPad), thus growth in other areas is all important.

Apple Watch has the most potential for growth, but it was released half baked.

One might argue that the original iPhone wasn't ready either, but the difference there was just how unique it was at the time; there was nothing like it. Apple Watch has no significant points of difference from competitors.

I wasn't referencing what Apples sells as in specific issues with products being discussed in this thread. 16GB phones, No 4K ATV, half baked watches... none of that stuff has ever affected AAPL. It's all affected Apple, but not the stock. Unfortunately esoteric minutiae has dominated the comments. 32GB minimums aren't going to increase sales. Neither is... ahhh, you almost got me going down that road I just complained about. As many have said, stock speculators look for future growth. They didn't see it and it reflected in the stock dropping.

 

[iBug2]

The stock price is the symptom - the underlying issues are what you should be equally worried about.

I don't see any major issues with Apple at the moment. I'm happy with their products as always.

 

[Keirasplace]

It's all about growth. The concern is that Apple has peaked, and its profits have nowhere to go but down, while Alphabet's are growing.

Yeah, growth over how long.... if you grow 5% 5% 5% 5% (year 4) 5% 5% (company 1), is it better than 20% 20% 30% 0% (year 4) 0% (year5) ? (year 6) (company 2).

By your "logic", company 1, is a better bet than company 2, despite the second one being nearly twice the size of the first one by year 3.

Also, that doesn't explain low PE for Apple 2 years ago.

IF Apple bought Tesla I'd bet its stock would go up 50% despite it being the dumbest move ever (and an expensive one too).

There is no logic to traders, just justification.

 

[SusanK]

Yeah, but Apple makes the most profit and that's what is important to most consumers.

The $$ will really roll in when the MAR is on the market.

 

[BWhaler]

Sorry to tell you, your post has no effect on me or most others no doubt. That sort of post isn't necessarily taken seriously as you might hope it would.

No need to apologize. It's just someone sharing their opinion. Not everyone is going to agree. That's the nature of it.

The important part is to have a good discussion.

 

[driceman]

Wow, Wall Street really does look at growth over absolute earnings. After all, if you remove iPhone from Apple's balance sheet, it still makes roughly the same as Google.

Correct, because as an investor what matters is that your investment, well, grows. If it doesn't do that, it's not a good investment, no matter how much money the company is making. In regards to making money in the stock market, Apple is kind of becoming a victim of its own success.

I think Cook made a mistake in caving to investors' wishes- giving out dividends, actually paying attention to their demands for higher profit margins, etc. Jobs never did so because he put the customer before the investor, and that was just one more way his business model succeeded where the competition failed. Sure, in the short run you can make more money by keeping a 16 GB iPhone 6s model available in the year 2016 or pushing iOS 9 on iPhone 4s users to basically force them to upgrade, but in the long run customers have a worse experience when their phone runs out of space, and then they start wondering why the Samsung Galaxy S6 and Note 5 right next to it are similarly priced and have 32 GB of storage. Jobs's model was all about giving customers an outstanding experience so they never even consider leaving Apple's platform, and Apple needs to remind themselves of that. Sure, Jobs told Cook not to ask "What would Steve do?", but that doesn't mean to completely ignore why Apple was so successful under him.

I'm not an Android fan personally- I tried it out and had a pretty lousy experience. But Google does have Apple beat in some areas, particularly online services.

Maybe this will give Apple a wakeup call. I guess we'll have to see. I hardly think it qualifies as "Apple is doomed" news, however.

 

[Santabean2000]

I wasn't referencing what Apples sells as in specific issues with products being discussed in this thread. 16GB phones, No 4K ATV, half baked watches... none of that stuff has ever affected AAPL. It's all affected Apple, but not the stock. Unfortunately esoteric minutiae has dominated the comments. 32GB minimums aren't going to increase sales. Neither is... ahhh, you almost got me going down that road I just complained about. As many have said, stock speculators look for future growth. They didn't see it and it reflected in the stock dropping.

You may see these things as trifling matters, but I can't disagree more. It is Apple's ecosystem that provides the 'stickiness' that retains customers; the foundation upon what growth is built. Any future growth is contingent on retaining the customers you already have.

I think there are a world of disenfranchised perviously loyal customers - the originals, the influences - who don't like the road Apple is taking. Growth is about momentum and to my mind it is clear Apple is losing some and this is why.

Also, you ignored my comment on the Apple Watch; wearables being the market most likely for rapid expansive growth. Apple's entry into this market was weak. A me-too product that doesn't do a good job of differentiating itself any any meaningful way. Too busy on colours and bands. And gold $10,000 wtf?!

I feel that if they simplified their product range, stopped penny pinching on base models, released fully-realised kit and focused on the customer again (instead of spreadsheets) that there would be a lot more positive talk about Apple.

 

[MrX8503]

You may see these things as trifling matters, but I can't disagree more. It is Apple's ecosystem that provides the 'stickiness' that retains customers; the foundation upon what growth is built. Any future growth is contingent on retaining the customers you already have.

I think there are a world of disenfranchised perviously loyal customers - the originals, the influences - who don't like the road Apple is taking. Growth is about momentum and to my mind it is clear Apple is losing some and this is why.

Also, you ignored my comment on the Apple Watch; wearables being the market most likely for rapid expansive growth. Apple's entry into this market was weak. A me-too product that doesn't do a good job of differentiating itself any any meaningful way. Too busy on colours and bands. And gold $10,000 wtf?!

I feel that if they simplified their product range, stopped penny pinching on base models, released fully-realised kit and focused on the customer again (instead of spreadsheets) that there would be a lot more positive talk about Apple.

Nothing is going to move the needle until Apple has another iPhone-like breakout success.

 

[linuxcooldude]

Good. Google actually tries to innovate. Apple continues to regurgitate.

Yeah...google glass (Lingering, but barely), google wave dead , Google Buzz dead, driverless cars ( Still waiting ), Google+ ( Waiting to die ). Apple hit more out of the ball park than Google.
[doublepost=1454393750][/doublepost]

Sorry - but you're just wrong. Love or hate Google - they are constantly investing in R&D beyond the consumer market. They have tons of research projects and studies. Some of their projects fail but they keep trying. That's to be commended actually.

Goole tend to hype products and services, some, that never see the light of day. Apple does a lot of R&D on different technology they never talk about.

 

[Max(IT)]

Better products equals more sales, more growth. Growth is about all Wall St looks at; i.e everything to do with this thread.

Uninformed posts like yours, blindly defending Apple have nothing to do with this thread.

Better products and more sales aren't related.
Otherwise according to well known posters here, Galaxy S6 edge would have sold more than the iPhone 6S, and that's far from the truth.
Wall Street don't even know what an iPhone is, technically. They don't care.

So the uninformed posts are yours. Another ranting about Apple.

 

[Taj Armstrong]

well only selling 2 million iPad Pros in the LAUNCH quarter after all the hype Apple gave it last September has to be pretty disappointing. How about they tell us actual iWatch sales.

How about calling it an Apple Watch so you look like you know what your talking about? Also, 2 million iPad Pros that, by the way, started selling in the middle of the quarter, was enough to pass Microsoft's Surface sales for the whole quarter.

 

[BvizioN]

You mean the archaic oil companies powering the world nowadays?

Or ****ing up the world....
[doublepost=1454394522][/doublepost]

How about they tell us actual iWatch sales.

Some things NEVER change!

 

[Zirel]

Apple is really dependent on the iPhone. Way too dependent.

Google is dependent on advertising, but not as much as Apple is dependent on the iPhone. Google also has Android and other successful services, so if one fails or stops growing, it doesn't affect the company as much.

The problem is that the smartphone market is extremely saturated, and that really affects the iPhone's sales, which affect Apple. A lot.

The only thing holding Apple from falling off the cliff is iPhone.

Ridiculous, just ridiculous.

Advertising via the only source of income to Google, and represents more than 90% of their revenue, compared to less than 70% of the iPhone.

Regurgitating BS you read from Google fanboys leads to this.

 

[5-0-5-0]

Google revenue still 90% ads, yet Apple's the one trick pony doomed for being too reliant on iPhone.

Google's "other bets" is just a money pit but I guess everyone would just call that innovation.

Btw, for FY2015 Apple's YOY revenue and earnings growth was greater than Google's.

I think we understand Google has innovation, being all
They do is advertise. I missing something here?
[doublepost=1454395887][/doublepost]

For FY2015 Apple's YOY earnings growth was greater than Google's. Apple's being punished right now because FY Q1 and Q2 2015 were TOO good and almost impossible to replicate. But still Apple's profit in ONE QUARTER (FY Q1 2016) was almost equal to Google's profit for an ENTIRE YEAR (FY 2015).

What? Where is your source for this? Apples and Oranges. Clearly.



It's all about sentiment and narrative. Wall Street loves so-called "services" companies and companies with little exposure to China right now. Kind of ironic considering a few years ago Wall Street was concerned because Apple wasn't penetrating enough into China. Now having lots of business in China is a bad thing.

[doublepost=1454396010][/doublepost]

There's nothing meh about the Apple Pencil. In fact I'd say it's as innovative as anything that came out of Jobs 2.0 aside from multi touch.

Why? It is a tool limited to one thing. Multi-Touch has a long way to go and will rely heavily on 3rd Party apps to jump in.
[doublepost=1454396102][/doublepost]

Stock price and company valuation should be based on fundamentals not speculative moon shots. The vast majority of Alphabet revenue comes from Google, which is 90% advertising. I don't disagree that Apple is undervalued because of perception. But Google's stock price didn't jump today because of moo shots that are basically moneypits.

I think this Advertising 101 we already are aware of.
[doublepost=1454396288][/doublepost]

What? 90% of Google's revenue comes from advertising. You can't get more dependent than that. And they may have other successful services but how much money are they making off of them? Android isn't a big revenue generator for Google either. It's not about Google being more diversified (they're not) it's that Wall Street views them as basically a monopoly and that any day now someone is going to build a better "mousetrap" and Apple will be finished. The way some analysts write about Apple you'd think they were one bad quarter away from going out of business. It's complete nonsense.

Google has and will always be a money pit. Ummm....pretty sure they paid Apple $1 million just to be used on their Safari web search page as the primary search engine.
[doublepost=1454396410][/doublepost]

I think we understand Google has innovation, being all
They do is advertise. I missing something here?
[doublepost=1454395887][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1454396010][/doublepost]

Why? It is a tool limited to one thing. Multi-Touch has a long way to go and will rely heavily on 3rd Party apps to jump in.
[doublepost=1454396102][/doublepost]

I think this Advertising 101 we already are aware of.
[doublepost=1454396288][/doublepost]

Google has and will always be a money pit. Ummm....pretty sure they paid Apple $1 million just to be used on their Safari web search page as the primary search engine.

Edit: 1 Billion paid by Google to Apple.