Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 82 posts

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#71

Post by Bro_Merch »

ekianjo wrote: post #44
nitrogen wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people buying branded t-shirts may simply prefer the fit and price of a shirt, and don't care what it says on it.

Somehow I find it very hard to believe. Remove the logo on the lacoste polo shirt and the Nike shoes and see if they would buy it still.

While I do agree with the side you are arguing for, last winter I bought a pair of brown Lacoste shoes that had wool inside them. I sought out the specific pair of shoes because they didn't have a single logo except in the rubber of the sole and I didn't want to be /that/ guy.

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#72

Post by akgerber »

nitrogen wrote: post #54
ekianjo wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Somehow I find it very hard to believe. Remove the logo on the lacoste polo shirt and the Nike shoes and see if they would buy it still.

I'll use myself as a proof by counterexample. When I was buying my t-shirts from places I actually wanted to support, like ThinkGeek, or buying solid colored t-shirts with no logos, I found that the poor fit of the t-shirts was making me look bad and feel uncomfortable. Eventually I was talked into going "shopping" by a couple of female friends (actually, I talked them into being my guide), and found that the only t-…

ThinkGeek apparently uses Gildan shirts, which are cheap, baggy shirts made out of thick cotton; you were probably buying shirts of similar quality when you bought plain shirts.

Since it seems you're spending more on shirts now, you're probably getting a better quality product. Plenty of stores from Target to Gap to American Apparel and so on have better-fitting shirts made out of lighter-weight material with no visible logos, likewise in a range of prices.

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#73

Post by [deleted] »

nasmorn wrote: post #23

Actually to really compare the weight the company had in its days it is more meaningful to compare its market cap to GDP. Wolfram Alpha gives me 852 billion for 1967 so IBMs market cap was approx. 22.5% of that. 2012's estimated GPD is 15.6 trillion thus Apple has a mere 4.2% of that. That was how big IBM really felt back then.

[deleted]

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#74

Post by hollerith »

huxley wrote: post #70
hollerith wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Am curious why someone downvoted this.

It's because the linked article double counted inflation: "IBM’s 1967 market cap was not $1.3 trillion in real dollars, it was $192.3 billion"

Then why not downvote the dozens of other comments that missed the double count?

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#75

Post by tibbon »

ximeng wrote: post #8

Most valuable publicly traded company perhaps, see Saudi Aramco: http://blogs.mccombs.utexas.edu/titman/2010/03/01/more-thoug...

It does bother me how the US media seems to forget about this 'little' company that probably provides half the gas in their cars...

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#76

Post by mp99e99 »

This is a ridiculous article. Its obvious the world is becoming more competitive (ie there are no modern day John Rockefellers adjusted for inflation). What Apple has accomplished is amazing, and I'm not even an Apple fanboy. Credit where credit is due, and Apple hasn't topped -- yet!

If you're the top market capitalization company, you're doing something right (especially from where Apple came from). Its like winning gold and saying well you didn't beat the world record so you're gold doesn't count.

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#77

Post by chmars »

Luc wrote: post #66
ximeng wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean trillion I think.

A long-scale billion is a short-scale trillion. How I hate this confusion! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long_and_short_scales

Thanks, I never know which one to use if a use English with a mixed audience.

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#78

Post by microtherion »

hollerith wrote: post #34
nasmorn wrote: post #23

Actually to really compare the weight the company had in its days it is more meaningful to compare its market cap to GDP. Wolfram Alpha gives me 852 billion for 1967 so IBMs market cap was approx. 22.5% of that. 2012's estimated GPD is 15.6 trillion thus Apple has a mere 4.2% of that. That was how big IBM really felt back then.

Am curious why someone downvoted this.

I didn't downvote it, but the calculation appears wrong: the $852.7B are nominal 1967 GDP; in 2012 dollars, this would correspond to more than $4T, so IBM was less than 5% of GDP even back then.

Re: Apple Is Not The Most Valuable Company In The History Of The World — IBM Is

#80

Post by pedalpete »

saraid216 wrote: post #48
CurtHagenlocher wrote: post #3

Why do people even care? Has consumer culture so overtaken our minds that we identify personally with the things that we buy?

Derail. Can you actually tell me why identifying personally with the things we buy is a bad thing?

There is a difference between identifying with the things you buy, and the things you buy being your identity.

Identifying with Apple because you like x,y,z of their vision/products/services, etc. is one thing. The value of Apple as a public company having an effect on your identity is a completely different monster I think.

I wish I could put it into words why it feels so wrong, but hopefully somebody else here can explain the difference.

Post reply on HN