Apple’s “market capitalization has doubled since Tim Cook was named CEO in August 2011,” Eric Slivka reports for MacRumors.
“Apple’s stock is up nearly 60 percent over the past year and up 24 percent since the company’s October 16 media event, which was followed just days later by a strong earnings report,” Slivka reports. “Looking forward, Apple is expected to show blockbuster iPhone sales for the holiday quarter, and Wall Street is anticipating continued strong performance into 2015 as Apple looks to add yet another product category to its mix with the Apple Watch.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: As we wrote back on April 24, 2012 (when Apple traded around $76 per share):
People who underestimate Tim Cook, earnestly or not, are like potholes that cause bags full of filthy, beautiful money to fall out of armored cars right into our laps.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dominick P.” for the heads up.]
I want to start a movement, so that if Apple has to pay the $400 million eBook settlement, each consumer receiving their $4, signs the check over to Tim Cook as a tip, with a note saying “To hell with the justice department, your way was better.”
That’s an awesome idea!!
I’d love to see the face Judge Denise (Turn)Cote if this could possibly be arranged.
Priceless!! – for everthing else there’s Pay
I would do it. And if it happened, I have no doubt that Tim Cook would donate the proceeds to charity. If it were a children’s literacy program, the irony would be doubled for the DOJ.
Imagine where Apple would be if they had fired Tim Cook. /s
Yes. Probably in the dumps, since the popular option was to have Scott Forstall run the company into the ground.
Ignorant people are unable to admit they are wrong even when the truth is shoved in their faces.
jay? jay? Are you there?
He’s checking the thesaurus for synonyms of ‘incontinence’ and ‘chickenshit’
Thank you Tim Cook and Apple’s team for making Apple’s shareholders richer. Happy Thanksgiving to you all.
Indeed! This shareholder is very pleased with the management, creatives, retail and other team member. Happy Thanksgiving!
The statement, “Apple’s net worth has doubled since Tim Cook became CEO” is patently false.
A company’s “net worth” is based upon book value. Apple’s book value absolutely NOT doubled since Tim Cook took over. NOT EVEN CLOSE.
The market capitalization has doubled. If you take the market capitalization then subtract Apple’s new debt, the net difference would not be double what the market capitalization was when Tim took over (with zero debt).
Yes, Tim has done a fantastic job of building a better and more powerful *company*.
Jobs was much more focused on products, and he felt that delivering what he (Jobs) felt were great products would inherently (as a direct secondary effect) create a great company.
Tim is focused the other way around: build a great company, and it will create great products.
Remember Jobs did not want outside apps for iPhone. Jobs did not want a bigger iPhone. Jobs made the Lisa, the Newton, etc etc. he parked in the handicap spaces. He was far from perfect. Many think of him like Reagan. Many bad ideas amongst the great. Worst he was wrong about cancer.
Jobs did not do the Newton .
And how is any part of your post relevant to my post?
The primary reason the Lisa failed was because of the price (other reasons were the initial dearth of software and a dramatically new interface). Jobs lobbied against such a high price, but not strongly — and absolutely not strongly enough.
Jobs was very often a jerk. That is well documented.
Yet again, how is any of this relevant to my post?
The main point is that Apple’s new worth has NOT doubled. Apple’s commonly recognized “market capitalization” has doubled in that the total number of outstanding AAPL shares times the current market value of each share of APPL stock has doubled.
The other sub point was that Tim is focusing on Apple and AAPL. Jobs was focused on products. I did not claim that Jobs always went with great products (you need look no further than the hockey puck mouse to see that). I just claimed that Jobs was more product focused.
Using a response to my post as purely a vehicle to denounce Jobs should be beneath even you.
So what was the book value when Cook took over, and what is it now?
The headline is wrong, the text talks about something else (market capitalisation).
Book value doesn’t reflect much the actual success of the company; the goal is not to hoard money (although Apple does have a tendency to do that), but to use it wisely, so the book value (assets less liabilities) should not be astronomically high; that would meant that a company has no clue what to do with their money, and the board of directors doesn’t have a clue either. This isn’t the case with Apple.
Cook is a bozo, the sooner he is fired, the sooner real innovation and quality can return to Apple.
Yeah, like the hockey puck mouse. And the Performa. Also bring back Ping, at least 15 people used that wonderful music sharing service.
Cook has had to deal with inheriting and handling the toughest corporate “CEO-ship” in modern history. Who else could follow the emotional, personal (founder) leadership and perception of great product creativity, engineering, and marketing brilliance legacy that Steve Jobs (rightfully) left with his adoring fans-both consumers and on Wall Street? When SJ died, flowers and love notes were left on Apple Store windows around the world. “Hit-whore” pundits and writers have made a living out of trying to whack Cook and accuse him of being a one-dimensional logistics specialist who couldn’t promote any innovation for over three years. He’s had to keep 100,000 employees motivated, satisfied, and dedicated after the loss of the most famous and beloved (by many) company founders of a generation. As Cook says, it takes crocodile skin! Who doesn’t believe that? Thank you to the very few analysts and faithful stockholders who could exercise patience, reason, and good judgement to know that when SJ hand picked TC to be his successor, that SJ knew exactly what he was doing (as usual).
Not because of him. In spite of him.