“One difference between the tech giants of the dot-com era and tech giants now?” Justin Lahart writes for The Wall Street Journal. “Today’s juggernauts really are massive, and not just in the eyes of exuberant investors.”
“That doesn’t mean they don’t present risks,” Lahart writes. “When the dot-com bubble reached its apex on March 10, 2000, the prices put on that era’s major tech companies made them simply too big to ignore. Microsoft, Cisco, Intel and Oracle — a group that earned the moniker ‘the four horsemen’ (with Dell Computer sometimes taking Oracle’s place) — accounted for about 13.9% of the S&P 500’s market capitalization.”
“Among those old favorites, only one — Microsoft is worth more today, having recently reclaimed the No. 1 slot,” Lahart writes. “It is closely followed by Apple, Amazon and Google parent Alphabet. Together, the stablemates account for about 13.5% of the S&P 500’s market value—not far from the old horsemen’s historic share. Today’s versions have a lot more economic clout, though. ”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Whenever Microsoft is valued higher than Apple, as it is slightly today, you know the market lacks even basic understanding of the two companies. ‘Tis Apple’s lot in life to be underestimated, undervalued, and under appreciated at least as much as Microsoft is overestimated, overvalued, and over appreciated.
On that note, let us drown our disgust with fermented libations! Interns, tap that keg!
Hoist! May the market someday wake up, understand Apple for a chance, and properly value the company! Cheers, everyone!
It’s always important to get this kind of historic perspective when there’s a panic about something like the market power of technology giants. Also, the fact that Oracle, Cisco and Intel are now only shadowy presences on the fringe of the sector is a remind that All Things Must Pass.
Bill “All Things Must Pass” is a funny term, and I hope it doesn’t mean Apple will drop its comitment to excellence.
Excellence is not defined by being the lightest, smallest device to exist. If it did in cars, the SMART car would be the worldwide best seller. NOT.
The most striking thing to me, after using Macs since the 512k & now with the advent of mega-security issues in recent years is the no almost universal loss of user exchangeable parts for “Pro” Macs.
Batteries, keyboards, RAM memory and hard/SSD drives were routinely changed when needed. The sudden obsession by Apple after the MacBook Air to make every other MacBook thinner and lighter doesn’t register with me as a good choice.
Relatively few Mac users live within 30 miles of an Apple Store, if a repair is needed, which is a reasonable distance to drive. Lots of Mac users live hours away from an Apple store.
What do all these internal items mean in terms of the users ability to function? RAM going South means you are DEAD until you can replace it. Batteries, HD/SSDs and Keyboards can be overcome by an AC charger and an external drive and keyboard, which is regression in my opinion.
The bean counters at Apple probably say “70% of our laptop users buy a new MacBook every 3 years, so our component lifespan should be only about 4 years.”
However, lots of us may buy a new MacBook/Pro, but we keep the older machines around for 10 years for all sorts of good usable reasons.
can
I have really been puzzled as to why Wallstreet sees so much value in Microsoft. We haven’t seen anything new come out of Microsoft in years, except for that bullshit smoke and mirror show called Hololens and the Surface computer/tablet with a few sales. Except for Azure services, pretty much everything they make is on the decline.
If you look at the numbers it’s all about Microsoft’s enterprise computing business, which is now based on Azure. From an investor point of view the devices barely matter.
M$ own the PC OS / Server and Office app market. Its recurring revenue for them and for the most part companies are so intwined with M$ that there is no way they can get out.