Consider that Apple's P/E is 24.5 and Microsoft's P/E is 13.4. Basically, while Apple may be in demand right now, Microsoft is earning almost twice as much.<p>Also, Microsoft pays a (albeit small) dividend, whereas Apple does not.
Some would argue that they were always worth more. :-)<p>It's interesting that this happened without breaking Microsoft's 90% desktop monopoly. Apple got bigger but it wasn't to the detriment of Microsoft. They just grew into new markets.
If you consider the PEG ratio of both, you'll actually see that when taking growth rate into consideration, Apple is still cheaper than Microsoft...barely. So, if you put faith in PEG ratios, Apple is still a better buy. If you don't know what a PEG ratio is, check it out here <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEG_ratio" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PEG_ratio</a>
The thing that's most interesting about all this is the predicament that Microsoft now finds itself in. They just lost two top guys - J. Allard & Robbie Bach - and you have to wonder just how rudderless Microsoft is at the moment. They've invested heavily in their core tech - mostly a good idea - but then they have really nothing to compete with Apple or Google in the mobile space, at least until their new phone os hits (and even then it faces a serious uphill battle). Balmer is probably wishing he had bought Palm at this point.<p>I wonder if Bach and/or Allard end up at Google... a GBox has a nice ring to it actually.
This surprises me given that it seems pretty clear they are about to lose their projected dominance in the smartphone game to Android. I can't see how you can justify that sort of valuation without projecting them to be the dominant smartphone platform. The iPad seems to be doing well but it all hinges on the same OS as the iPhone. Is it possible that Jobs "reality distortion" field is now working on the market?
Interesting tidbit, when you scroll down the page to the end where the logos are displayed, the apple logo looks new, shiny and modern, the microsoft logo looks old and boring.<p>Their corporate images reflect the logos quite well.<p>edit: funny moderation here, would you mind telling me why ? Apple logo on the page not shiny ? Microsoft logo not old and boring ? Or do you - mistakenly - take me for an apple fanboy or something ?
According to the ancient, unspoken rules of the Silicon Valley elders, this means that Bill will have to pass the Sacred Dagger of Evil to Steve in a secret ceremony with the sacrifice of a virgin. Apple fans are already lining up by the hundreds, hoping to be the "chosen one". Said one "well, yeah, stabbed to death, but...hey, it's Apple! The iDagger is so cool!"
The real question is whether Apple's growth is defensible?<p>Talking about smart phones, Apple is a latecomer to the industry, and does not have a sufficiently strong patent pool to prevent competitors like Oracle, HP and MS from encroaching.<p>Apple is the first to deliver to the mass market affordable tablet computing and touch computing devices. This will remain growth areas, and hence Apple's willingness to accept lower margins in return for a beachhead and a sufficiently large user-base to establish itself as a platform-play.<p>However, further on, Apple is going to have to finely balance the tension of being the most widely used vs being "exclusive", "cool", or "different". Give a few years when competitors reach feature parity, Apple will be at crossroads whether to go mass market or boutique.
Apple, unlike Microsoft, is well-positioned to take advantage of demise of high-tech industry as we know it. This demise has already happened once, with an industry that was "hi-tech" for centuries: clocks and watches.<p><a href="http://abandontheweb.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-hi-tech-timeless.html" rel="nofollow">http://abandontheweb.blogspot.com/2005/11/is-hi-tech-timeles...</a>
I hate the fact that Apple is soo good at what they do. They go after the dumber people trying to be in style. They are such a closed company. If they were a government, they would be totalitarian country. I for one will never support them because of their closed mindedness.
Wow, that happened a <i>lot</i> faster than I thought it would. Well, to be honest, I think I <i>wanted</i> Apple to overtake Microsoft more than I ever thought I'd see it happen.<p>I wonder if in a few years from now Facebook'll overtake MS and Apple? ;)
Did MG Siegler just violate SEC laws by not disclosing if he owns Apple stock and telling thousands of his readers that Apple stock will continue to increase?
wow.. 25$ a share for MS vs. 250$ for Apple?
As much as i like that Apple innovates and does produce good products, you'll have to be blind to not see the share crash in the future.. it strongly reminds me of the old startup days..<p>I mean (not offending) MS products are deployed in what.. 95% of all computers? office in every companies PC? Windows?<p>Ok, Apple does have music selling through itunes, hardware (very low market share here!) and the mobile app sales.<p>I don't know, i'd rather want to see the income of both companies per division, that'd be more meaningful to me, at least. A lot of shareholders betting insane amounts of money into a company seems to be too familiar.<p>(Also i'm usualy not interested in shares and such, so i've probably missed something)