← Back to context

Comment by tchalla

10 hours ago

> Under Cook’s leadership Apple has grown from a market capitalization of approximately $350 billion to $4 trillion, representing a more than 1,000% increase, and yearly revenue has nearly quadrupled, from $108 billion in fiscal year 2011 to more than $416 billion in fiscal year 2025.

Quite successful.

I also liked the part about growing the company while reducing its carbon footprint by more than 60%.

Even if that figure might somehow be inflated, it is impressive nonetheless.

This is what’s all bad with us stocks and completely disconnected with market value: Revenue jumped 4x but market capitalization got inflated to 12x.

  • The price over earnings (arguably an imperfect, but better way to compare stock prices against each other than using pure revenue) for Apple has been fluctuating within about a factor of 2 for the last 20 years. Since before the iPhone, people were nervous about the possibility of sustained growth of profits of the company, and the P/E was similar to today. Once Apple started making a lot more money under Tim Cook, the price was at a relative discount becauee 10 years ago people were certain (but wrong) that this run would end soon and badly. The long term stability under Cook was truly impressive. Lets see what the markets think abiut the leadership change tomorrow, but probably this is not an immediate event.

  • Investors are forward-looking, though, so it just means that they think the future looks brighter than the immediate past.

    The real disconnect IMO is TSLA.

    • Equities as large as Apple act as stores of value like gold, so it could just mean there's more money to be invested. You would need to compare Apple against what happened to the market in general.

  • Yep. QE was a monumental mistake that killed economic mobility. Asset owners vs wage earners.

  • Some of that is debasement, but some of that is that there is no other brand like Apple.

    Would you not own stock of the most valuable brand in human history?

    • It's not the brand - it's not like Apple's hit this valuation in isolation Meta, Nvidia, Google, Microsoft all enjoy similar.

      It's the cash-money value of putting a fee on all digital goods and subscriptions and cash transactions in a world predisposed to forming and consolidating around monopolies. What does Apple's services revenue look like in another 20 years when Africa, China and India are paying their smartphone provider every time a dollar moves, a few billion more people paying one of two companies every time for their music, movies and tv, games, books, real-world transactions... in de-facto perpetuity.

  • True, but also Apple is in a far more dominant position today.

    Alongside Nvidia they essentially monopolize TSMCs entire latest generation chip supply.

    That’s a moat in hardware that is going to get even stronger over time. Given this hardware moat they can dip their toes gently into the B2B market they’ve never really cared about and pick up another few hundred billion in high margin revenue over the next 10 years no problem.

    I’ve always found it weird that Apple’s entire org runs on Mac but no other Fortune 500 company on earth does. Seems like an opportunity to nibble away at Microsoft.

For the same period:

AMZN: +2100% META: +1700% MSFT: +1300% GOOG: +1400%

  • This is a specious comparison at best. Apple is, at heart, a hardware company. They have different growth profiles. A consumer hardware company getting that sort of growth is mind boggling.

  • Was meta a public company back then? Amazon, I think, was quite small, too.

    • You're right, Facebook didn't go public until May 2012, after the start of the period mentioned. Amazon went public in '97.