backtop


Print 24 comment(s) - last by michael2k.. on May 11 at 9:52 AM


  (Source: innovationsinnewspapers.com)
Apple surpasses tech giants like Google, IBM and Microsoft

The annual BrandZ study of the world's top 100 brands, which is produced by agency Millward Brown, has declared Apple as the world's most valuable brand

Apple, which was founded in 1976 by Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne, is a consumer electronics and computer software corporation that has designed and marketed several new popular products in recent years. For instance, the iPod lineup has offered a variety of music players to the market, and the Mac series has made personal computers useful for the creative community as well as those looking for a new computing experience.

More recently, Apple released its own smartphone called the iPhone as well as tablets called the iPad and iPad 2. In addition, Apple is working on new services that will broaden the use and experience of Apple devices, such as the cloud music platform for music and media storage, which may be called iCloud.

This portfolio of consumer products along with an increasing presence in both corporate and home environments has thrust Apple to the number one position in the world's top 100 brands. In fact, Apple is now worth $153 billion.

"Apple is breaking the rules in terms of its pricing model," said Peter Walshe. "It's doing what luxury brands do, where the higher price the brand is, the more it seems to underpin and reinforce the desire. Obviously, it has to be allied to great products and great experience, and Apple has nurtured that."

In the top 10 of the list, Apple beat huge technology and telecoms companies as well as other popular corporations. The top 10 of the list of 100 is as follows, from number one to number 10: Apple, Google, IBM, McDonald's, Microsoft, Coca Cola, AT&T, Marlboro, China Mobile, and General Electric. 

Other brands scattered around the top 100 were Visa at number 20, which is valued at $28.5 billion, and Facebook at number 35, which is valued at 19.1 billion. Also, Toyota is the first automaker on the list at number 27.  

With all 100 companies combined, the total value of the top 100 brands is $2.4 trillion, which rose by 17 percent as the global economy "shifted to growth." The top 100 brands list employs the opinions of over 2 million consumers worldwide.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Really?
By Dulanic on 5/9/2011 11:30:31 AM , Rating: 2
Who comes up with this list? Seriously...A 1 billion dollar company's name is "worth more" than ohhh Microsoft worth 250 billion? Or Google worth 171 Billion? I get it's not a market cap list... but it has to have an impact.

I really am not sure what this list is going after. Most recognizable name isn't going to be Apple. Most Valuable? In what manner?




RE: Really?
By michael2k on 5/9/2011 11:36:18 AM , Rating: 2
This might blow your mind, but Apple's market cap is higher than Microsoft's.

AAPL=$320b
GOOG=$171b
IBM=$205b
MCD=$82b
MSFT=$216b

If anything is a travesty, it's McDonalds being on that list; on the other hand, given how many times the PlayPlace has saved my sanity, I think MCD is way undervalued.


RE: Really?
By Dulanic on 5/9/2011 11:40:51 AM , Rating: 2
LOL I am officially had a brain fart today. I typoed something and had the wrong info. I think Apple is insanely overvalued then if that is the case, but it was my fault for my typo and looking at the wrong value. Vote my previous post way down out of exsistance :)


RE: Really?
By Solandri on 5/9/2011 12:39:16 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
This might blow your mind, but Apple's market cap is higher than Microsoft's.

The problem with market capitalization in this case is that neither Apple nor Google pay dividends. As another poster here put it, their stocks are baseball card stocks. Their value is entirely speculative, not linked in any direct way to the company's performance. You buy them just to be able to say you own them, and because someone in the future might want to buy them from you. Not because they have any intrinsic value.


RE: Really?
By michael2k on 5/9/2011 3:40:41 PM , Rating: 2
That's not accurate either. Look at EPS:
AAPL=$20.98
GOOG=$27.28
IBM=$11.92
MCD=$4.73
MSFT=$2.52

OR P/E(Price/Earnings):
AAPL=16.58
GOOG=19.71
IBM=14.19
MCD=16.79
MSFT=10.25

So in that sense if anyone is overvalued, it's GOOG and MCD before AAPL, with MSFT slightly undervalued.

If you're going to complain about the market, you should educate yourself, because it's actually a fairly easy way to get rich. Buy yourself some AAPL, IBM, and MCD, and you should make yourself some easy money because most people, like you, are ignorant of how the market works. 16 is a phenomenally low PE ratio for a company that is growing like Apple. Traditionally a company of Apple's growth has a PE much closer to 20, like Google.


RE: Really?
By Solandri on 5/9/2011 5:04:02 PM , Rating: 3
All I'm saying is that the whole rationale of linking stock price to P/E ratio goes out the window when the stock doesn't pay dividends. The E in P/E is Earnings, or roughly how much the company earned per share. Normally, as a shareholder, you are a part-owner of the company, and thus entitled to a fraction of the earnings - a dividend. But if there are no dividends, the company's earnings are not reflected in the shares, so the P/E ratio is meaningless. Sure you can still use P/E as a guideline for how to price the stock, but that's how much it should be worth if it paid dividends. But it doesn't, so it isn't.

Couple that with the shares having reduced or no voting rights, and essentially AAPL and GOOG stock don't really represent owning part of the company. They're more like limited edition pieces of paper certified by Apple and Google as being authentic limited edition pieces of paper. In other words - baseball cards.

I'm not saying they're worthless - the value of something is always how much someone is willing to pay you for it. A friend of mine made a fortune importing and selling Pokemon cards, even though he personally thought they were the stupidest things and worthless. I'm just saying the logic used to value regular stocks doesn't apply to AAPL and GOOG.


RE: Really?
By michael2k on 5/9/2011 6:10:43 PM , Rating: 2
P/E ratio is fully valid in this context, perhaps Price/Dividend is what you're complaining about?

P/E doesn't display anything except how expensive a stock is and how much people expect it to grow. If growth fails to match expectations then price drops and product becomes less expensive.

In other words, it's an estimate on how valuable the stock will be based on the last twelve months of earnings and future projected earnings.


RE: Really?
By tim851 on 5/9/2011 3:18:10 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Who comes up with this list?


Millworth Brown. It's in the article.

When they value a brand, they look at pure economic numbers like market cap and performance, profit, market position. Then they add stuff like brand recognition (which is why McDonald's is there), brand loyalty and image.

Apple is #1, because it's the no. 3 in market cap, posts insane profits and has been increasing them for years, is the 4th largest PC vendor and (depending on defition) possibly the largest smartphone vendor. The brand recognition is very good, brand loyalty is insane and their image is hip, trendy and successful.


RE: Really?
By VahnTitrio on 5/9/2011 3:39:29 PM , Rating: 2
It may have to do with the way other companies brand things. Apple always puts the Apple brand/logo on their products. However, most people think of XBox as a brand on it's own, they don't immediately relate it to Microsoft. Just looking at two products on my desk, only one of them has the company logo on it. The other has the divisions brand as the only marking on it. The only place the company logo appears is in the manual and in relatively small font in the corner of the box.


RE: Really?
By robinthakur on 5/10/2011 5:07:50 AM , Rating: 2
There's a reason that brands deliberately set out to create sub-brands, as in Microsoft differentiating between the Xbox brand and the main Microsoft one, usually because the parent brand is seen as tainted or a liability. It was mainly because "Microsoft" as a brand did not have high brand loyalty and was not well liked amongst console gamers despite its recognition. I'm still waiting for them to change their name on the parent company as things start getting really bad when Office and Windows sales begin their inevitable dive over the next 10 years...

Apple prominantly brand because it's a conscious decision on their part to reinforce it in everything they do. This does not always work in their favour such as the Apple hifi and the Apple TV, but so far the hits have eclipsed the near misses...For the brand consumer it also adds a sincerity to the company that says they are proud of what they bring to market, some may call it "smugness" which inevitably rubs off on them :)


"My sex life is pretty good" -- Steve Jobs' random musings during the 2010 D8 conference














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki