You kind of miss the point.
Companies do not do just one thing anymore.
Take Windows from MS and they are still a 2 trillion dollar company. Their hands are in many, many markets.
This is the EXACT reason that Netflix makes content now instead of just buying it so they can not be replaced. They own what people want unlike blockbuster
You claiming it is irrelevant does not make it so. It is uhh... 100% relevant. Your dismissal is not based on relevancy, but that my argument rebutted yours.
By your claim, the Financial stock value of the company is all that matters.
Using your claim as a basis - we compare Apple (2.18 trillion) to Microsoft (2.46 trillion).
By your logic; Apple should control almost half the market with Microsoft controlling the other half.
However...
This is not what we see in reality.
Following the Logic: Your Claim Does Not Match Observed Reality. Microsoft controls a much larger desktop portion than Apple even though by your logic, with its wealth, Apple should control nearly half. It is not about the total invested wealth - It is about how much control the company has.
@zenzen pointed out already that WindowsPhone was a dismal failure - a field dominated by Android and by Apple.
If Apple wanted to get 50% of the market they likely could. But it does not make financial sense. Do not confuse the 2.
I also mentioned that going against other epic corporations is a bit different than ANY of the companies that have been mentioned. GM/AT&T of yesterday are nothing to the companies that exist now
You only say whatever you think will lend credence to your claims. Do you think Apple lacks desire to have a stronger hold of the market? What evidence do you base this wild assumption on?
There is this thing called "inflation." Look it up.
2000$ Macbook > 8 200$ Macbooks
5000 dragons > 8 625 dragons.
Could you please try again?
Apple cares about dollars not market share.
They want to be an expensive premium project. If they made a 200$ Macbook their marketshare would increase tremendously but (in their opinion) their bottom line would not.
Are you seriously going to argue if Apple made 200$ Macbooks that their marketshare would not go up by a tremendous amount?
This could be true. It could be false. Without evidence, it is very hard for us to know. You are saying that you know Apple Companies desires and intentions.
Realistically, though, companies always tend toward vying for the largest Market Share. This increases dominance, stability of commerce, control and company value.
To say that this one company defies that economical trend is ... well... very odd... and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Apple cannot make a $200 book due to the parts involved and in the manufacturing. Apple is pricey and inflated... this is true. However, Apple is also made from high cost parts and a lot of their own R&D goes into it. A big part of the price on a macbook is the overhead. They cannot afford to make a $200 macbook. Even the inflated iPhone is expensive to make and the profit margin on iPhone is surprisingly small. It is for this very reason that Apple pushes the Newest iPhone with such fervor.
As well as gouging on peripherals.
I can say negative things about Apple but I cannot ever claim that they make a low quality product. Their products HardCore work.
The point is Apple could take a loss on it if they thought the marketshare was worth it.
I agree 200$ is unrealistic but that is by design. They do not make cheap models because they do not think it is worth it. Not because they can not do it.
If Apple decided they wanted more marketshare and were willing to give up dollars to do it, it would happen.
My entire point is these companies like MS, Apple, and Google are going to get their way on basically everything except against each other.
I think you have a point in this: That they fill their niche.
That is not the same as not desiring a larger share - which Apple does indeed vie for. Apple produces a stronger product in order to create Growth and advertises its products heavily.
And this ties into the past- of IBM or AT&T that did the same. When you account for inflation, they appear far less weak than you think.
I am not saying they are "weak" I am saying they are not comparable to the mega corporations that we have now. Companies before modern times mostly were involved in their one business and if the bottom fell out of it or new competition arose they could be severely crippled or put out of business.
But companies now have their hands in many, many different businesses and markets.
The Netflix/Blockbuster example was a good one. Netflix is ensuring what happened to Blockbuster does not happen to them by owing their own media. They do not just stream content anymore. If they ever get more cash on hand you can bet they will expand to other businesses as well but Netflix is generally pretty cash poor
Something to consider:
In the USA, the population has grown significantly since 1953.
And the average median wealth has grown by leaps and bounds.
This can create the situation that More People having More Money can sink more money into companies overall revenue.
By comparing todays wealth to yesterdays wealth, you can get skewed results - unless you account for this per capita difference.
I think you have a point about the difference between a company doing one thing and another doing many things.
But... IBM did and does a Great Many Things and had their hands all across the technology sector and they still do.
AT&T dominated the Landline business. But AT&T also branched out into many things including cellular, internet and owns multiple companies in their Conglomerate including WarnerMedia. That is Huge.
Your point is a good one but does it fit? Do these companies do only one thing?
And you can tell I am sincere in saying what I said above because I dismissed Kodak and Xerox for this very reason.
I agree with this. If you compare for example the breaking records on different competitions at the highest levels, you will see that over time they are obviously improving. We could then say that athletes today are better than athletes from decades ago, but the circumstances are simply different even though they are at the top of their game.
Exactly - physically, the athletes are the same stuff.
Training techniques have improved enough to increase performance by as much as a whopping 0.94%.
But technological improvements such as what the track is made of and how it is made, what suits are worn, better equipment such as carbon fiber for poles...
The Shoes - wow the improvement in shoes alone is a phenomenon.
In some sports such as swimming, some technological improvements had to be forbidden. The types of material some fabrics were made of for example. I'm sure there is a chart somewhere that has peaks in the number of world records broken in a single year.
While not false it is no where near as diverse as modern MS.
You could take away MS's 3 largest businesses and they would still be a powerhouse.
A lot of this is a result of the billions of dollars poured into the world economy by the trillion dollar companies I am speaking of.
If a company is showing promising work in the shoe material industry MS would be liable to invest large amounts of money into them and later get to that magical 51% market share to take control.
@TabNumlock 's original point was that companies can appear to be invincible. They are not.
Your point is that you believe that MS is invincible. I do not believe that it is.
But both points pale when compared to: Should we fear MS's current power, whether it be invincible or not?
Define "invincible"
MS is not falling unless the world economy goes with it. They have to many investments and holdings for this to ever happen. Where do you think 2.5 trillion dollars is going to go?
Absolute worst case is they would downsize like Sony did years ago to get back to profitability.
Please look way up above to where I posted the link to the Bell Breakup. All their money did not stop an act of Congress.
As someone entirely against government interference in business as it does far more harm than good this is a terrible example to give me
The other problem is MS is no where near a monopoly in anything so it is a moot point.