digg

Join DiggAbout

Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular Elections 2008 content on Digg.

Apple Is Now Worth More Than IBM

valleywag.com — After Apple's phenomenal earnings report this afternoon, AAPL is up over 7 percent in after hours trading to $186.02. This marks Apple's market cap at $161.8 billion -- above IBM ($154.23 billion) for the first time ever. Feeling a little blue, IBM?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 5hocker, on 11/03/2007, -6/+31http://9to5mac.com/apple-passes-ibm-in-market-cap- ...
    valleywag should give up their sources
    • shuster420, on 10/24/2007, -4/+8Valleywag steals content?!? Stop the presses!!!
      • nospinhere, on 10/24/2007, -9/+0Is this really saying much? What does IBM do these days?
        • robotexplorer, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10for one try developing and fabing the CPUs for the wii the ps3 and the xbox360.
          • geminitojanus, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Actually, Sony did the fabbing for the CELL, but they recently sold the fabs to Toshiba.
        • rpgmaker, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Wow, you really should get out of engadget.com and tuaw.com and look at the real world, were computers are made to do some _real_ work on top of graphical designs.
    • fkr3, on 10/24/2007, -3/+14No no.... Digg users should be more discriminating and not support 'mainstream' blogs who just regurgitate another blog's post and put their own ads around it.
      • dragon76, on 10/24/2007, -3/+16You mean the way Digg regurgitates the front page of yesterday's Reddit?
    • jlgolson, on 10/24/2007, -16/+2Ah, yes. It's unthinkable that two sites could come up with the same analysis at the same time. I must have stolen it.

      Jordan Golson
      Valleywag
      • shuster420, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10try 12 hours later. Even Wired had it before
    • over90000, on 10/29/2007, -16/+9Dell Inspiron 1720 - 17″ - $1674
      -Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7700 (2.4GHz/800Mhz FSB/4MB cache)
      -Genuine Windows Vista® Home Premium Edition
      -2GB Shared Dual Channel DDR2 at 667MHz
      -320GB SATA Hard Drive (5400RPM)
      -256MB NVIDIA® GeForce® 8600M GT
      -CD / DVD writer (DVD+/-RW Drive)
      -Dell Wireless 1390 802.11g Mini-Card
      -Built-in Bluetooth capability (2.0 EDR)-High Definition Audio 2.0
      -Weight: 7.6 pounds

      Apple MacBook Pro (17″ ) - $2,949.00
      -2.4GHz Intel Core 2 Duo processor, 4MB L2 cache
      -Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
      -2GB (two SO-DIMMs) of PC2-5300 (667MHz) DDR2
      -250GB Serial ATA Drive @ 4200 rpm
      -256MB NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT
      -SuperDrive 8x (DVD±R DL/DVD±RW/CD-RW)
      -AirPort Extreme Wi-Fi (802.11a/b/g/n)
      -Built-in Bluetooth 2.0+EDR (Enhanced Data Rate)
      -Integrated Audio
      -Weight: 6.8 pounds
      • jebudas, on 10/24/2007, -6/+5These prices range from $2,999.00 to $4,499.00:
        http://www.dell.com/content/products/productdetail ...
      • superkendall, on 10/24/2007, -9/+10I notice you left out resolution - 1440x900 for the Dell, 1900x1200 for the Macbook Pro 17".

        Also no gigabit ethernet on the Dell, nor Firewire 800. Nor backlit keyboard, nor ability to run OS X.

        You really built out something more comparible to a Macbook Pro 15", which is much cheaper.
        • LeeSoong, on 10/25/2007, -8/+3http://wiki.osx86project.org/wiki/index.php/Main_P ...

          mac OS X runs just fine on dell hardware.

          oh, and by the way, hp pwns dell every time on price and performance.

          $1,651.99

          hp 17'' dv9500z Components

          * • Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit)
          * • AMD Turion(TM) 64 X2 Dual-Core Mobile Technology TL-66 (2.3 GHz, 512KB+512KB L2 Cache )
          * • 17.0" WSXGA+ High-Definition HP BrightView Widescreen Display (1680 x 1050)
          * • 2GB DDR2 System Memory (2 Dimm)
          * • 128MB NVIDIA GeForce 8400M GS
          * • HP Imprint Finish (Radiance) + Webcam + Microphone
          * • FREE Upgrade to 802.11a/b/g/n (draft 802.11n) WLAN and Bluetooth from Wireless LAN 802.11a/b/g/n!!
          * • 320GB 5400RPM SATA Dual Hard Drive (160GB x 2)
          * • FREE Upgrade to LightScribe SuperMulti 8X DVD+/-RW with Double Layer Support!!
          * • High Capacity 8 Cell Lithium Ion Battery
          * • System Recovery DVD with Genuine Windows Vista Home Premium (32-bit)
          * • Microsoft(R) Works 8.0

          because hp makes huge bulk purchases of components, something the 'build it when you order it.' guys at dell can never match.

          and you usually can find notebook pc's on sale at 'best buy'' for a lot less than dell or apple.
          http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?st=process ...
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/24/2007, -7/+16Really, stop pretending like Apple doesn't overcharge... you are making yourself look stupid.

        I built a pretty comparable machine (with a larger screen) for about $100 less than Dell's rig, so the real loser here is anyone who buys a pre-built computer from a retailer.
        • LeeSoong, on 10/24/2007, -5/+5apple -charges next year's top of the line prices, for last years run of mill hardware.

          apple - think profits.
        • Vician, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3So you built a notebook on your own? Or an iMac style design on your own? Or, even a Mini one? The only thing you really have any fair comparision with is the Mac Pro line and everyone knows those are over priced to begin with. Otherwise, of course PC's you build yourself are going to be less. Who the ***** would think they wouldn't? Are Apples competitive however? Yes they are. Plus, let's face it, I'd still have to buy Windows for the one above since it doesn't come with Vista Ultimate... That's quite a bit onto the price.
      • zeejay, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2...to add...
        That Dell 1720 is 66% larger than the comparable MacBook Pro, volumetrically. More, if you include the size of the their power bricks. Size matters.
        No DVI out, never mind dual-link DVI.
        Crapware.
        Add $150 to the Dell for Vista Ultimate. You'd get OS X 10.5 Leopard with that MacBook Pro.

        The MacBook Pro is expensive because it has a ton of features, some of which are not available on *any* PC notebook that I'm aware of. (Backlit keyboard, firewire 800, dual-link DVI, Mag-Safe power jack), AND an awesome form factor.
    • evenson, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Looks like they stole it from here.

      http://www.friday.com/bbum/
  • unloud, on 10/28/2007, -10/+96This is kind of a nice kick in the pants after Apple ditching the G5.

    Do you all realize that $5,000 in Apple stock bought in 1997 would now be worth over $150,000? The true Apple fans are getting their paychecks now :-)
    • insomnious, on 10/24/2007, -37/+11The true fanboy won't sell the stock now because they believe it will continue to rise. They will eventually go back down to their $5,000 after the new bubble bursts.
      • GMorgan, on 10/26/2007, -3/+19It won't keep going up, there is no way that Apple as a company are worth more than IBM. In terms of turn over, IBM are the largest tech company on the planet. Of course never shall the stock market, reality and actual performance figures ever meet. The stock market does what it wants irrespective of how the company is doing.

        Of course Apple are doing well but they happen to be doing well in very public ventures while IBM are doing better (in profit terms) in less visible ventures.
        • superkendall, on 10/24/2007, -5/+5But Apple has a lot more room for dramatic growth in somewhat untapped markets - if the iPhone does well for example, or if they become as big in video sales of HD content as they are in music, that is a huge growth potential. IBM has growth potential as well but nothing quite so exponential in nature.
        • Aggaman, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4People said it wouldn't keep going up when the stock was at $70. The company has revitalized its core business, and now dominates the music player and online music markets. It looks very much like they will be a major player in the mobile phone market.
          Why would Apple stop there? More portable devices and the living room are next.
          You need a reality check. It is reasonably likely that Apple will be worth the same as Google in the next couple of years, and it isn't beyond the bounds of possibility that they will catch up to Microsoft. There simply isn't another company that is as nimble as Apple is in these markets at the moment.
          If Apple does pass Microsoft, the internet will collapse from all the trolling and gloating.
        • streak, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Getting to the point, Apple is currently valued more than IBM, but IBM is more productive. Apple is growing much faster, and it is largely on the basis of expectations for continued rapid growth that Apple is valued so highly. Using gross revenue as a rough guide, Apple will have to quadruple its productivity before it matches IBM. That's a lot of growth to achieve. I'm not saying Apple can't do it, but the company has inserted itself into several highly competitive market segments. Apple has the distinct advantage of offering integrated, end-to-end solutions, though. And Apple has a considerable track record now of executing very well, thus giving it tremendous momentum going forward.
    • newAccount, on 10/24/2007, -40/+9IBM and Apple have profoundly different business plans. IBM is heavily invested in hardware, software and services and has always been a force for leadership in the area of computer science, whereas Apple is just out to produce better homosexuals. IBM already has earned a place in history for thousands of innovations, whereas Apple is simply profitting off of the AIDS epidemic and the sodomists spreading it. Seriously, to compare all the good that IBM has done in the world to Steve BLOW-JOBS capitalizing on the sins of humanity is simply inappropriate but is also typical of all the dicksucking ***** in the world. ***** assholes, burried as evil.
      • MacParrot, on 10/24/2007, -2/+11Is accusing people who use different tech than you to be homosexuals really all you got? Is that the only thing you can come back to? I mean really dude, it's a pathetic cry for attention and free medication. You should tell your mom you need mental help...soon.
        • newAccount, on 10/24/2007, -8/+1haha with a nickname like "MacParrot" I bet you've gobbled some ***** in your time
      • andrew7667, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1Ah, come on. Why are you guys digging him down? I'm an apple lover, but I still found "whereas Apple is just out to produce better homosexuals" funny.
    • Quix, on 10/24/2007, -15/+7"Steve BLOW-JOBS" - newAccount

      Wow, I've NEVER heard that one from a Winbot troll! Truly original.

      P.S. welcome to my block list, lamer.
    • Spuy767, on 10/28/2007, -2/+41I dmped $6200 into Apple shortly after Steve Jobs returned to the Ailing company in 1997. That $6200 investment is now worth approaching $350000.
      • fluxion, on 10/24/2007, -1/+50party at Spuy767's house
      • norman64, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3The question is? Will you sell now or will you wait for it to bottom out again?
        • idiotech, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3It's sell now or sell when they bottom out?

          Norman, you honestly think that's what happens next?

          Apple resurges with ipod, sets sales records with their notebooks, launches the iphone, and then "bottoms out"...
      • jdbeast00, on 10/24/2007, -0/+6unless you are a gazillionaire its time to diversify buddy
    • pr0t0, on 10/24/2007, -0/+15The lowest price I could find for Apple's stock was $3.19 on December 30, 1998. Since then it has had two, 2-for-1 stock splits and is now trading at over $185.
      For fun and games, plug in the amount you wish you had invested in '98 and see how much you could be worth right now!
      I'm very, very jealous of Spuy767!
      • ZenMojo, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11Then again, if you invested in 1997, chances are you bailed in 1998 when it bottomed out.
    • newAccount, on 10/24/2007, -7/+1I had to repost this comment as the other one got dugged down. Please don't dig this one down, people need to know the truth about this company called "Apple." Decent folks might mistakenly buy a Mac without knowing the damage they're doing.

      IBM and Apple have profoundly different business plans. IBM is heavily invested in hardware, software and services and has always been a force for leadership in the area of computer science, whereas Apple is just out to produce better homosexuals. IBM already has earned a place in history for thousands of innovations, whereas Apple is simply profitting off of the AIDS epidemic and the sodomists spreading it. Seriously, to compare all the good that IBM has done in the world to Steve BLOW-JOBS capitalizing on the sins of humanity is simply inappropriate but is also typical of all the dicksucking ***** in the world. ***** assholes, burried as evil.
    • seraph582, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1The Apple logo with the blue face looks like two gay dudes kissing
  • Ica7us, on 10/28/2007, -16/+71Finally Steve has beaten Big Blue -- that was his goal from day one, wasn't it? Big Blue represented the enemy.
    • BufordT, on 10/24/2007, -0/+27But soon after, he realized Microsoft was his biggest enemy. He actually achieved a long abandoned goal.
      • Flatlineskillz, on 10/30/2007, -0/+13yes yes we have all seen pirates of sillicon valley. Dr Carter does battle with Gary from wierd science and the guy who does the voice for bender.
      • bronyraur777, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2I wish I could digg you up twice.
    • mentor972, on 10/24/2007, -2/+8Does that make him the enemy now?
    • 1337hx0r, on 10/24/2007, -3/+5Apple's 1984 commercial: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhGpU5wjTJ4
    • mattvogt, on 10/24/2007, -0/+31How can you beat a company that's not in the same business as you? It's like Toyota finally being 'worth more' than Burger King. But this is all fanboy crap anyway as Big Blue spends way more each year on R&D than Apple as a whole is worth.
      • norman64, on 10/24/2007, -4/+8Stop saying the truth!!

        this is digg man
    • brian1625, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2His focus on IBM as the enemy is arguably what did him in.
    • msipes, on 10/30/2007, -0/+21Market capitalization is a measure of the value of a company, not a measure of a company's worth. You can look at the two companies' revenues and profits, but that is not really a measure of a company's worth either because it only represents gross or net earnings within a FY.
      Not to belittle Apple (because surpassing IBM's market value is a big accomplishment), but a common way to measure a company's "worth" is to examine its assets. Apple has about $17 billion in assets (FY06) compared to IBM which has $103 billion in assets. IBM's stockholder's equity is also 300% higher than Apple's. This means that IBM has a strong hold on its assets and has been able to keep its liabilities low. In other words, IBM is worth much more than Apple, despite Apple's market cap and its diluted share price.
      IBM has enough money to buy Apple without even having to dig into FY profits.
      • drudixon, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0Thanks for explaing to the goofballs who don't know how to evaluate companies.
  • atultech, on 10/24/2007, -19/+2And this is just the beginning if apple, google, facebook, salesforcec.com, collectivex, linkedin, linux, firefox care to come together and go wikipedia + Opensource way ..then sky is the limit
    • yojiffyskippy, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7Hmmmmm? When did I last hear that? Could it have been the 1990's?
    • mangasm, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Because Apple is at the pinnacle of pushing the opensource frontier. RIght.
  • FreakyD, on 10/28/2007, -21/+226Soon it's going to be iBM
    • BlueStarr, on 10/24/2007, -9/+3hehehe....iBM. it's sooo corny, its funny.
    • drlha, on 10/24/2007, -13/+8iBM? What is that? A translucent blue *****?
    • seraph582, on 10/24/2007, -10/+4Are you kidding? Every time Steve Jobs has an iBM, you tech nitwits that aren't bright enough to handle the "complexity" of Windows XP get all hot and bothered like a cheerleader at football practice. You've been eating his iBM's and loving it, like fecal connoisseurs, for several years now.
      • Boondoggle, on 10/24/2007, -2/+8Yeah the complexity of the DOS shell is too hard for me. I don't understand how to do stuff with so few commands. I'll stick to the UNIX command line in OS X. So intuitive and low-powered.

        /sarc
    • SniperXPX, on 10/24/2007, -6/+1Canada flag ftw
    • timusca, on 10/24/2007, -6/+5an iBowelMovement?
  • DMCer, on 10/28/2007, -3/+61My wallet is slapping me across the face for not buying thousands of shares in 98 and holding them.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/24/2007, -5/+27Should of, could of, would of doesn't really mean crap. As if in 98 you would believe someone who told you Apple's stock would sky rocket. You would of laughed since they were releasing those fugly colored eMacs with OS 9.
      • MadKennyP, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3Probably true.
      • tizz66, on 10/24/2007, -6/+32Holy crap that's three times you used the same bad grammar :p

        Could HAVE, should HAVE, would HAVE! Or, Could've, should've, would've. But not 'of'.
        • wellyuk, on 10/24/2007, -16/+8You and the rest of Digg's grammar nazis need to ***** right off and get a life. By continuously correcting everyone's grammar, you're not contributing towards the discussion. This is Digg not a work of ***** Shakespeare. It's to share ideas not to compare the size of each others grammar *****. You KNOW the point he was trying to make and your reply offered no contribution towards the discussion in hand.

          In fact, aside from correcting his grammar, you haven't contributed at all to the story

          Oh, holy crap! You missed a full stop and a comma!

          Now, ***** right off.
          • tizz66, on 10/24/2007, -3/+9Wow, I must have hit a nerve. Of course, you felt compelled to comment, and your comment is strictly on-topic too, right?

            This is Digg, where the community can vote on what they think is worthwhile or otherwise. Currently my post has +6 and yours has -2. I think that settles it.
          • sinfield, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4A website (or any media) whose sole purpose is in sharing and discussion relies heavily on a normalized method of communication between its users. Without that normalized communication each user's posts are far more likely to be misunderstood an/or misrepresented, thus undermining the usefulness of the media. Those who champion proper grammar and spelling in communication can serve a beneficial ad hoc educational role. The problem with their approach is that it is often presented as if the grammarian is somehow superior to he who is being corrected. We could all benefit from a minor shot of humility when it comes to giving and taking constructive criticism.
          • datdamonfoo, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2No, wellyuk, we will not excuse you for sounding like a cretin from the way you type. Spell words correctly, use proper grammar, and stop bitching.
          • likwidfuzion, on 10/24/2007, -4/+2@sinfield it is "...far more likely to be misunderstood AND/or misrepresented..."

            You're contributing to the miscommunication yourself.
        • jeff303, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2At least he was consistent.
      • Aggaman, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10Those "fugly coloured eMacs" (by which you mean iMacs, actually sold rather well and Apple's stock was on the rise until the tech stock crash took everyone.
        At the time of the crash, Jobs said that Apple would simply innovate its way out of it. Whatever you think of him, he was right.
      • ucg1, on 10/24/2007, -0/+8Well, I'm slapping myself for not buying it when it was $70 because I actually thought of buying it then. Hell, I thought of buying it at $35.
      • DMCer, on 10/24/2007, -2/+2Was that the point? No.
  • stutimandal, on 10/24/2007, -28/+11Soon it would go down below IBM too. Unlike IBM, Apple's market share is mostly there due to Ipod. Ipod made the macbook popular, but people are realizing the costly nature of these products now. Safari on Windows revealed the bogus security claims as well.
    • CATSCEO, on 10/24/2007, -0/+11Safari for Windows is MUUUUUCH worse than Safari on a Mac.
      • kelly, on 10/24/2007, -2/+5dude... the windows version is in beta
        • Me1000, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3So is the 3.0 Mac version (until friday anyway)
    • meatmcguffin, on 10/24/2007, -1/+10How do security flaws in Safari for Windows disprove that Mac OS X is secure?

      Plus, if anything the iPod made the PowerBook and iBook popular.

      Do you have *any* idea what you're talking about?

  • insomniac8400, on 10/24/2007, -31/+14Apple is a bubble. They have been riding the ipod for a while. If anyone thinks one company can stay on top forever, look at sony. If sony was just a music hardware company they would have closed a long time ago. Apple can either become an evil conglomerate and buy up a bunch of smaller companies, or they will be gone in 5-10 years.
    • minivanmegafun, on 10/24/2007, -3/+12then why didn't they die in the early 90s back when all they had were computers?
      • longbow486, on 10/24/2007, -7/+4Gates bought part of the company and kept it aflot
        • Spuy767, on 10/24/2007, -0/+9Gates invested $150,000,000 in Apple, powerless shares. Those are now worth over 6 bilion dollars. I don't know if he held on to them.
          • MacParrot, on 10/24/2007, -2/+6Microsoft sold them some time later for a profit. Don't know how much. Doesn't matter since it was a symbolic gesture anyway. Apple didn't need the money and they got a comitment for Office for the Mac for at least 5 years. That's what they really needed and wanted.
        • Me1000, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2Gates put $150 mill in the company, it was pocket change for what apple needed to pay off debts!
    • nblsavage, on 10/24/2007, -5/+12Apple: Going out of business since 1985. The doomsayers keep getting it wrong :)
      • stmiller, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Apple was in a lot of serious financial trouble. Steve Jobs himself stated this at times, during the final OS 9 days.
    • imnojezus, on 10/24/2007, -1/+13Yep... almost 30 years without a net loss, and they've been dying the whole time. It must be the iPod. That explains their growing market share and huge gains in the home computer/laptop markets. It can't be the quality of OS X, or the Intel switch giving Windows users another option, or the ease of use, or the great design... it was just music all along. Thank you for clearing everything up for us.
      • MacParrot, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Actually they were losing a lot of money in the mid 90s. The real turn around began with the iMacs, continued with the release of OS X, and exploded with the iPod.
        • imnojezus, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2You're right. I was looking at stock figures instead of total company worth. And yes, the iMac did mark the first major upturn in stock since Jobs' leaving (and return). That was in 1998, three years before the iPod, and 4 years before anyone paid attention to it.
    • Aggaman, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5Except that iPod sales keep increasing. People don't realize that, while it has been in the public consciousness for many years now, it is only since early 2005 that sales have skyrocketed. They sold 20 million of the damn things in the last Xmas quarter, and this Xmas will almost certainly sell more than that.
      The stock price is people waking up to the fact that Apple is about the only company in the world with full control of both its hardware and software. The iPod proved that this is a big advantage in consumer electronics, and the iPhone is on the way to confirming that. Apple really has no direct competitor in this respect, so there is no reason for the stock to go down.
  • vofuse, on 10/25/2007, -9/+111And we all know market cap is always a true reflection of what a company is worth.
    • Nahor, on 10/25/2007, -7/+14yeah funny - when I made fun of microsoft for it's horrible stock price, people pointed to its market cap as the true indicator. Now this story... market cap doesn't matter.

      People are funny.
      • illt, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8microsoft also actually has a ***** of real cash on hand,
        that and they split frequently.
        • norman64, on 10/25/2007, -2/+1real cash is nothing. It's the fad value that makes the difference
        • Me1000, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1Monopolizing is wonderful isn't it?
        • node3, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2Microsoft has $21.06B in cash, Apple has $13.77B. I think it's fairly clear that they *both* have a "***** of real cash on hand".

          Apple last split in 2005. Microsoft in 2003. Apple has split twice since the start of 2000. Microsoft once. You have to go back to the '90s before you get into the MS split-fest.

          Welcome to the new millennium.
    • Aggaman, on 10/24/2007, -7/+2It's called capitalism.
    • Boondoggle, on 10/24/2007, -2/+19Actually Market cap is a measure of the average opinion of millions of investors on what a company is worth. With the exception of bubble scenarios, which RARELY involve just one company but rather entire market segments, it is a very accurate indicator.


      • howea, on 10/24/2007, -2/+5Bullsh*t. It's the calculated opinion of a handful of major dealers. The rest of the people follow like sheep.
    • staxofmax, on 10/24/2007, -2/+9Remember back before the dot com bubble burst, when one travel website in particular had more market cap than several blue chip airlines combined?
      • Boondoggle, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3right, and Airline stocks have traditionally been great investments... /sarc
    • ZenMojo, on 10/24/2007, -1/+6Market cap == overrated. Income == rated.
      • sfrederiksen, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Actually cash flow, imho, is the most important indicator of company performance.
    • kineticarl, on 10/24/2007, -2/+18And, coincidentally, IBM income = Apple income x ~4
    • illt, on 10/24/2007, -1/+13also, IBM's yearly R&D budget is about 12x that of Apple. $6billion
    • ehelbush, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3Considering companies get bought out at or above their market cap all the time I would say it is a strong indicator.
  • tierpinho, on 10/24/2007, -14/+4And i bought it when it was at $5 when you account for the split, hahahahahahaa $$$$$$$$$$
    • CalipsoII, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8You've yet to complete Grade 6 English, how is it you were around to purchase shares at $5 each?

      /boggle
      • meatmcguffin, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Oh man, I wish 'boggle' was a valid HTML tag.
    • johnnybluejeans, on 10/23/2007, -0/+2Last time AAPL was at a split adjusted value of $5 was about 10 years ago... so I am going to have to assume you are full of *****.
      • podperson, on 10/23/2007, -1/+0The lowest Apple's stock has been since it went public is ~$14 ($7 post-split, effectively).
        http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hp?s=AAPL&a=08&b=7&c=19 ...
        • Spuy767, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Are you stupid, in December of 1997 it closed at effectively $3.25.
          • podperson, on 11/26/2007, -0/+0"Close price adjusted for dividends and splits." Ignoring dividends, which are, one assumes, priced into the value of a share, the $3.25 becomes ... tada ... $6-7. If you want to consider the two to be identical, well that's your prerogative.
  • TonyBalls, on 10/24/2007, -1/+111IBM doesn't really sell any personal computing anymore. Its a lot of consulting and servers. Basically, the companies are a stretch to compare.
    • drakethegreat, on 10/24/2007, -0/+13Precisely. Visit IBM and you see guys working on specialized BIOS for their blades and creating specialized software for other businesses. Not exactly the same as when Apple started.
    • Gavagai80, on 10/23/2007, -9/+1Apple, of course, doesn't make most of its money from personal computing either.

      Just as Apple dropped computer from the name, maybe IBM should drop the M.
      • GMorgan, on 10/24/2007, -0/+9IBM sell lots of machines. More than Apple sell anything in total in fact.

        Last time I saw a break down IBM turned over something like:
        $45B Services
        $30B Hardware
        $15B Software

        Apple turn over about $19.1B.

        Of course the IBM figure is crude, I think I saw it in Linux Format when they were interviewing someone from IBM over their Linux relationship.
      • Spuy767, on 10/23/2007, -0/+7Macintoshes are still the bread and butter of Apple's portfolio.
        • dragon76, on 10/23/2007, -2/+2And the bread is getting more buttery, the halo effect is finally happening, it's no longer a prediction.
    • firebhaal, on 10/24/2007, -0/+14Yep.
      IBM sold their personal computer sector to the asian company "Lenovo" in case people are wondering.
    • Hickeroar, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5That and Apples are built off of IBM compatible technology now anyway...
    • mediaspree, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I remember the days when it had damn well better be "IBM compatible"
  • conceptdev, on 10/24/2007, -7/+3iPod, iPhone two products that make them sell more Macs, they're growing in user base, now I need this to split so I can buy it in bulk.
    • TheFinaleofSeem, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1The iPhone isn't selling more than Macs just yet. It'll probably happen within a year's time, but it's not outselling them at this point.
    • DCstewieG, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4And buying twice as many shares worth half as much would do what for you exactly? Jobs has said he doesn't want to split the stock, it doesn't need to, it won't.
  • RickyBennett, on 10/24/2007, -24/+1what do you expect ibm ***** blows
  • strax, on 10/24/2007, -0/+12I sold at $96 and WAS happy with my profit, but now... :(
    Some nice new toys/upgrades coming out in time for Christmas too, from what I hear from my inside sources. (inside sources=online speculation of random blogs)
    • johnnybluejeans, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5I bought at $16 and sold at $70 and thought I had made a king's ransom. You can always look back at the market and find a million ways you could have made a million dollars.. so at least you made something. ; )
    • NSResponder, on 10/29/2007, -1/+7You guys who sold at $96 and $70 made money, right? There's nothing wrong with quitting while you're ahead. Besides, if it weren't for you guys selling, I wouldn't have been able to add to my holdings at $70 and $96. ;-)

      -jcr
    • rockefeller2, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5People always like to brag about big gains they made, but keep their mouth's shut about the many times they lost.
  • 0crabby0, on 10/24/2007, -15/+12There are better stocks out there than Apple

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=FSLR&l=on&z=m ...
    • bladefist, on 10/24/2007, -3/+4Look at the 3 month chart of that stock, that is a risky risky stock.
    • superkendall, on 10/24/2007, -2/+11Just what Digg needed, stock spam.
    • jmlambe, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3this is the most irrelevant comment...
  • GiulianoB, on 10/28/2007, -4/+173This isn't entirely true. If you look at the PE for both companies, APPLE has a very high PE while IBM has a low one. Meaning that APPLE is much more overvalued than IBM.

    Also let's compare revenue and profit.
    IBM pulled in 91 billion last year, APPLE only did 19 billion
    IBM had 9.4 billion profit, APPLE had 2 billion

    In other words, IBM has almost 5 times the revenue and profit than APPLE

    Don't get too excited yet
    • CraigJ, on 10/24/2007, -0/+10All very true, however, IBM is what I would call a value stock. They are very consistent, and nothing exciting is going on. IBM had revenue of 91,423.00M in 2006 and 91,134.00M in 2005. There is not a lot of growth there, which is the primary thing investors look for. Apple, OTH, 2006 19,315.00M 2005 13,931.00M. A lot more growth, and based on current stats, a lot more to come. The forward PE is about 30, which seems reasonable to me.
    • superkendall, on 10/24/2007, -5/+8But a high P/E/ is OK if you expect a lot of growth from a company, basically the market is saying they think Apple can grow to match that P/E. With the iPhone doing very well, and the iPod business doing very well, and 400k more macs per quarter being sold, and leopard coming in, and video sales possibly taking off.... with all that, is the Apple P/E so unreasonable?

      Apple's high P/E is a reward from the market for consistent performance, being used as a predictor for future performance. There are worse things to base stock purchases on than a proven track record of delivery and outperformance!
      • drudixon, on 10/29/2007, -0/+0There are a lot of reasons to buy stock other than just "future performance"
    • hexydes, on 10/23/2007, -11/+2Mod parent up, because this is the bottom line, and the truth.
      • CATSCEO, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Buried for saying 'mod'

        Its called dugg up or dugg down.
    • Quix, on 10/24/2007, -6/+13"Meaning that APPLE is much more overvalued than IBM."

      Investing is about FUTURE POTENTIAL, not current sales. Apple is trending up in a big way. Apple has huge growth potential. IBM, not so much. Given these factors, Apple is hardly "overvalued."

      Microsoft makes far more money than Apple too, but its stock has been flat-lined for years. Why? Because when you own 90% of the desktop OS and office productivity software market, where's the room for growth?
      • CraigJ, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1If by flat lined you me declined 50% since 2000....
    • staxofmax, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4Taken from the Fortune 500 list, Apple ranks 121st in terms of gross revenue. Meanwhile, IBM ranks 15th, Hewlett Packard 14th, Dell 34th, and Microsoft 49th. They have a lot of ground to cover before they can truly declare victory.
    • mGARANDEUR1, on 10/24/2007, -4/+7in any case, apple still sucks anyway
    • illt, on 10/24/2007, -0/+4anyone care to do the IBM dividend dance with me?
    • firebhaal, on 10/23/2007, -0/+3Thank you person with brain.
    • sfrederiksen, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2The higher the PE relative to other companies in similar industries typically means more speculation is in the stock. It's said that 20% of AAPL's price is due to Steve Jobs alone. That is, if he were to leave the company, the stock would drop 20%.
  • sparql, on 10/28/2007, -2/+70Is it just me or is comparing Apple to IBM a lot like comparing McDonalds to Nabisco?

    Apple and IBM aren't in the same business and they haven't been for a long time. Apple has become, for the most part, a consumer electronics company.
  • enshadow, on 10/24/2007, -0/+45IBM and Apple do not compete in any regard. They no longer make personal computers. They don't make digital entertainment devices.
  • bladefist, on 10/24/2007, -18/+1wouldnt suprise me, as much as i dislike apple (for whatever reason) I hate IBM for plenty of reasons. 1 is they still put legacy OS's on new servers. I mean do we really need OS400 anymore? Dugg cuz I hate IBM more then I hate apple.
    • gquaglia, on 10/24/2007, -0/+12OS400 is probably one of the most secure and stable server OSs out there. OS400 blows away Linux and is light-years ahead of Windows Server in terms of security and stability.
    • bladefist, on 10/23/2007, -0/+0perhaps, but to make it so, it lacks ease of use
  • gquaglia, on 10/24/2007, -13/+5Not bad for a company that has been pronounced dead more times then Parris Hilton spreads her legs.
    • gquaglia, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Maybe I should have said "more times then Digg users jerk off"
      • MacParrot, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3If you're going to continue to deal in impossibilities, this conversation is over.
    • MacParrot, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3I don't think that's even possible.
    • BeyondGoodNEvil, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Apple has been pronounced dead more than several hundred thousand times?
    • seraph582, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1too bad it actually isnt :(
  • Dare978Devil, on 10/24/2007, -19/+23What is really too bad with Apple and comparing the two, is that IBM is a big supporter of open software, whereas Apple is not. If you want to play songs purchased on iTunes on any other device, just try it, can't do it. We need more open software, programs built on internet standards, not more proprietary "can't unlock my iPhone" stuff. Competition breeds innovation. IBM threw their weight behind Linux when it was needed most, and again against the closed MS Office suite. I like the way IBM does business.
    • insomnious, on 10/24/2007, -5/+2DRM is good for your stock price.
    • superkendall, on 10/24/2007, -5/+8iTunes Plus music works on all sorts of devices that support AAC.

      APple suppports (as in contributes code to):

      BSD
      GCC
      KHTML (webkit for Safari)

      They may also contribute code to some of the other stuff that ships on OSX, like Ruby on Rails or Apache or SMB or CUPS (actually I'm pretty sure they do for CUPS as well).

      Who is not open source friendly again? Yes IBM is an awesome contributor but Apple is no slouch either.
      • GMorgan, on 10/26/2007, -0/+4WRT Apple, they aren't even in the same league as IBM and Sun Microsystems on this. Both of those companies have actually released products as FOSS rather than being a simple consumer of FOSS and contributing a little back.

        Sun Microsystems have given us practically everything they have and it's all amazing stuff.
      • mbradbury, on 10/24/2007, -3/+1Apple owns CUPS
        • GMorgan, on 10/26/2007, -0/+3They own it but it was free software long before they bought it.
    • orez, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2You mention internet standards, then complain about iphone locking and itunes. If you actually looked you'd see Apple does support network protocol standards in Its browser and In server software.
  • roberto_deneero, on 10/24/2007, -16/+2Apple has always been worth more than IBM, albeit not necessarily monetarily. IBM has an image as a monolith for a reason. Apple has always been about pushing limits. I love you Steve!
    • GiulianoB, on 10/24/2007, -5/+6Errm.. Maybe you should look at Apple. They are 10x worse than any other company for tying you down to their overpriced platform and keeping it that way.
      • roberto_deneero, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4Hmmm, that's funny, last time I checked Apple didn't FORCE me to buy or use any of their products. I chose to buy them because they were so damn useful and easy to use. Der. If it were truly "overpriced", nobody would buy them. Obvisously, there are MILLIONS of Apple customers who don't find their prices too high.
    • EminNew, on 10/24/2007, -2/+7Eat a lot of marketing material?
      Dude, it's a company. They don't want your love, they want your money.
      • roberto_deneero, on 10/24/2007, -4/+1Ah yes the Apple haters in the hizzy this morning. They do want our love. If you have ever run a business, the more people love you, the more you'll sell to them. Der.
  • houndeyex, on 10/25/2007, -21/+5I may not like Apple, but IBM...

    YEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHhhhh. In yo' face mutha *****!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111
  • easytosay, on 10/25/2007, -11/+17Do not let people mislead you. These numbers are not a true reflection of a company's real value. Don't buy in to this sensationalism crap.
    • Aggaman, on 10/24/2007, -1/+8In a market, the value of something is the price that people are willing to pay for it. Welcome to capitalism.
  • totorototoro, on 10/24/2007, -2/+9"Feeling a little blue, IBM? "

    Uh, didn't ValleyWag run a big article last March boasting they dumped all their AAPL stock at $95? At that we all should too, because Jobs was going down in that stock options issue? I doubt IBM is the only one feeling blue this morning :p
    • mmacmu1, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2They are probably blue in the head over this dumb article
  • elguando, on 10/25/2007, -5/+30Let's see, Apple reported earnings of $904 million, while IBM reported earnings of $2.36 billion. You do the math.
    • jlungu, on 10/24/2007, -5/+10I did the math ... I made about $6K in the last 5 months ...
      • Spuy767, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4I did the math too, I made about $14,000.00 while I slet ast night.
        • ddorent, on 10/24/2007, -1/+9i did the math too, now its pregnant
  • krisleslie, on 10/23/2007, -0/+8I work for a company that still (unfortunately) has to use OS/400 (yes fortune 500 company) and its' been annoying to "learn" old systems as the such because they don't have any accessiblility or usablity or even decent design or UI involved! Its so old and annoying but its my job and thats what I get paid for. (enough rant)

    IBM isn't in the market that APPLE is in so stop comparing the two. However it is good to see they have upped their money which is always a good thing.
    • Genady, on 10/24/2007, -0/+5For applications written on OS/400 or OS/390 very often those applications are more robust and less prone to failure than the same application wrtten on an 'open system' or :shudder: windows. Learn from the Greybeards who came before you kiddo and take that experience with you when you move away from the Mainframe. The further you get from those roots the worse IT does operationally.
      • ucg1, on 10/23/2007, -0/+5That really really depends on who developed the application and how well its been maintained. There were asshats coding back then, just like there's even more asshats coding now.
        • Genady, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I'll agree with you on principal, but really, show me a company with 7x24 operators with a big book of procedures for Open Systems or Windows applications and I'll apply there today. In my experience Mainframe (and OS/400) programmers get it right a whole lot more often than vended solutions written on top of SQL Server or Oracle. (I've not much experience with DB2, but hear it's better, probably because of it's proximity to Big Blue.)
      • leodavinci, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4The 400 is an amazing machine/OS/platform. They are simply rock solid and don't go down. There are many times where the performance and reliability is much more important than some kind of nice bubbly Windows or web interface.
    • Treoinmypocket, on 10/23/2007, -0/+4LOL - most Fortune 500 companies have as/400 (iSeries).
  • kyuuball, on 10/23/2007, -4/+1Now we know who to hate
  • ThatEvilGuy, on 10/24/2007, -9/+3Steve must be happy, he finally beat the guys in the suits.
  • badnewsblair, on 10/24/2007, -8/+1Bought in at $27.
    • citizen782, on 10/23/2007, -1/+3Here is your cookie.... Wait, no... I'm gonna eat it.
  • nightsweat, on 10/23/2007, -6/+9Yyyyyeaaah. That's not overvalued stock or anything.
    IBM P/E - 16.30
    IBM Earnings/Share - 6.69
    Apple P/E - 38.40
    Apple Earnings/Share - 3.93
    • srodolff, on 10/24/2007, -1/+3Forget that. Apple's P/E ratio is 52!!! This stock is WAY overvalued. Sell while you can.
  • r00tus3r, on 10/24/2007, -0/+7I'd be happy as a clam to be with either of these companies. I'm sure no one at IBM is shedding any tears, that company is still doing phenomenally well.
    • fluxion, on 10/24/2007, -2/+4and Apple doesnt have thousands of researchers and dedicated research facilities for working on new technologies like quantum computing and supercomputers. IBM has grown immensely...Apple...they simply invented the iPod and started selling PC's with unix pre-installed, and mastered the art of marketing
      • iburl, on 10/24/2007, -0/+1"simply"
        ^ Monday Morning Quarterbacking
  • Resiroth, on 10/24/2007, -2/+7Not too surprising really. Nanos cost 80 dollars to be made with labor in china and sold over here for a 300% or more markup. IBM isn't in the same market anyways so it's apples to oranges.
  • trollick, on 10/24/2007, -9/+3Pets.com FTW
  • lewhich, on 10/24/2007, -11/+5Apple's true enemy is Dell
    This is what Michael Dell said in 1997

    And at the Gartner Symposium and ITxpo97 here today, the CEO of competitor Dell Computer added his voice to the chorus when asked what could be done to fix the Mac maker. His solution was a drastic one.

    "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders," Michael Dell said before a crowd of several thousand IT executives.

    http://www.news.com/Dell-Apple-should-close-shop/2 ...

    • mwalker05, on 10/24/2007, -2/+5this was back when apple was a steaming heap of crap. i mean you do realize that steve jobs was fired as CEO of the company he created, and then they invited him back when things turned from bad to worse. i admit he has done a great job since then, but pulling quotes out of context just makes you look like an ass.
    • NSResponder, on 10/24/2007, -5/+7"Apple's true enemy is Dell"

      Nah..

      First of all, Dell's so far back in Apple's dust, that thinking of them as an enemy is just silly. Secondly, Apple's not focused on their competition, they're focused on the customer (which is why they incidentally beat the competition.)

      -jcr
      • systemghost, on 10/24/2007, -1/+2Yeah, just like how their return policy on iPods magically shrunk. Right? Focused on the customer -- focused on ***** the customer :]
  • kidcodea, on 10/24/2007, -9/+23you have to be preety stupid and uninformed to think apple is worth more than IBM.

    structurewise and supportwise, IBM is deep in society , statusquo and structure.
    some people just dont have any idea how deep IBM tentacles reach...
    apple is popular, but not important.
    • Seannaz453, on 10/24/2007, -1/+7Here here.
    • mandarin, on 10/24/2007, -6/+1IBM is an old guy, loaded with red tape and overpaid executives who watch porn at work...
      • valkyries, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3and watching porn at work is a bad thing?
  • ShyGuy91284, on 10/24/2007, -3/+6Doesn't mean much overall. I'm a huge fan of apple, but their R&D is nowhere near as strong as what IBM has. Until they get more into R&D, they will never come close to the likes of HP, Microsoft, and IBM in terms of long-lasting greatness....
    • spade, on 10/24/2007, -2/+1Sometimes it's not how much you spend, it's how you spend it.
  • stutimandal, on 10/24/2007, -15/+10Fanboys digg me down. LOL.
  • robbob, on 10/23/2007, -0/+1Who would have thunk it
  • Nevotraz, on 10/24/2007, -6/+8Apple is doing great, no one can deny that, but they have a lot of their eggs in one basket: the iPod. There's really nothing about the iPod (other than the social cool factor) that makes it better than competing DAP's, and in fact in many cases it's worse off. I worry that Apple won't be able to hang on to its massive market share forever, which is fine, so long as it's able to successful transfer revenue streams to another product(s).
    • fluxion, on 10/24/2007, -1/+5whoops. looks like you pissed off a couple ipod owners. boo hoo
    • superkendall, on 10/24/2007, -4/+3The iPod is just one basket - APple has several. As noted they sold 400k more macs this quarter than the highest quarter before that. They have a little thing called the iPhone (perhaps you've heard of it). They have strong software sales too, of pro software, it's just you don't hear as much about profits from that.

      Apple is not a one-trick pony here, even if the iPod market went soft Apple has a lot of other very hot irons in the fire.
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/24/2007, -2/+3Wow, gimme a break. Superkendall, you need to let your fanboy thoughts die down a bit before posting. You mean to tell me that Apple would even be in the game still if it weren't for the iPod?
        • systemghost, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1Apple who? It's all the iPod baby. They should just change their stock ticker to IPOD and be done with it.
  • digitallysick, on 10/24/2007, -4/+2Don't count out IBM one day in the future they will have a powerpc chip that can do 4ghz, wow...... lol
    • systemghost, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3And Apple will release a new colour of iPod?
  • mwalker05, on 10/24/2007, -6/+7they are worth more than IBM and yet the only product they have >10% market share in is ipod? thats what happens when you overprice fashionable merchandise to the idiots willing to shell out for it.
  • dcpnn, on 10/24/2007, -2/+9The Balance Sheet says otherwise:
    IBM: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=IBM&annual
    Apple: http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL&annual
    • mmacmu1, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3thank you for "balancing" this argument hehehe
  • HotSaucePanCake, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4You do realize that Apple and IBM compete in totally different markets... One is a provider of IT Services and Solutions the other Makes Electronic Devices and Computers and sells those in the consumer market... FYI IBM sold Lenovo.... and a market cap is only representative of what people think the company is worth... not what its actually doing in revenue. HP has this market Dominated... Dell is second and everyone else is left in the DUST
    • leodavinci, on 10/25/2007, -1/+2and the services market is much more profitable than hardware. If Apple ever wants to gain more than 8-10% of the home PC market they will need to bring their price point down, which means lower profits. For Apple to grow they are going to have to cut into their profit margin, pure and simple.
  • wildsnake, on 10/24/2007, -1/+4And you cannot compare Apple to Microsoft, DELLs or HP's either. They sell to high end corporate companies for servers and networks. Boeing buys hundreds of thousands of DELLs with Windows, while Apple basically sells to consumers and schools. So all these comparisons are BS.
  • liquisoft, on 10/24/2007, -3/+12This is what the experts call "bull."
    IBM is worth billions more than Apple. Apple is doing extremely well, don't get me wrong, but they have a long ways to go to beat out IBM. I don't even think Apple wants to beat IBM. Apple is a bit more of a niche product, and they work well that way.
  • geekee, on 10/24/2007, -5/+9When MS was in this position many years ago, no one saw the danger. Apple is at least as monopolistic as MS, maybe more since they won't even let you run their OS on anyone else's hardware.
    • MacParrot, on 10/24/2007, -6/+1Let you? Go into any Apple Store or Best Buy that sells Apple products. Ask to buy a copy of OS X. No one will ask for a picture of a Mac as they ring up your purchase. Put it on any machine you want. It might not work, but Apple isn't stopping you from trying.
      • FredFredrickson, on 10/24/2007, -0/+3No, but they make their OS only work on their own architecture. That qualifies as control to me.
      • deepakhj, on 10/24/2007, -1/+1There's a bunch of sites dedicated to running OS X on PC's.
      • mandarin, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2I kinda lost it when you mentioned a picture of a mac...
      • jasonwc, on 10/24/2007, -0/+2They don't have to ask you in the store. When you click "Accept" on the End User License Agreement (EULA) you bind yourself to its terms, one of which is that you may only use the softtware on Apple branded hardware.

        See OS X EULA: http://www.apple.com/legal/sla/macosx.html

        BY USING THE SOFTWARE, YOU ARE AGREEING TO BE BOUND BY THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE.

        2. Permitted License Uses and Restrictions.
        A. This License allows you to install and use one copy of the Apple Software on a single Apple-labeled computer at a time. . .
    • chambana, on 10/23/2007, -2/+3Nah.
    • schoate09, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Funny, I'm running OS X 10.4.10 perfectly on my Gateway.
  • kroni, on 10/24/2007, -14/+10Apple is overrated, their products are a piece of crap. I had one and I sell it to some fool, I now own a clone made by myself AMD based PC with Kubuntu, and is totally superior to the crap I had before. Apple, go and die in a corner with all your fanboys!!!
    • MacParrot, on 10/23/2007, -4/+2You're a sad sad little man and you have my sympathy.
    • stimpack, on 10/24/2007, -4/+5rantish, but elements of truth. Apple are overrated, even frothing fanbois admit it. None of their products are 'best in class', they get by on a wave of teen-cool. But they are far from crap. Just very very restrictive on how you can use them. You will not deviate from Steve's vision or your phone/mac/ipod will be bricked.
    • proliance, on 10/23/2007, -1/+4You own a clone? You say its based on AMD, so its not Apple hardware, and you're running Kubuntu, so its not Apple software either. How is this a clone again?
  • kronzdigg, on 10/24/2007, -5/+2love the stock appl!!!!!!!
  • biggbrother, on 10/23/2007, -1/+2Microsoft is only at $290B. Talk about closing the gap in a short period of time!
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 91 of 91 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.