4 ms·

> they embody two alternative models of capitalism, and the one that wins out will shape the future of the economy. Even in such a vague form, this is a touch

> they embody two alternative models of capitalism, and the one that wins out will shape the future of the economy. Even in such a vague form, this is a touch sensationalist. The impact of 'the one that wins' may be negligible. There also may be no winner.

MR4D 9y ago
I originally thought that too, until I read through the entire article. Technically, the "one" that wins is not the company, but the style of how they treat shareholders. Effectively, these two companies embody fairly different points on the spectrum of shareholder control: Google being effectively a public closely-held company; Apple being a public widely-held company. True, Google has millions of shareholders, but the _control_ is closely held, hence why I am using that term. The control that shareholders (and activists and raiders) can have on Apple is significantly different than on Google. And that is what the article is about. Over time, the market could adjust from the Apple model (which is the status quo in public companies) to the Google model. The implications are tremendous, as the idea of a public company that is closely-held over the long term hasn't really been done before.
- itcmcgrath 9y ago
  Except, given that both models ended up #1, and #2 respectively, doesn't it imply that both models can work and other factors are more important in success? Following that, doesn't it imply that shareholders should/will care more about those other factors?
  - johnsmith21006 9y ago
    But Google is also 22 years younger? Google passed $100b market cap at age 7 and Apple at 29. Google other as in non ad revenues in 2016 at age 18 is greater than all of Apple revenues when they were the same age. Plus Google grew income by 29% last quarter and Apple earnings have declined over the last two years.
williamstein 9y ago
Agreed. The article assumes that business/investment/etc. is a zero-sum game.
- JCzynski 9y ago
  Not exactly. It says that "which strategy for growth is best?" has only one answer. Which is true.

MR4D 9y ago

I originally thought that too, until I read through the entire article. Technically, the "one" that wins is not the company, but the style of how they treat shareholders. Effectively, these two companies embody fairly different points on the spectrum of shareholder control: Google being effectively a public closely-held company; Apple being a public widely-held company. True, Google has millions of shareholders, but the _control_ is closely held, hence why I am using that term. The control that shareholders (and activists and raiders) can have on Apple is significantly different than on Google. And that is what the article is about. Over time, the market could adjust from the Apple model (which is the status quo in public companies) to the Google model. The implications are tremendous, as the idea of a public company that is closely-held over the long term hasn't really been done before.

itcmcgrath 9y ago
Except, given that both models ended up #1, and #2 respectively, doesn't it imply that both models can work and other factors are more important in success? Following that, doesn't it imply that shareholders should/will care more about those other factors?
- johnsmith21006 9y ago
  But Google is also 22 years younger? Google passed $100b market cap at age 7 and Apple at 29. Google other as in non ad revenues in 2016 at age 18 is greater than all of Apple revenues when they were the same age. Plus Google grew income by 29% last quarter and Apple earnings have declined over the last two years.

williamstein 9y ago

Agreed. The article assumes that business/investment/etc. is a zero-sum game.

JCzynski 9y ago
Not exactly. It says that "which strategy for growth is best?" has only one answer. Which is true.