34 ms·

The comparison is wrong but I think it has utility in putting that trillion dollar amount into context. Most people can understand a thousand dollars (context:

The comparison is wrong but I think it has utility in putting that trillion dollar amount into context. Most people can understand a thousand dollars (context: not life changing money but a welcome surprise), a million dollars (imagine the house I could buy…), a billion dollars (the government wastes that in X minutes!) but a trillion dollars? That’s not normally part of our conversation. The comparison should be “Apple has a market cap of a trillion dollars. How big is that? Well it’s the same as X, Y, and Z…"

danmaz74 8y ago
I actually agree with you. The comparison is not correct, but useful. It reminds me of Box's comment that "all models are wrong, but some are useful". This comparison can (and is/will be) abused, but it's still useful for most laypeople.
- pandem 8y ago
  I think the opposite. It is correct as a trillion dollars is a trillion dollars, but not useful as it is misleading. It is easy to assumr from these headlines that Apple would be similar in size to country x GDP
- thanatropism 8y ago
  But it's not. Technical people are telling laypeople that X is useful. X isn't useful on its own because (1) it's wrong, not just inaccurate and (2) even if conceivable as an oversimplification of a complex issue, it misleads people. It leads them to think Apple is like a country or worse that countries are like companies. This is how we get to "Brawndo, it's what plants crave".
sametmax 8y ago
That's the difference between accurate and useful. Technical oriented persons love to be correct, hence the famous joke : https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/909/991/48c.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/909/991/48c... But if you ever sale or teach something, you quickly realize that being correct is not nearly as important as being understood. And being understood is, itself, not as important as being accepted.
- pembrook 8y ago
  ^The most insightful comment in this entire thread.
thanatropism 8y ago
There's a difference between being inaccurate and being wrong. Here are some example of lump sums: - Other companies, specially smaller ones (worth 15 Trader Joes or soemthing); - The Apollo program; - The cost of wars; - Etc. Except for the first one, these comparisons are inaccurate. What, Apple could pay for 10 Apollo programs how, by liquidating immediately? It can't -- not at market prices and at any rate most of its value is intangibles (and future expectations on the value of those intangibles). It's also inaccurate to compare the speeds of 100m sprinters and middle-distance runners, but at the very least it gives you insight (using olympic records or something) on how middle distance runs differ from sprinters.

danmaz74 8y ago

I actually agree with you. The comparison is not correct, but useful. It reminds me of Box's comment that "all models are wrong, but some are useful". This comparison can (and is/will be) abused, but it's still useful for most laypeople.

pandem 8y ago
I think the opposite. It is correct as a trillion dollars is a trillion dollars, but not useful as it is misleading. It is easy to assumr from these headlines that Apple would be similar in size to country x GDP
thanatropism 8y ago
But it's not. Technical people are telling laypeople that X is useful. X isn't useful on its own because (1) it's wrong, not just inaccurate and (2) even if conceivable as an oversimplification of a complex issue, it misleads people. It leads them to think Apple is like a country or worse that countries are like companies. This is how we get to "Brawndo, it's what plants crave".

sametmax 8y ago

That's the difference between accurate and useful. Technical oriented persons love to be correct, hence the famous joke : https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/909/991/48c.jpg https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/909/991/48c... But if you ever sale or teach something, you quickly realize that being correct is not nearly as important as being understood. And being understood is, itself, not as important as being accepted.

pembrook 8y ago
^The most insightful comment in this entire thread.

thanatropism 8y ago

There's a difference between being inaccurate and being wrong. Here are some example of lump sums: - Other companies, specially smaller ones (worth 15 Trader Joes or soemthing); - The Apollo program; - The cost of wars; - Etc. Except for the first one, these comparisons are inaccurate. What, Apple could pay for 10 Apollo programs how, by liquidating immediately? It can't -- not at market prices and at any rate most of its value is intangibles (and future expectations on the value of those intangibles). It's also inaccurate to compare the speeds of 100m sprinters and middle-distance runners, but at the very least it gives you insight (using olympic records or something) on how middle distance runs differ from sprinters.