Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 9th Oct 2012 22:01 UTC
Permalink for comment 538186
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/20/13 11:29 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:33 UTC
Linked by David Adams on 05/16/13 4:23 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/11/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/08/13 14:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/02/13 15:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/29/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/24/13 22:24 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 04/18/13 11:21 UTC
More Features »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-07-04
It's not so ridiculous that Apple makes more money despite having fewer employees when you stop to think about the average salary of Apple's direct AND indirect employees. The majority of Apple's employees (adding up both their direct and indirect workforce) work for just above slave wages. Only a very small percentage of Microsoft's total (direct and indirect) workforce work for such wages.

Besides that, look at companies like Sony, Yamaha, and the like. Sony makes consumer electronics, computers, movies, music CDs, life insurance, banks, magazines, and on and on and on. Yamaha is so diverse that they make everything from motorcycles to saxaphones. Those two companies have more direct and indierect employees than Apple and Microsoft combined, by far, yet make less money than either.
I'm also reminded of the AOL/TimeWarner deal, which was actually AOL buying Time Warner, despite AOL being a simple online service and Time Warner being involved in magazines, TV networks, movies, video games, etc. Time Warner had way more assets and employees than AOL, yet AOL made more profit and had way higher marketcap value at the time.
Which is to say that generally the whole system is out of whack, kind of.