But surface appearances can be deceptive. Apple’s annual revenue gives it the GDP of a developed country – a Denmark, a Singapore or a South Africa – and behind the scenes, the goliath is putting that influence to some good use.
GDP is not revenue. As close as we can get between corporate and country accounting GDP equates to profits plus wage bill – the value add of the corporation.
Profits are around $100 billion. So, close enough for our purposes here. An Ethiopia. Or, perhaps more pertinent, a Luxembourg.
Luxembourg is perhaps 500k people, or, pulling out the old, young, lame and halt, housewives, mebbe 250k rich world people out working. Apple is perhaps 250k rich world people out working. That the value add of 250k rich world people working is about the same as the value add of 250k rich world people working seems sensible enough – that’s the definition of being in the rich world, high value add to labour.
Yes, true, I’ve stretched those numbers to make the point. But it is still a proper point. GDP is value add. So, the comparison is GDP to profits plus wage bill for a corporation. Sure, Apple’s big. Very profitable. But it’s still of the order of size of something close to a rich world workforce of about the same size. Just because that’s what the definition of a rich world workforce actually is.
(To be more accurate, Apple is 150k people, I’ve not included their wage bill because I can’t be bothered, Lux is about $88b GDP and so on. So, yes. Apple does add more value than the general population of a rich country. And yet….we do get into the same ballpark this way.)
Nice analysis
The influence of a Luxembourg or an Ethiopia?
Apple’s new iPhone Pro model is now £150 more expensive than last year
You can buy a perfectly good Android phone from a budget Chinese manufacturer for that sort of money. And they’re not crap either, they’re more than good enough for normal use cases.
Better than paying the idiot tax of £1,099 before trade in for a bloody phone.
Back in about 1970 I read “The Sovereign State of ITT”, about the huge wealth of corporations compared to 3rd World countries.
The cover graphic showed the stock market value of ITT which dwarfed the gold reserves of India, Brazil etc.
a madder comparison could not be made.
As close as we can get between corporate and country accounting GDP equates to profits plus wage bill – the value add of the corporation.
So how does that relate to “jobs are a cost”?
– that’s the definition of being in the rich world, high value add to labour.
So if we get rid of the costly jobs, do we become richer or poorer?
“a madder comparison could not be made.” How about the number of snakes in the tech biz and the number of snakes in India?
“ Apple’s new iPhone Pro model is now £150 more expensive than last year”
It also has satellite emergency connectivity and you get 2 years free service, as someone who hikes and camps and now kayaks mainly on my own and has an existing satellite emergency device with a monthly subscription then for me there is a definite value add to go with the price
Whether the Apple service is good enough remains to be seen of course, but removing dedicated devices and consolidating them to an existing device is a definite trend, though admittedly they are now into more niche products. The new Apple Watch ultra also has been certified as a dive computer, not sure I’d use it as such if I still dived though
BniC – Idk if taking a smartphone that costs as much as most people’s first car on a kayaking trip is a good idea.
Steve for kajaking you bring a €10 Nokia brick that can survive anything short of a nuclear blast.
But tell that to the Fruity fanbois….
Steve for kajaking you bring a €10 Nokia brick that can survive anything short of a nuclear blast.
And a battery that lasts for two weeks.
I know this is economics so the definitions are fluid, depending on which models you are parroting, but surely GDP is the value added by people, whatever legal shennanigans are used as the wrapper. Profit is a measurable proxy, but what do you do with the government sector, where mostly there is no profit to measure. Surely this is a valid objection to a nationalised approach. The measure of GDP becomes political because all you can do is count the tractors, and it is easy enough to manipulate the count.