Some of those companies are failing (e.g, NYT), some are commodity suppliers highly subject to market fluctuations (e.g., Du Pont), and others are locked in eternal marketing struggle in a highly-competitive and arguably saturated marketplace (e.g., Burger King, Abercrombie & Fitch).
Not saying that Apple's valuation is correct, but there is a certain attraction to the company: it sells premium, high-margin products that have proven their ability to withstand general economic malaise, are non-commoditized, not easily substitutable goods, and have few realistic competitors (the MacBook Pro sits almost unchallenged in the premium laptop market, the iPhone is - for now - at the top of the smartphone game, etc).
Apple's P/E is just under 22, which is not terribly expensive for a company that just launched a new, multibillion dollar product line (the iPad) and who has the dominant product in a rapidly expanding market (smartphones).
The writer puts it as "Would you rather own Apple or [long list of companies]?" That's a little misleading, because any of those companies could be overvalued or undervalued by the market, and because betting all your money on one company is almost always less attractive than spreading your risk over a dozen different ones.
Disagree. Depending on the specific market, Asian markets are predominantly brand based, not value based. The crowd gravitates to the trendy brand more than anything, and Apple has been effective in building their brand in asian markets.
I'm just saying monthly salary/income doesn't always serve as a barrier to an iPhone or iPad acquisition. I can see the 3G iPad dominating the market in certain countries.
