5 ms·
How much revenue top companies earn per second
- ekianjo 13y agoToo bad they only presented tech companies. It would be interested to compare Apple vs Shell or BP, just to get an idea of the differences.
- mseebach 13y agoTo what end? Looking at revenue in isolation is mostly pointless. The presented companies have vastly different businesses with different revenue flows. Shell, by the way, is $14,800/second. These numbers are public and trivially discoverable.
- mswe 13y agoWhich one can observe, data that is easily discover-able but in its raw format is not interesting. Visual is.
- jlarocco 13y agoIMO the visual on the page was annoying, and not very informative. The bar chart somebody linked to showed the same data in a much nicer way. Easier to grasp at a glance, and easier to make comparisons. To make the page's visual work it would have been better to show later numbers in terms of the previous companies. Show, for example, that Facebook is 1.3 Blackberries, Nokia is 4 Facebooks, etc.
- cdavid 13y agoI would add compare it with energy-related industries private or public. Each of Shell, Exxon, Sinopec and China national petroleum earn 3 times as much as Apple. 6/10 biggest companies by income are in oil/gas, and privately owned companies are a fraction of the industry size...
- ekianjo 13y agoI wouldn't say private since these are corporations usually based on shares systems. This is different from a company such as Valve, for example, which is purely private and where the revenue information is not publicly available. Apart from this detail, your point is very interesting. I wonder, all industries considered, how much % of worldwide's revenue is earned by nationally owned companies versus the corporations counterparts.
- cdavid 13y agoThanks for the correction, my wording was a bad translation from my native language.
- adamnemecek 13y agoWell the order was somewhat unexpected. Surprised about IBM, HP and Dell.
- phr4ts 13y agoI'm surprised about Foxconn
- nostrademons 13y agoIBM and HP are absolutely huge B2B service providers. HP has over 300,000 employees; IBM has over 400,000. By comparison, Google is an order of magnitude less, at about 35,000 excluding Motorola.
- nraynaud 13y agoto add a precision to your post: and most IBM and HP's employees are billed by the time. Headcount is proportional to market size. Google employee's time brings no revenue per se. Headcount is independent of market size (the only limiting thing is customer support whose max is O(log(customer)), and we are talking about google ...)
- statusgraph 13y agoWhy is customer supporter log(n)? Seems it would be nlog(n) (because of management overhead)
- nraynaud 13y agocommunity support + services companies when you're big enough.
- ohadron 13y agoMake means income or revenue?
- adamnemecek 13y agoRevenue, it says so at the top.
- fusionflo 13y agoI was expecting to see the big GOOGLE on this list but could not see it?
- radious 13y agoSomehow this page misses twitter...
- sebbi 13y agoBecause it is too small. Not even in the hundreds per second. $100 per second equals $3.15 billion in yearly revenue and Twitter has roughly a tenth of that ...
- JetSpiegel 13y agoThey run out of space for all those 0s
- sidcool 13y agoI was a bit surprised to see FoxConn there with such a big revenue.
- essersteven 13y agoeverything is from foxconn these days...
- MattBearman 13y agoInteresting to see, and well presented. I'd be more interested in profit rather than revenue.
- LordIllidan 13y agoInteresting, but I didn't care much for the visualizations shown - they took up way too much space on the page for the bigger companies.
- _mulder_ 13y agoAgreed. I know it's trendy to show data in this method, but it's impossible to compare like-for-like. One ends up just looking at the numerical value. A simple bar graph would have been much better.
- ajaypmathew 13y agoCouldn't agree more. AfterFB it was just a pain scrolling to the next one.
- rayiner 13y agoAre you kidding? It's a horrible presentation. All that scrolling to present what could have been easily shown on a one-page bar graph.
- yawn 13y agoAnd yet after viewing the OP, I have a lasting feeling of the difference and will more likely remember the disparities.
- rayiner 13y agoI just viewed the OP 15 minutes ago and I have no idea how much revenue any of the companies made. I know Samsung and Apple were near the top and Blackberry was near the bottom, but I already knew that! If it had been a simple table with numbers I'd still remember them.
- stbullard 13y agoSummary (note: revenue, not profit) Blackberry: 205 Facebook: 230 Nokia: 941 Oracle: 1068 Cisco: 1594 Intel: 1628 Dell: 1865 Google: 1873 Amazon: 1996 Microsoft: 2331 IBM: 3166 HP: 3459 Foxconn: 3815 Apple: 4540 Samsung: 6486
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- sebbi 13y agoI wonder what's their source for this infographic (or how old it is). $1 per second equals $31.536.000 per year. That's only 204.5 billion for Samsung which had 268.8 billion in 2012 and - so far - only record breaking quarters in 2013. Same for Apple (143.2 billion vs. 171 billion.
- crntaylor 13y agoBar graph, for ease of comparison: http://imgur.com/J21Oi7Z http://imgur.com/J21Oi7Z
- tonylemesmer 13y agoa much nicer way of looking at simple data!
- notacoward 13y agoJust for fun, here are the profit numbers. Gazprom 1410 Exxon Mobil 1302 I&C Bank of China 1021 Shell 980 Chevron 852 China Constr. Bank 830 Apple 822 BP 814 BHP Billiton 749 Microsoft 734 Two banks, two high tech, the rest oil/gas/mining. Kind of depressing. List and figures from http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2012/performers/companies/profits/ http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/global500/2012/perfor...
- chollida1 13y ago> Two banks, two high tech, the rest oil/gas/mining. Kind of depressing. Why is this depressing? It looks like the people manufacturing things for the economy are being rewarded. To me this seems like the economy is working properly.
- nraynaud 13y agoIt's a bit too bad they compare revenue of resellers like Amazon with editors like Microsoft, the gross margin is really different. Resellers have to punch over their weight to get some money home where Microsoft brings almost everything to the bank.
- tixocloud 13y agoYes, I agree but it's really very difficult to compare companies these days. On the surface, Microsoft, Apple and Google all seem like competitors to each other but they have different businesses underneath and as you said, different gross margins. However, I don't think you can truly find businesses that are almost identical when it comes to giant conglomerates.
- z92 13y agoDisplaying profit instead of revenue would have been more interesting, "Waooo!!! This company makes more money per second than what I make working a whole month!"
- Julianhearn 13y agoYes a profit version would be very interesting.
- tlarkworthy 13y agoalso it be nice to compare how tech is doing against oil & gas and pharma (in profit)
- jalada 13y agoThe problem is profit is too closely tied to accounting, and doesn't correspond to success or size.
- Houshalter 13y agoRevenue is interesting because it shows how much is going to each company. Like how many people are buying Dell computers or Google ads, not just the amount of profit each company makes off them which can vary vastly for all sorts of reasons.
- itsbits 13y agowould have liked to visualize with Bar graph rather long page...
- flexie 13y agoMaybe at some point in the future you can actually see real time what companies sell and buy and with whom the transactions are made.
- mswe 13y agoYou can see it today if they make the data available.. nothing much in terms of technology here.
- rheide 13y agoWould be cool if this had an at-a-glance view with incrementing counters for each company on a single screen, updating proportionally to their revenue.
- rplnt 13y agoThe title is missing an important keyword. There are, of course, a lot of companies making much (much) more than this per seconds. Also, how is Foxconn a technology company in the sense the others are? Don't they only (as oppsoed to Samsung for example which does that also) manufacture for others, what is designed by others? I really don't think they fit the description.
- swalsh 13y agoI believe foxconn is now designing manufacturing equipment... if that counts.
- jlarocco 13y agoYeah, for comparison purposes Walmart is about $14871 and Exxon around $14364. Using the numbers from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_by_revenue
- swalsh 13y agoRevenue is not really interesting. Take Amazon as an example, they make a lot of revenue... but that's because they pretty much give away as much money as they can sustain.
- rayiner 13y agoThe interesting thing about this chart is how unprofitable manufacturing is. Foxconn's profits are less than $3 billion on $115 billion in revenues (and $50-$60 billion in assets). Google has 3x the profit but less than half the revenue. When people ask why manufacturing has left the U.S., this is the reason why: it doesn't offer very good return on capital. On the other hand, Foxconn provides jobs for over 1.2 million people, while Google employs less than 50,000. Also relevant to the debate about manufacturing.
- yetanotherphd 13y agoProfits relative to revenues isn't a useful figure. An investor who sees a business as a black box where you put initial capital in and get money out, doesn't care what the revenue of the company is at all. Jobs are a more complex issue - offshoring manufacturing may be efficient, but it does have an impact on the distribution of wealth, and unemployment. It's not clear what the right policy trade off is. I think cutting back on illegal immigration would be a better way to boost job growth in the low end of the job market.
- euroclydon 13y ago> Profits relative to revenues isn't a useful figure. An investor who sees a business as a black box where you put initial capital in and get money out, doesn't care what the revenue of the company is at all. I can't see how an investor would not care. It seems that given a more profitable business, for a desired ROI amount, the capital input is smaller.
- ajiang 13y agoThat's why you don't use revenue relative to profit as a metric, but various returns on invested capital as a metric, e.g. profit to debt, profit to assets, profit to capital expenditures, etc. Revenue is often a difficult figure to compare, as different companies in the same industry can record revenue in different ways depending on a multitude of factors (e.g. location in the value chain). Put it more simply, if I have a business selling widgets and I need to invest $100 to start the business, it matters more what kind of profit I can get on that $100. If the widget I'm selling sells for $50 and I make $10 profit vs. sells for $500 and I make $10 profit, I'm still making $10 profit on $100 invested capital. Now more often than not, I'd prefer to sell the higher margin product as it requires less working capital (such as inventory costs) which in itself has the 'cost of capital', but that's just the reality of some (fairly lucrative) industries you get into.
- gdilla 13y agoLove this! It'd be neat if you could enter a stock ticker for any company and see it displayed here.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- known 13y agoI propose these companies should adopt/donate/fund ObamaCare