rwk/rick mktcap,
while this is truly a waste of time, what the heck ...
first, I do not believe I am off by an order of magnitude.
Megacap companies have a tendency to come in at around 2 times sales, give or take (and at this point, whats a hundred million seats hear or there).
So, the "not insane" $100B mktcap likely requires about 50b in sales (mktcap:sales for the following) > T (165:125), AAPL (360:100), INTC (100:50), SYMC (12:6), MSFT (220:70). The general trend is in the area of 2-3 times sales, the range depending on margins.
RWK: On the order of magnitude my abacus says that $50B divided by $50/seat is a billion seats, i.e. fifty times a billion is fifty billion.
rick: Using my silly screening tools I cant find any indication that it would take anything less that 50B in sales to drop down to a $100B mktcap. But if its important I'm willing to cede that it might only take 660,000,000 seats at 50 a seat, or a paying seat for 10% of the planets population.
Msft does enjoy a 3x multiple as does AAPL, the first started with a monopoly that provided the very basis for computing as opposed to Wave's open standards widget (that the CEO already complains of enduring pricing pressure on) leads me to beleive I am being rather generous. The later (AAPL) enjoys the fruits of a near cultist proprietary closed empire of devices and content distribution, again ... an exception that proves the rule IMO.
Point is, $100B is totally insane (as is $10B, albeit an order of magnitude less insane).
The above content is my opinion.
AI
