We know that Sony has vastly more assets, and more sales, but what a company is worth is measured by market capitalization, and how well a company is doing is measured by its return on invested capital. The point is actually illustrated very clearly by the chart you posted above. Sony has $89 billion in assets and made $1.05 billion in profits. Nintendo has $10 billion in assets and made $0.84 billion in profits. Which company is getting a better return on its investments?
For everyone else, see how I just did that without calling vizunary a fanboy?
ok, ok... I've always understood what these numbers mean.... I don't know, maybe it was the vast generalization of the whole thing just peeved me for some reason. I'm not saying you're wrong(AT ALL) this is a legitimate way of looking at the scenario "profit per assets" But using the same formula I could show that the one beer store within 30 miles is "worth" more than either Sony or Nintendo, just making a point. Everything depends on how you look at it.
@Lingyis again I'm not blocking anything out using my "fanboyism"... truly if any of us could go back and get a couple thousand shares of Nintendo before it rocketed, that'd be great.
PS. I've been playing the Big N since the NES, I don't have anything against them or their machines, they just turned me off with the N64 and I went to PS, but FINALLY they've got a reason for me to get a Nintendo(the Wii) I just don't think it's worth $250, I'll get it when it cheapens up. Remember the whole argument about "perceived value" just like the PSP, it's worth, heh, is about $150 to me and that's when I'll get one.