>a) biggest company does not equal company with highest market cap

Actually it does. Especially since you can have 1 billion in revenue by selling $10 dollar bills at $1 dollar.

>b) having the biggest market cap is something thats good for their shareholder, and terrible for anyone else

Whatever.

>But yeah, do continue to praise your beloved highness.

Irrational argument ad hominem.

Well, "biggest" can mean a number of different things but, given that this is an Internet comment board and not an audited financial report, market cap seems one perfectly reasonable measure.

My sentiments exactly.

Market cap would be a reasonable measure for "biggest public company".

It's an awful measure for "biggest company", since private companies have no market cap. This was discussed a while ago in relation to Saudi Aramco's potential partial IPO. Saudi Aramco is huge, much bigger than Apple, with no market cap.

> private companies have no market cap

They absolutely do. They're just updated less frequently and called "valuations". Closely-held private companies also have valuations, they're just even less frequently made visible.

Its technically not "market cap" since there are no stocks and no public offerings, and therefore no "bet" on their future. A valuation and market cap are entirely different things.

> A valuation and market cap are entirely different things

In the way the Fahrenheit and Celsius scales "are entirely different things." Both "valuation" and "market cap" are measures on the aggregated estimated present value of future cash flows, i.e. net asset value, from/of a security.

Not to be rude, but do you even know what you're talking about? What does "biggest" company mean? Most employees? Largest land area covered? Or market capitalization?