April 26, 2010 was a big day for Apple. That was the day it surpassed Microsoft as the most valuable technology company.

Kids who have grown up with the iMac, iPod and iPad may greet the news with a yawn. But those of us who remember the early days are somewhat stunned. Who would have thought ten years ago (let alone twenty or thirty) that Apple, which proudly refused to compromise its way to market share, would ever overtake big, bad Microsoft?

Nobody knows what’s going to happen from here, whether this is a temporary blip or a permanent changing of the guard. But as I look at the future prospects of both companies I can’t help drawing a parallel to similar organizations in another rapidly-changing, highly-competitive sector.

Microsoft is GM. Apple is BMW.

Microsoft, like GM, is big, covers just about everything, and makes products that work well most of the time but have a spotty quality reputation and for the most part don’t excite anyone.  Apple, like BMW, sticks to its core competency, is relentless about design and performance, and as a result is able to command a premium price.

Microsoft, like GM, seems to think building better products is enough, not understanding (or in denial about) the legacy of mediocrity associated with its brand. Apple, like BMW, is completely clear about the power and value of its brand and the vital importance of remaining true to it.

Take two stylish new cars, identical in every respect. Badge one with one of GM’s brands and attach the BMW brand to the other. Which one will people prefer? For which will they pay a premium? Do the same with a new computer or wireless device using the Microsoft and Apple logos, and ask the same questions. The difference is attributable to the brands, the meaning and value of which are driven by the quality and performance of the products to which they’ve been attached over the decades.

I don’t suggest anyone write Microsoft off. The company is run by really smart people, and it’s possible they have the next killer app in the garage right now. But Apple is smart, too, and it understands the whole-brain dimensions of its industry better than anyone.

None of us—and none of them—can predict the future. But I have more confidence that Apple and BMW understand people better than Microsoft and GM. For companies whose focus must always be on the next generation, that’s the holy grail.

The dean of automotive reporting, Paul Ingrassia, published a terrific interview with Alan Mulally, CEO of Ford Motor Company, in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal. Citing Ford’s $2.7 billion 2009 profit, and the fact that it was the only U.S. automaker not to duck into bankruptcy, Ingrassia noted how Ford might even surpass GM in market share for the first time in more than eighty years.

In When Growth Stalls, I document how struggling companies tend to keep themselves down through a combination of a loss of focus, a loss of nerve, a lack of management consensus and marketing inconsistency. I found it interesting that in Ingrassia’s analysis he inadvertently referenced how Mulally has dealt with three of these issues:

Loss of Focus: “[Mulally's] method has been to simplify, relentlessly and systematically, a business that had grown way too complicated and costly to be managed effectively. ’Improve Focus, Simplify Operations,’ reads one of Mr. Mulally’s many charts, which he repeats like a sacred mantra. Soon after his arrival Ford began shedding brands—Jaguar, Land Rover and Aston Martin among them—that the company couldn’t afford to support. Volvo will be next to go.”

Loss of Nerve: “The core Ford brand got an investment infusion to replace aging cars and revive a model lineup that had been heavily tilted toward gas-guzzling trucks.”

Lack of Consensus: “Mr. Mulally has overhauled the often-contentious culture in Ford’s executive suite. Most of his appointees are company veterans, but they’re the sort of people who typically got overlooked when style seemed to count more than substance, as it often did at Ford…Internal surveys show 87% of Ford employees believe the company is on the right track.”

Mulally summed up his recent success with a simple statement: ”It’s all about producing products people want.” That may be true of every company, but too few get it done–especially in the American automotive industry. I, for one, hope Ford’s comeback is a lasting one.

GM gets its share of knocks these days (see “GM, Is That All You’ve Got?”) and deservedly so. But when the company does something right, however small, it should get its props.

Last week I spotted a full-page newspaper ad featuring little more than a beauty shot of the 2010 Cadillac CTS Sport Wagon and the simple headline, “Sorry About The AppleCart.”

It took me a minute (just one, mind you) to realize what the ad was trying to say. When I did, I was pleased–not only because I was then in on the joke, but because GM in this case actually respected the intelligence of its customers.

I have no doubt that some people who see the ad won’t get it, at least not at first. And if they have anything to do with GM, Cadillac or its ad agency, they’ll make their displeasure known. But Cadillac buyers aren’t dummies, and by reflecting an understanding of that in its advertising the brand makes itself look smart.

Is the concept brilliant? No, as is typical for most automotive advertising. But the fact that the people who created it managed to keep the headline from being explained, dumbed down, or killed entirely is a credit to them.

Not a day goes by without more news about Detroit’s beleaguered automakers. While each new development is notable in and of itself, I find it more telling to take a few steps back and look at the big picture.

Below are a few clips from selected Wall Street Journal articles I’ve run across over just the last few days. Take a minute and scroll through them. They tell a fascinating tale.

First, GM continues its inability to focus, revealing a growing lack of consensus between management and the board:

“In a dramatic change of course, General Motors Co. backed out of a deal to sell the company’s European operations to car-parts supplier Magna International Inc., and now plans to spend billions to restructure the money-losing business itself.”

“The decision…was made at a board meeting Tuesday in which the company’s directors strayed from the plan of Chief Executive Frederick “Fritz” Henderson, who had spent months negotiating the Magna agreement.”

“The Opel deal is the second major transaction to fall apart for Mr. Henderson in little over a month.”

“Whereas Mr. Henderson’s predecessor, Rick Wagoner, had often won in the boardroom by relying on the support of long-serving directors, Mr. Henderson appears to be tiptoeing through land mines of strong opinions by adjusting his game plan.”

“Carl-Peter Forster, who worked for GM for more than nine years, is quitting as chief executive of GM Europe. The decision follows a vote by the company’s board of directors on Tuesday to scrap a plan to sell control of the German Opel unit…”

“Despite his dissent of late, Mr. Forster was long viewed as a strong asset on GM’s executive roster and his departure serves another blow to Mr. Henderson, who has seen his management bench shorten since the company’s exit from bankruptcy.”

Across town, Chrysler is making fairy-tale sales and market share predictions to try to convince investors (that means you, taxpayer) that it will repay the $9 billion it owes us by 2014:

“The company said it is counting on a slew of new models to spark a surge in sales over the next five years and drive its revival.”

“Chrysler—which has seen its sales plunge by half in the last few years—predicted revenue will rise about 20% a year, from $42.5 billion in 2010 to $67.5 billion in 2014, and said it would break even in 2011.”

“To hit its financial targets, Chrysler expects to double its world-wide sales, from 1.3 million cars and trucks in 2009 to 2.8 million in 2014, and predicted its U.S. market share will rise from about 6% in 2009 to 11% in 2014.”

Meanwhile, Detroit’s only private automotive company, Ford, has gone about regaining its focus, finding its nerve and sticking to its game plan.

“Last week Consumer Reports gave the company quality ratings comparable to those of Honda and Toyota.”

“On Monday, Ford reported its second consecutive quarterly profit—and more impressively, a swing from a $7.7 billion cash burn a year earlier to positive cash flow of $1.3 billion in the just-ended third quarter…”

“The company gained a percentage of market share in the first 10 months of this year, no easy feat in an ultra-competitive market.”

“The company’s turnaround actually began three years ago with decisions that amounted to zagging every time that General Motors zigged, which was remarkable for a company whose strategy for decades was to follow GM.”

“While GM kept its unwieldy assortment of eight brands, Ford sold Jaguar and Land Rover, cutting its brand lineup down to a manageable size.”

“What’s more, shedding brands and shunning the mortgage business has helped Ford focus on quality, where it had slipped badly early in this decade.”

“Consumer Reports said last week that 90% of Fords, Mercurys and Lincolns rate average or better in quality, right up there with Honda and Toyota.”

“When the economy recovers and car sales increase, Ford could be in great shape.”

The automotive business is complex, but it doesn’t have to be that hard. Focus, nerve, consistency, consensus—no matter the industry, all tend to diminish when growth stalls. And all are essential to getting it back.

At the moment, Ford is the only one of the Big 3 to be paying attention.

Last week, I wrote a BusinessWeek.com column entitled, “Why Your Advertising Isn’t Working.” Last weekend, GM launched its “Satisfaction Guaranteed” marketing campaign. With uncanny timing, GM’s new effort embodies many of the reasons I identified as to why advertising underperforms. (Judge for yourself here.) And for a number of reasons, GM’s campaign just doesn’t sit right with me.

First, in its news release introducing the effort, the company said, “if consumers give us a fair chance and look at the facts…our vehicles are the best choices.” The premise on which this statement seems to be based is odd to me, as if GM (recipient of billions of bailout dollars) has somehow been wronged by the public. Last I checked, people buy those vehicles which in their estimation meet their unique needs the best. “Fairness” (whatever that means) never even enters into the equation.

Second, GM went on to say it understands that to encourage prospective customers to give its brands a second look it will need to “work very hard to get people’s attention.” Fair enough, but the company didn’t work very hard to get people’s attention with this advertising. It’s flat, it’s boring, and (despite GMs protestations to the contrary) it’s been done before (see Chrysler/Lee Iacocca, circa 1981).

Third, I’m not sure a 60-day money back guarantee is the right strategy to reach people who have historically turned their noses up at GM brands. The question is less about how the company’s vehicles hold up in the first 60 days, but how they perform after 60,000 miles. I suspect this new offer will appeal strongly to GM fans, but won’t do much to move the needle among the buyers GM really needs to convert (who are currently loyal to dependable foreign makes).

If GM wants the public to give its vehicles a good second look, it must begin with a foundation not only of well-designed, well-built cars, but well-designed, well-built marketing. The fact that it didn’t shows a lack of understanding not only about how branding works, but how auto buyers think. Neither of which is a good sign.

As of May 5th, your household’s share of the GM bailout was roughly $135 (see “What’s a Billion?”) Today, according to an accounting done by the Wall Street Journal, your “contribution” to GM and its former subsidiaries has shot up to well over six hundred bucks. That’s a very large increase in a very short time.

Meanwhile, Ford, the lone U.S. automaker standing on its own two feet, reported a second quarter profit of over $2 billion. While Ford’s profit is the result of a one-time gain due to debt restructuring, the company is nevertheless coping with the downturn better than its rivals.

As I’ve spoken to dozens of CEOs of struggling companies over the past several months, one of the silver linings I repeatedly hear about the current economic situation is the fiscal discipline it has imposed on their operations. Day after day they’ve had to come up with strategies to make their companies leaner and meaner–strategies that will serve them well long after things pick up. That’s how the free market works, and all of us (as consumers) are the beneficiaries.

GM has sucked some $70 billion of precious capital out of the private sector, but I doubt it’s the better for it. Innovation is a function of motivation, and there’s nothing more motivating than the threat of going under. No one may be throwing your company a lifeline, but keep swimming. Once you can stop to catch your breath you’ll be amazed at what good shape you’re in.

Last Thursday the new president of Toyota admitted that the company lost its way over the last decade as it tried to overtake GM to become the world’s largest automaker.

Akio Toyoda (grandson of the company’s founder) said, “I do not think we were wrong to expand our business to meet the needs of customers around the world but we may have stretched more than we should have.”

Indeed. Toyota’s legendary quality has slipped as sales have slumped with the decline in the global automotive market. Toyota lost its focus on the legendary operating philosophy that had won the hearts, minds and wallets of a generation of consumers and led it to the precipice of becoming No. 1 in the world.

Says Toyoda about what the Wall Street Journal calls his “back to basics” strategy, “Rather than asking, ‘How many cars will we sell?’ or ‘How much money will we make by selling these cars?’ we need to ask ourselves, ‘What kind of cars will make people happy?’ as well as, ‘What pricing will attract them in each region?’ Then we must make those cars.”

That’s a good start. When growth stalls, the place to begin is with the needs of the customer. Only by better understanding those needs–and orienting its strategy around that understanding–can a company increase its relevance and desirability, critical building blocks in regenerating growth.

Toyota’s problems are, of course, intertwined with the larger issues affecting the auto industry. But the company is wise not to blame all of its woes on external events. By putting its own house in order, Toyota is increasing the odds that when the larger economy turns around, its own fortunes will lead the way.

Writing in the Wall Street Journal, James Stewart captured the unique loss of focus brought on by a lack of consensus among the key stakeholders (dare I say “stewards”) of GM over the past few decades.

He says, “It has been long in coming, this slow death of what was once the greatest and biggest corporation in the world. The myriad causes of its demise have been thoroughly chronicled, but to my mind one stands out: The custodians of GM simply gave up trying to build the best cars in the world. To accommodate a host of competing interests, from shareholders and bondholders to labor, they repeatedly compromised on excellence. Once sacrificed, that reputation has proved impossible to recapture.”

As Stewart said, GM’s downfall has been thoroughly chronicled. But years from now, with the perspective of history, I have little doubt that the company will be viewed as the perfect poster child for the principles I present in When Growth Stalls. If this can happen to what was once the world’s most dominant corporation, it can happen to yours and mine as well. We should continually take heed.

“I’m always looking for profitable growth on a sustained basis. That’s I think the hardest challenge in business–to not do it just once, but year after year.”

–Bruce Carbonari, CEO, Fortune Brands

That’s the lead quote in When Growth Stalls, and it’s fitting that it comes from the CEO of a company that’s currently stalled. Fortune Magazine’s annual Fortune 500 issue just hit newsstands, and Fortune Brands (#351 on the list and no relation to the magazine) suffered a revenue decline of more that 14 percent in 2008.

There are a number of other notable names on the stalled growth list. The top ten companies whose growth stalled in 2008 include:

#6 GM

#7 Ford

#11 Bank of America

#12 Citigroup

#13 Berkshire Hathaway

#16 JP Morgan Chase & Co.

#25 Home Depot

#30 Morgan Stanley

#33 Dell

#34 Boeing

Each of these companies’ problems have been well chronicled of late. While some are facing existential threats, others are fundamentally sound but struggling to cope with the global economic crisis.

What’s truly remarkable about this year’s report is that more than 30 percent of all Fortune 500 corporations are currently stalled. That’s double the 15 percent of companies that struggle in a typical year, according to my research. Of course, this is anything but a typical year. Revenues for the Fortune 500 as a whole were up a measly 0.8 percent, while profits were down nearly 85 percent.

There’s talk that perhaps the worst is behind us and if so, next year’s report should reveal better news. That said, in many of these companies the destructive internal dynamics that rear their ugly heads when growth stalls will wreak their havoc long after the broader recovery begins. Let’s hope their leaders know how to deal with them.

Big numbers get thrown around a lot these days, especially in the context of bailouts, stimulus packages, financial institutions and automotive companies. In fact, the numbers are so big and so frequently in the news that we can easily become oblivious to them.

Senator Everett Dirksen famously said, “A billion here, a billion there, and pretty soon you’re talking about real money.” But that was a generation ago. Today, we talk in terms of trillions of dollars, making billions sound puny by comparison. But it’s instructive to consider exactly how much a billion dollars is.

There are roughly 110 million households in the U.S. Every time a figure of a billion dollars gets tossed out, it equates to a little over nine bucks per household. Doesn’t sound like much, does it? It’s only a small pizza. Or maybe a movie.

But think of it in terms of your household. It’s a little different when you consider it in those terms.

If the executives at GM asked you personally for $135 (your share of their $15+ billion bailout), would you hand it to them? How about the financial wizards at Citi, if they asked you for $405? Would you be willing to reward their mismanagement with your hard-earned dollars?

Add up all of the TARP funds approved thus far by the federal government and your household’s share comes to about $6,300. And that assumes that every U.S. household pays taxes, which isn’t the case.

One of the main tenets of When Growth Stalls is that regardless of what’s going on outside of an enterprise, it’s what’s inside that counts. The next time you hear big bailout numbers being thrown around, multiply whatever number of billions is mentioned by nine bucks. And then imagine that amount of money coming out of your pocket. You may feel differently about how they should get out of their mess.

It makes no sense to bail out a ship that the crew can’t keep from sinking.