I don't dispute that software can have more value than hard assets or hardware. But I dispute the implication that market cap is the correct measurement way to declare a winner in any "battle of ideas" between companies (especially companies as different as Apple and Exxon Mobil).
In Dec 1999, MSFT was top market cap at over half a trillion in market capitalization. One year later, they dropped to 5th after losing over $350b in market cap. And only 3 months after that, they jump back to 2nd after gaining nearly $100b in market cap.
The suggestion that market cap is an accurate value of a company's "ideas" would hold more merit if that measurement wasn't based on the whim of an investor in an inefficient--potentially volatile--market.
Does Apple have great ideas? Undoubtedly. Are they better than Exxon Mobil? I don't know. But I think using market cap is a piss poor way to determine a winner.