Read the link is posted. I can give you dozens and dozens that have analyzed the collapse of the deal. Mario Monti's (EU competition commissioner then) response to Jack Welch (GE's CEO then) pretty much killed it. Period.
That's all there is to it. (Moreover, to suggest -- as some have -- that Tim Cook could not be telling the truth about something like that in an analyst call setting is ludicrous, given the risks it poses to the company and to him personally)
Perhaps your ability to deconstruct a simple sentence in the English language is far more sophisticated than mine, but as the article notes (you can also look up the conference call transcripts): "Tim Cook specifically noted, "we achieved strong double digit Mac growth across many countries, including the U.S., Canada, Mexico, the UK, Germany, France, Australia, China, India and the Middle-East" during the company's earnings call."" Add: I see that sog35 beat me to it.
Regardless of what you think, if the EU had nixed it -- not that they really had any reason to -- the acquisition would/could not have gone ahead without conditions they attached to it being met. As has been pointed out above, any country (or group of countries under a common legal umbrella, such as the EU) can sue for antitrust violations for the anticompetitive effects of revenues in their territory (usually, some share or size threshold has to be met). The combined...
The approval of the Beats acquisition by EU was, I think, a foregone conclusion. Not too many surprises there. GOOG is up, yes, by about one-third of one percentage point. Apple is up about three times that.... a somewhat unusual move for the stock.
DED on! Brilliant blog.
It addresses with depth and clarity an issue that I've been raising repeatedly here, every time that I've seen the likes of IDC et al trot out their nonsense. Theirs are numbers put out by fools, for fools.