AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple in position to increase acquisition activity in 2010 - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple in position to increase acquisition activity in 2010 - report

post #1 of 51
Thread Starter 
With a war chest of $23 billion in cash, along with increasing competition by Google, Apple looks to continue its recent trend of acquisitions in the new year.

While Apple has acquired only 11 small companies since the return of Steve Jobs in 1997, three of those have been in the past five months, indicating an increased emphasis by the company on acquisitions. By comparison, Google has acquired 11 companies in the last 18 months.

According to BusinessWeek, Apple has begun to use its large stores of cash to help it acquire small, innovate startups that will help broaden its position in the rapidly changing technology market.

"There are obvious strategic reasons Apple might want to become more acquisitive. The company is moving beyond its traditional base in personal computers and charging into smartphones and mobile computing. As mobile computing takes shape, Apple, Google, Nokia, and other traditional tech titans have become more active in searching for startups that can help them with the new terrain. In Apple's case, it has a war chest of $23 billion in cash and short-term securities to pursue acquisitions," writes BusinessWeek.

In the past, Apple reportedly had no organized merger and acquisition strategy, instead executives would bring potential deals directly to Jobs, who had final say.

According to BusinessWeek Apple's "ad-hoc" approach to acquisitions is what cost the company a potential deal with mobile advertising firm AdMob. Instead the company was acquired by Google.

Last year, Apple hired Adrian Perica, a specialist in mergers and acquisitions. He is reportedly the first specialist of this type at Apple. In the wake of Apple's lost bid for AdMob last year, Perica was brought in to make sure that Apple did not make the same mistake again.

Music streaming service Lala was acquired last December by Apple, in an uncharacteristically quick deal taking weeks instead of months. Apple reportedly learned its lesson, "It was clear that Apple didn't want to lose out again, and especially not to Google," writes BusinessWeek.
post #2 of 51
Did we learn something new here..............(checks again).............nope.
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
post #3 of 51
I could have sworn Apple has $30+ billion in in cash and investments.
post #4 of 51
Quote:
"It was clear that Apple didn't want to lose out again, and especially not to Google"


With all competition Google is giving Apple lately, one would suspect they are now competitors.



But I ran across this little tidbit about Eric Schmidt CEO of Google and former board member at Apple.


Quote:
Schmidt held a series of technical positions with IT companies, including Bell Labs, Zilog and Xeroxs famed Palo Alto Research Center (PARC).


PARC was the place where the GUI and mouse was invented and Steve Jobs took that idea (being allowed to tour the technology) and formed the Macintosh and the graphical user interface which forever changed how we interact with computers.

So it looks like the two go wayyyyy back. Was Eric part of the early Apple Computer team?

So I'm thinking the two are more like carving up the world together against Microsoft than being real competitors.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #5 of 51
Wasn't it around 34 billion?
post #6 of 51
It's really starting to sound like Apple and Google are no longer friends.
post #7 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Wasn't it around 34 billion?

Exactly, that's what I thought.
post #8 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Wasn't it around 34 billion?

It is 34B+ in cash equivalents. Left out LT deposits/securities which have a maturity longer than 1 year. Short-term interest rates are near zero, so Apple moved into longer dated govt/agency bonds for more yield.
post #9 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by yvo84 View Post

It's really starting to sound like Apple and Google are no longer friends.

Yes, because if it didn't ""Sound"" like that, the media would not be doing their job.
post #10 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

Wasn't it around 34 billion?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Turley Muller View Post

It is 34B+ in cash equivalents. Left out LT deposits/securities which have a maturity longer than 1 year. Short-term interest rates are near zero, so Apple moved into longer dated govt/agency bonds for more yield.

Yeah, in other words, it's $34B. That's as of Oct 2009. I'll bet it's closer to $40B now.

PS: Just clarifying what you're saying, Turley Muller, since some might wonder if you meant something more subtle in the latter part of your quote.
post #11 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

.....Apple has begun to use its large stores of cash to help it acquire small, innovate startups ....

As long as they continue to be small, innovative, non-public targets, go for it, Apple! Well-executed A&D can be as good as R&D.

Much as I doubt it will ever happen, I do hope that Apple stays disciplined along these lines, and doesn't surprise us with a large, public-target acquisition.
post #12 of 51
Apple will never buy anything they can't swallow. Apple is a pretty small company (by staff numbers), major acquisitions could damage the corporate culture in no time (I have seen this happening many times). They would never e.g. go for Adobe. Adobe developers would outnumber Apple's own developers, and keeping everything that is dead wrong with Adobe today from spilling over into Apple would fail.

The financial crisis is not over. Apple will sit on most of the cash for quite some time.
post #13 of 51
I agree that Apple should not be making any major acquisitions, now or in the future, but they're not holding on to so much cash because of the financial crisis. It's not like they're going ever have an opportunity to spend that much money responsibly.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #14 of 51
Hmmmm. That WOULD take care of the that pesky IP lawsuit now wouldn't it?
post #15 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

Apple will never buy anything they can't swallow. Apple is a pretty small company (by staff numbers), major acquisitions could damage the corporate culture in no time (I have seen this happening many times). They would never e.g. go for Adobe. Adobe developers would outnumber Apple's own developers, and keeping everything that is dead wrong with Adobe today from spilling over into Apple would fail.

The financial crisis is not over. Apple will sit on most of the cash for quite some time.


I agree, Apple made a bundle during the credit bubble, but now it's time to dig the drenches and conserve and wait out this prolonged recession.

6-7 years before we pull out by my estimates of past recessions behavior and the recent leveling of the unemployment rate at 10% . (just think this recession is twice as severe as the last one and you get the idea from the chart)

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3405/...9e0bee32_o.jpg


Hopefully with the iSlate Apple will attempt to increase it's market share of computers with a lower margin device, but not make it appear it's a lower margin product. Usually this means one part new product spin and one part feature reduction. (new iSlate, no keyboard, mouse, hard drive or superdrive, fits perfectly)
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #16 of 51
One thing to keep in mind is that Apple now has a lot of cash overseas. I'd like to see this asked in the next shareholder meeting. As much as 50% could be held abroad. If this is the case, Apple would either need to repatriate the money before making a domestic acquisition or leverage the foreign investment.

Still, it's a buttload of cash they're sitting on...and at some point will need to do something with as investors want to invest in Apple as a business, not invest in the cash that Apple is holding. If they wanted to do that, they'd just put the money where Apple puts its cash.

I'd like to see Apple buy Adobe. There's a lot Apple could do with this, but even if Apple were to simply keep it as an independently run subsidiary, it would be worth doing. Take a look at the price to earnings ratio of Adobe. It's higher than Apple, but historically has been lower, and is still much lower than the return Apple is getting by sitting on its cash In other words, if Apple were to take $18 billion and buy Adobe, but do nothing but hold on to Adobe as an owner, they'd get a higher return than they're currently getting by sitting on that $18 billion.

But Apple could allow Adobe to be run by current management, but require moves to benefit Apple...such as making sure first releases are available on the Apple platform. Apple also wins by gaining patent/IP from Adobe, and could do some amazing stuff with software bundles.
post #17 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

One thing to keep in mind is that Apple now has a lot of cash overseas. I'd like to see this asked in the next shareholder meeting. As much as 50% could be held abroad. If this is the case, Apple would either need to repatriate the money before making a domestic acquisition or leverage the foreign investment.

Still, it's a buttload of cash they're sitting on...and at some point will need to do something with as investors want to invest in Apple as a business, not invest in the cash that Apple is holding. If they wanted to do that, they'd just put the money where Apple puts its cash.

I'd like to see Apple buy Adobe. There's a lot Apple could do with this, but even if Apple were to simply keep it as an independently run subsidiary, it would be worth doing. Take a look at the price to earnings ratio of Adobe. It's higher than Apple, but historically has been lower, and is still much lower than the return Apple is getting by sitting on its cash In other words, if Apple were to take $18 billion and buy Adobe, but do nothing but hold on to Adobe as an owner, they'd get a higher return than they're currently getting by sitting on that $18 billion.

But Apple could allow Adobe to be run by current management, but require moves to benefit Apple...such as making sure first releases are available on the Apple platform. Apple also wins by gaining patent/IP from Adobe, and could do some amazing stuff with software bundles.

They could finally bring Flash to the iPhone and drop Aperture for Lightroom.
post #18 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Hmmmm. That WOULD take care of the that pesky IP lawsuit now wouldn't it?

Kodak does have complimentary consumer devices and a number of patents that would most certainly benefit Apple. The patents could also be used against Nokia. If Nokia wins then Apple could pay them over a billion dollars in triple damages. Kodak is currently worth $1.3 billion. It would be a smart move especially after the fact that Kodak has trimmed much of their deadweight off.
post #19 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

...I'd like to see Apple buy Adobe. There's a lot Apple could do with this...

Care to elaborate what?

Apple has Quicktime so it doesn't need Flash, just expand Quicktime, done.

Apple can make better software than Adobe, so they don't need that. Adobe's stuff is insecure as all heck or very old, like Photoshop, a new rewrite is needed. Then Apple has Aperture, expand that. Why pay?

Apple could grab the desktop publishing market, but that would be a act of mercy, it's not worth spending all that money for since Apple is concerned with making consumer hardware not pro software too much.

PDFs? Chump stuff for Apple to duplicate, don't need to buy it. Apple has already pushed Reader off the Mac with the bundled Preview, thank GOD, because Reader is a insecure POS.
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
The danger is that we sleepwalk into a world where cabals of corporations control not only the mainstream devices and the software on them, but also the entire ecosystem of online services around...
Reply
post #20 of 51
How about returning some of it to us shareholders?
post #21 of 51
I'd like to see Apple buy Wacom, Drobo, Withings, Jawbone and RED.
post #22 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

One thing to keep in mind is that Apple now has a lot of cash overseas. I'd like to see this asked in the next shareholder meeting. As much as 50% could be held abroad. If this is the case, Apple would either need to repatriate the money before making a domestic acquisition or leverage the foreign investment.

Still, it's a buttload of cash they're sitting on...and at some point will need to do something with as investors want to invest in Apple as a business, not invest in the cash that Apple is holding. If they wanted to do that, they'd just put the money where Apple puts its cash.

I'd like to see Apple buy Adobe. There's a lot Apple could do with this, but even if Apple were to simply keep it as an independently run subsidiary, it would be worth doing. Take a look at the price to earnings ratio of Adobe. It's higher than Apple, but historically has been lower, and is still much lower than the return Apple is getting by sitting on its cash In other words, if Apple were to take $18 billion and buy Adobe, but do nothing but hold on to Adobe as an owner, they'd get a higher return than they're currently getting by sitting on that $18 billion.

But Apple could allow Adobe to be run by current management, but require moves to benefit Apple...such as making sure first releases are available on the Apple platform. Apple also wins by gaining patent/IP from Adobe, and could do some amazing stuff with software bundles.

Apple uses software and content to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. I don't really see Apple recouping their costs on the consumer side as Adobe is no bargain.

Apple wouldn't run Adobe as an independent subsidiary. That's not Steve's style these days. I totally understand the P.A. Semi acquisition. I just don't see a legitimate reason for acquiring Adobe, one that would increase shareholder value.

Frankly, the best investment for Apple is to stick it back in the company. The ROI over the past five years for AAPL blows doors on ADBE. That's why they have probably stuck to in-house efforts in the past few years: their ROI is incredible and revenue-per-employee is probably insanely high for a hardware company.
post #23 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Likeke View Post

How about returning some of it to us shareholders?

You know that Warren Buffett is not a fan of dividends, right?

Frankly, the ROI of AAPL stock over the past five years has greatly exceed the aggregate of all other items in my various investment portfolios.

As far as I'm concerned, if AAPL can continue the same pace, I'd be a fool to have them switch to paying out dividends. I can always sell AAPL and sink the dough into something that pays good dividends (I have some of that stuff already).

If you want to mitigate your risk exposure, do it buy purchasing another financial instrument, not by coercing Apple from doing what has worked so well over the past five years. They have bucked every single negative economic trend during this recession and you're telling them to put on the brakes?

You are insane. Sell your AAPL and sink it into GE or something.
post #24 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Kodak does have complimentary consumer devices and a number of patents that would most certainly benefit Apple. The patents could also be used against Nokia. If Nokia wins then Apple could pay them over a billion dollars in triple damages. Kodak is currently worth $1.3 billion. It would be a smart move especially after the fact that Kodak has trimmed much of their deadweight off.

Kodak also has about $1.7 billion in debt and is losing money consistently. I doubt Apple wants any part of that.
post #25 of 51
An Adobe acquisition would be silly. Apple doesn't need Flash, and as Frank777 says publishing is a low growth industry.

Apple acquisitions will likely be small companies with superb talent and young product that can grow.


This is why they bought Lala and Placebase most likely. I see Apple acquiring some more small companies that excel in a particular area and putting their expertise to work.
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #26 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

Kodak also has about $1.7 billion in debt and is losing money consistently. I doubt Apple wants any part of that.

Kodac is the past, RED is the future.
post #27 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

You know that Warren Buffett is not a fan of dividends, right?

Frankly, the ROI of AAPL stock over the past five years has greatly exceed the aggregate of all other items in my various investment portfolios.

As far as I'm concerned, if AAPL can continue the same pace, I'd be a fool to have them switch to paying out dividends. I can always sell AAPL and sink the dough into something that pays good dividends (I have some of that stuff already).

If you want to mitigate your risk exposure, do it buy purchasing another financial instrument, not by coercing Apple from doing what has worked so well over the past five years. They have bucked every single negative economic trend during this recession and you're telling them to put on the brakes?

You are insane. Sell your AAPL and sink it into GE or something.

They don't have to "switch" to paying dividends, because this would do nothing to alter their profitability. I think some people simply don't have any conception of how much money Apple has accumulated, and the rate at which they continue to accumulate it.

And, in fact, Buffett is perfectly okay with dividends.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1823...idend-investor
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #28 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post

An Adobe acquisition would be silly. Apple doesn't need Flash, and as Frank777 says publishing is a low growth industry.

Apple acquisitions will likely be small companies with superb talent and young product that can grow.

Agreed. I'm not sure why anyone thinks Adobe is a good fit for Apple. For one thing, it would turn Apple into a huge Windows developer overnight. A lot of questions would rightly be asked about how they plan on making that work for them.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
post #29 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

They don't have to "switch" to paying dividends, because this would do nothing to alter their profitability. I think some people simply don't have any conception of how much money Apple has accumulated, and the rate at which they continue to accumulate it.

And, in fact, Buffett is perfectly okay with dividends.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1823...idend-investor

If Buffett is OK with dividends, why am I not seeing any pay-outs? I own Class B shares of Berkshire-Hathaway (BRK-B).

I realize that Buffett has recently acquiecsed to stock splits under certain conditions (I'm waiting for that for my Class B shares), but this dividend stuff is news.
post #30 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Kodak does have complimentary consumer devices and a number of patents that would most certainly benefit Apple. The patents could also be used against Nokia. If Nokia wins then Apple could pay them over a billion dollars in triple damages. Kodak is currently worth $1.3 billion. It would be a smart move especially after the fact that Kodak has trimmed much of their deadweight off.

You are effing crazy.

Kodak's financials are abysmal. Negative EPS, negative book value, $1.75B debt, 9.6% short ratio, -85% return on equity, etc.

Kodak's patent portfolio has nothing to do with Apple's business model. Apple uses content and services to drive sales of its high-margin hardware. What do they gain with the acquisition of Kodak? Is there any Kodak asset (intellectual or physical) that will drive sales of Apple hardware?
post #31 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by macslut View Post

One thing to keep in mind is that Apple now has a lot of cash overseas. I'd like to see this asked in the next shareholder meeting. As much as 50% could be held abroad. If this is the case, Apple would either need to repatriate the money before making a domestic acquisition or leverage the foreign investment.

Still, it's a buttload of cash they're sitting on...and at some point will need to do something with as investors want to invest in Apple as a business, not invest in the cash that Apple is holding. If they wanted to do that, they'd just put the money where Apple puts its cash.

I'd like to see Apple buy Adobe. There's a lot Apple could do with this, but even if Apple were to simply keep it as an independently run subsidiary, it would be worth doing. Take a look at the price to earnings ratio of Adobe. It's higher than Apple, but historically has been lower, and is still much lower than the return Apple is getting by sitting on its cash In other words, if Apple were to take $18 billion and buy Adobe, but do nothing but hold on to Adobe as an owner, they'd get a higher return than they're currently getting by sitting on that $18 billion.

But Apple could allow Adobe to be run by current management, but require moves to benefit Apple...such as making sure first releases are available on the Apple platform. Apple also wins by gaining patent/IP from Adobe, and could do some amazing stuff with software bundles.

This isn't Monopoly where you can just willy nilly "buy hotels and put them on all your properties" just because you have a lot of cash.

Apple and Adobe are peers, and despite all the stupid rumors, they're basically allies as they have been for over two decades.

They each have their respective and different "raison d'etres" and belong separate from each other.
Daniel Swanson
Van-garde Imagery, Inc.
611 S. Ft. Harrison #365
Clearwater FL, 33756
http://www.van-garde.com
dan@van-garde.com
Reply
Daniel Swanson
Van-garde Imagery, Inc.
611 S. Ft. Harrison #365
Clearwater FL, 33756
http://www.van-garde.com
dan@van-garde.com
Reply
post #32 of 51
Well it is too late now, but next time, or next chances, Apple should buy those high Profile Apple Store instead of renting it. That should put 3 - 4 Billion into good use and investment.

Drobo is good too, but i dont think it take much work for Apple to create an Equivalent one.
post #33 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Mozzarella View Post

Kodac is the past, RED is the future.

Although I'd love to see continued close cooperation between RED and Apple, two megalomaniacal visionaries are probably one two many for any company.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #34 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post

Care to elaborate what?

Apple has Quicktime so it doesn't need Flash, just expand Quicktime, done.

Apple can make better software than Adobe, so they don't need that. Adobe's stuff is insecure as all heck or very old, like Photoshop, a new rewrite is needed. Then Apple has Aperture, expand that. Why pay?

Apple could grab the desktop publishing market, but that would be a act of mercy, it's not worth spending all that money for since Apple is concerned with making consumer hardware not pro software too much.

PDFs? Chump stuff for Apple to duplicate, don't need to buy it. Apple has already pushed Reader off the Mac with the bundled Preview, thank GOD, because Reader is a insecure POS.

Buying Adobe would be unlikely.

But why pay??

if they did they could have an Apple product (in flash) on virtually EVERY desktop in the world. Imagine Apple photoshop (or even the full CS of software) on every creatives desktop both PC & Mac in the world. Adobe makes Apple size margins on their software which would also keep Apple shareholders happy.
post #35 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by masternav View Post

Hmmmm. That WOULD take care of the that pesky IP lawsuit now wouldn't it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

Kodak does have complimentary consumer devices and a number of patents that would most certainly benefit Apple. The patents could also be used against Nokia. If Nokia wins then Apple could pay them over a billion dollars in triple damages. Kodak is currently worth $1.3 billion. It would be a smart move especially after the fact that Kodak has trimmed much of their deadweight off.

Time to bitch-slap Kodak AND Nokia.
post #36 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by irnchriz View Post

Buying Adobe would be unlikely.

But why pay??

if they did they could have an Apple product (in flash) on virtually EVERY desktop in the world. Imagine Apple photoshop (or even the full CS of software) on every creatives desktop both PC & Mac in the world. Adobe makes Apple size margins on their software which would also keep Apple shareholders happy.

How about Adobe products only on MACS? Kill off all versions of anything Winblows... Take that Monoposoft!!!
post #37 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

How about Adobe products only on MACS? Kill off all versions of anything Winblows... Take that Monoposoft!!!

Macromedia would have been the one, before Adobe bought them. They were talented programers with vision. Whereas Adobe are the microsoft of the creative world. I can't stand them frankly.
post #38 of 51
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bowser View Post

How about Adobe products only on MACS? Kill off all versions of anything Winblows... Take that Monoposoft!!!

even just releasing new, stable versions of their CS suite on macs first would certainly move a lot of fully loaded mac pros and would probably bring a bunch of the graphic industry defectors of the 90s back to the mac.

adobe's product list could use some of steve jobs' sense of minimalism.
post #39 of 51
Why does everyone here want apple and google to be friendly? That would not be good for the consumer. Ideally I would like companies to fight to the death or at least to near death. Competition is a good thing for consumers.
post #40 of 51
Universal Display is a perfect fit for apple. good market cap, lots of brains, a war chest of patents on next-gen OLEDs etc and a fab-less operation
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple in position to increase acquisition activity in 2010 - report