or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Venture capital firm doubles iPhone OS 'iFund' to $200 million
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Venture capital firm doubles iPhone OS 'iFund' to $200 million

post #1 of 28
Thread Starter 
As both consumers and developers await the release of Apple's iPad on Saturday, Silicon Valley venture capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers announced Wednesday that it is doubling its investment pool for software on Apple's App Store to $200 million.

The announcement is centered around the iPad, as more than 20 iFund-supported applications are currently under development for Apple's touchscreen device. The firm said Wednesday it believes the iPad "will lead the next wave of innovation in mobile computing."

Apple helped Kleiner Perkins establish the fund in 2008, which is used to provide early financial support for promising new companies using the iPhone OS software development kit. The venture capital outfit revealed that the original $100 million iFund is now fully committed across 14 companies, and iFund companies have been supported by an additional $330 million from follow-on investors.

"Welcome to the brave new post-PC era where a swoosh of fluidity replaces the traditional mouse-bound GUI, said KPCB Partner John Doerr. "A new, truly revolutionary platform is rare, and a prize for entrepreneurs. We expect all ventures to have an iPad strategy. We will fund many more ventures for iPad, and the iFund will accelerate their success."

The first run of funding reportedly found great success, with iFund ventures achieving more than $100 million of 2010 mobile revenue, more than 100 million aggregate mobile downloads, and 18 total titles reaching top-10 sales on the App Store.

Companies funded by the iFund include GOGII, which has seen 5.5 million users and 2 billion text messages sent in its textPlus application; ngmoco, which has games installed on over one-third of iPhone OS devices; and Shazam, which has attained 50 million worldwide users tagging over 2 million songs per day.

"Were ecstatic to be doubling down on the iFund after two short years," said Matt Murphy, KPCB partner and leader of the iFund. "The success of the App Store and its impact on consumers has been 10 times faster and bigger than we expected. Kleiner Perkins and iFund companies have enjoyed an incredibly helpful and unwavering partner in Apple."

Earlier this month, an analysis of developers on the App Store found that one in five are startup companies, suggesting that Apple's platform for the iPhone, iPod touch and forthcoming iPad presents a level playing field.

Apple has pitched the launch of the iPad as a "whole new gold rush" for developers, as the device and its 9.7-inch screen will run existing App Store software as well as new applications designed specifically for the hardware and its larger touchscreen. First released in January, the iPhone 3.2 beta software development kit allows developers to create iPad-specific software.

The App Store has proven successful for a variety of companies, from upstart developers such as Tapulous, which earns nearly $1 million per month, to established companies like personal navigation provider TomTom, which recorded more than 100,000 sales of its GPS application for the iPhone. In January, Apple revealed that App Store downloads had topped 3 billion less than 18 months after it first opened.
post #2 of 28
I have software ideas for the iPad - but nothing else
post #3 of 28
It really is cool to watch the creation of an entirely new platform. It happens so rarely. And the speed with which this platform has grown is really staggering.
post #4 of 28
Finance companies with their $100 million this and $100 million that, are currently universally hated aren't they? They wrecked the economy, and then got government bailouts while everyone else suffered.

Steve Jobs is probably trying to repeat the success of the iPhone by doing everything the same. But post the GFC, associating your product with a finance company (even a venture capital fund) may not be a smart move.
post #5 of 28
What's that defunct gambling scheme where one keeps doubling their bet when they lose?

Toning down the hype just a bit, I just hope the money is being applied in the right areas.


See what the Woz says about the iPad

http://www.macworld.co.uk/education/...NewsID=3218942


Also see these adoption rates for various Apple devices.

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_091005.html


Thinking a little, the iPad is just a larger and more expensive iPod Touch right?

Not saying sales are going to be bad, I just think it will find it's niche primarily in education/games but not be a world changer.
post #6 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Thinking a little, the iPad is just a larger and more expensive iPod Touch right?

Yes, but the extra size completely changes the applications.
post #7 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Finance companies with their $100 million this and $100 million that, are currently universally hated aren't they? They wrecked the economy, and then got government bailouts while everyone else suffered.

Steve Jobs is probably trying to repeat the success of the iPhone by doing everything the same. But post the GFC, associating your product with a finance company (even a venture capital fund) may not be a smart move.

All financial service companies are not the same. This type of investment appears to have little in common with complex derivatives that nobody quite understands. The role of this venture capital company in supporting app development is rather straightforward. If you want to be critical then I suppose that you could find some similarity between this type of investment and the tech bubble that burst in the late 90's early 2000's. Back then venture capitalists were throwing money at every entrepreneur who thought he could create a business with door to door delivery of porno movies that were rented on their website, using a dancing gorilla dressed in bondage gear.

In contrast, The iPhone OS platform is based on a business model that works, and Apple is probably the most successful company of its type over the past decade. So the risk of this strategy to Apple's reputation appears to be negligible. In any case, the number of companies involved is likely to be a small fraction of all developers. It's actually a good way to promote innovation and may deliver valuable apps to the users of iPhone OS devices.
post #8 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Yes, but the extra size completely changes the applications.


Right, because the input device (the finger) has more room to input and manipulate things on the iPads bigger screen than on the smaller iPhone or iPod Touch screens.

However one can't get the incredible detail using their finger like they can using a cursor driven by a input device, at least not without a heck of a lot of annoying zooming in and out.

Touchscreens have their limitation, the size of one's finger, thus they can't possibly become a major game changing device. Rather a niche device.


Finger tracking via the iSight camera with a little sticky cup on the end of one's finger would be a effective way to regain the detailed control a cursor point provides.
post #9 of 28
That's nothing. I spent $200M on jet fuel last night.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #10 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Also see these adoption rates for various Apple devices.

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_091005.html

Thinking a little, the iPad is just a larger and more expensive iPod Touch right?

Not saying sales are going to be bad, I just think it will find it's niche primarily in education/games but not be a world changer.

Not sure I see the point you are trying to make with that link...

The iPod in ALL computer owning households (Mac & Windows, etc) is bigger than the ENTIRE MARKETS of:

- ALL 'Navigation' devices (GPS)
- ALL 50'+ LCD TVs
- ALL Flash Camcorders
- All Digital SLR Cameras

And the iPod Touch (a lone/single product) is bigger than (found in more homes than) all of the other markets of each respective product type*, except for Navigation and digital SLR cameras. Think about it.. A single product being in more homes than ALL of the makes of any of those other products types mentioned...

* I'm not maintaining the iPod or iPod Touch is bigger (in more households) than ALL the markets combined togethers... but simply, as the chart indicates more prevalent than many of the total individual markets they mentioned.

That's quite an impressive statistic... if the numbers are an accurate representation and I'm not making ANY statements about the validity of the report or how the numbers were obtained. I do find it's somewhat odd that the iPhone doesn't get any mention at all...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #11 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Finance companies with their $100 million this and $100 million that, are currently universally hated aren't they? They wrecked the economy, and then got government bailouts while everyone else suffered.


Difference between a finance company (as in mortgages) and a venture capital company, is that the later only wants their money back if you are successful. Essentially they are partners with the entity receiving the funding.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #12 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Right, because the input device (the finger) has more room to input and manipulate things on the iPads bigger screen than on the smaller iPhone or iPod Touch screens.

However one can't get the incredible detail using their finger like they can using a cursor driven by a input device, at least not without a heck of a lot of annoying zooming in and out.

Touchscreens have their limitation, the size of one's finger, thus they can't possibly become a major game changing device. Rather a niche device.


Finger tracking via the iSight camera with a little sticky cup on the end of one's finger would be a effective way to regain the detailed control a cursor point provides.

No offense, but I think your perspective here is a little too narrowly focused. There's quite a bit more to the success of a product than the resolution of the input mechanism. The scroll-wheel on the iPod provides a lot less control over the device than a touchscreen, but iPods seem to have done well.

The advantages of the iPad are (1) form factor, (2) UI, and (3) app support. (and maybe price) These might not sound very exciting, but they are a huge deal when combined. Compare the 8 bit PCs from the 80s to the mainframes sold by IBM at the time, and you would regard them as trivial little toys in terms of what they could accomplish using traditional computing metrics compared to those more traditional computers. So why were those initial crummy little 8 bit computers so successful? (1) form factor, (2) UI, and (3) app support (and price). With an Apple II, you had something that could fit on a desk instead of taking up half a room. You had a color screen! A user interface that didn't require years of training and an advanced degree, and you had 10,000 apps including a bunch of fun games. Now, flash-forward to today, and compare the iPad to a "traditional" personal computer. The iPad is 1.5 pounds and fits in your hand like a book. It has a multi-touch screen! It's far easier to learn than traditional computers. And it has over 100,000 apps.

To quote Joe Biden, this is a big f****g deal.
post #13 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

Finance companies with their $100 million this and $100 million that, are currently universally hated aren't they? They wrecked the economy, and then got government bailouts while everyone else suffered.

Well ... okay ... yes it can be said with a certain degree of accuracy that VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS were somewhat to mostly responsible for the .COM bubble of the 90s and its eventual crash in 2000... Unfortunately the .COM BUST not only took down the .COM industry (even those who were successful) but also just about the entire TECH sector who were also somewhat to greatly OVERVALUED by all the hype and instant 'child' mega-millionairs... Finally and to a lesser degree the .com bust hit many other companies listed on all the exchanges (not just the tech heavy NASDAQ).

When something of this magnitude happens people sell out of panic and companies not even remotely tied to the tech or .com boom took hits out of pure fear selling.

The bailouts you speak of are actually NOT for the VC fund companies (I don't thing any got any appreciable government assistance but I could be totally wrong on this) the bailouts you've seen the government handing out like candy to school kids are for the auto industry, and a large number of banks and financial institutions. Now it might be successfully argued that the VC firms were the FUEL that cause the banks to loose BILLIONS but I'm not going to say one way or another since I'm not ever remotely sure... failed mortgage loans were their biggest problem which can be tied to a loss of jobs which can be tied to a downturn in the economy with can be tied to the market crash... So its not a huge stretch spot a connection but again I lack the economic background to make a claim one way or another.

You can say VC FIRMS are evil if you want, but they do provide a service to 'startup companies' who could NEVER get money for their business operation from traditional sources like a commercial bank... even in their most 'frivolous' moments a commercial bank wouldn't EVER risk loaning MILLIONS of dollars to a company that hasn't even established itself yet and without a exact time frame in which the loan would need to be repaid. A 'great idea' alone wont get you a loan from a bank... they aren't about to make those kinds of risks too many people with too many 'great ideas'.

This is where the need for a VC FIRM kicks in... Someone with an ENORMOUSLY brilliant idea needs funds to finish their R&D, Testing, prototyping, etc and it might cost 30 million or more and a bank will simply laugh in their face... A VC FUND (if convinced) will give them the money they need in exchange for a very large cut of the company 70% , 80% isn't unheard of. The genius had the cash they need and the VC FIRM has ownership in a company that might eventually BUST due to unforeseen complications or just bad luck... On the other hand the company could end up the next Apple, Microsoft, Netscape , Amazon or Google and 30 million will be a laughable sum... In essence they roll the dice (in an somewhat informed manner) and hope they don't loose everything. If they DO then hopefully one of the other 10 or 20 companies the VC FRIM has invested in makes it... It only takes 1 HIT and suddenly 19 'loser investments' become all but meaningless.

Frankly they provide a service that nobody else will offer and lots of great companies wouldn't be in operation today had they not existed. Were they so SOLE reason for the .com bubble and bust? Debatable but I don't think so..
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #14 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

What's that defunct gambling scheme where one keeps doubling their bet when they lose?

Toning down the hype just a bit, I just hope the money is being applied in the right areas.


See what the Woz says about the iPad

http://www.macworld.co.uk/education/...NewsID=3218942


Also see these adoption rates for various Apple devices.

http://www.npd.com/press/releases/press_091005.html


Thinking a little, the iPad is just a larger and more expensive iPod Touch right?

Not saying sales are going to be bad, I just think it will find it's niche primarily in education/games but not be a world changer.

I think that you may have misunderstood the point that Woz was making. He was not supporting the notion that the iPad will be a niche product, which appears to be your conclusion. He was supporting the idea that the iPad will open up computing to people who could benefit from computers, but are intimidated by them.

My feeling is that the potential market is huge. You will certainly have iPad users who are geeky types like me (and possibly you), but you will have other people who are not geeks but are comfortable with technology and want computing solutions that are elegant and fun to use (meaning no full computer OS). I'm thinking of assorted professionals such as doctors, architects, astronauts, pilots, teachers, museum workers, and molecular biologists. Then you add the huge numbers of people who struggle with non-telephony uses of iPhones and other smart phone because they are over 45 and the tiny text is too hard to read.

The iPad will not only change the world by itself. It will change the world by the competing devices that it inspires. Windows 7 or Linux-based tablets are probably destined to be niche products for some tech junkies. However, there will be several easy-to-use Android-based tablets, all in a 4:3 aspect ratio, by the way. THe day will come when "pads" will become commonplace and affordable. That will be the legacy of the iPad. That will be a part of Apple's legacy.
post #15 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

The venture capital outfit revealed that the original $100 million iFund is now fully committed across 14 companies,

$100 million across 14 companies?
They made it sound like they were goping to help loads of start-ups and "entrepreneurs".
post #16 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Not sure I see the point you are trying to make with that link...

The chart helps illustrate where the iPad will eventually wind up.


The iPod is a mixed bag, $60-$250, with 36% of computing households having one.

The iPod Touch is priced between $200-$400, with only 9% of computing households having one.

The iPad is priced between $500 and $830...


just saying.
post #17 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveGee View Post

Well ... okay ... yes it can be said with a certain degree of accuracy that VENTURE CAPITAL FUNDS were somewhat to mostly responsible for the .COM bubble of the 90s and its eventual crash in 2000... Unfortunately the .COM BUST not only took down the .COM industry (even those who were successful) but also just about the entire TECH sector who were also somewhat to greatly OVERVALUED by all the hype and instant 'child' mega-millionairs... Finally and to a lesser degree the .com bust hit many other companies listed on all the exchanges (not just the tech heavy NASDAQ).

When something of this magnitude happens people sell out of panic and companies not even remotely tied to the tech or .com boom took hits out of pure fear selling.

The bailouts you speak of are actually NOT for the VC fund companies (I don't thing any got any appreciable government assistance but I could be totally wrong on this) the bailouts you've seen the government handing out like candy to school kids are for the auto industry, and a large number of banks and financial institutions. Now it might be successfully argued that the VC firms were the FUEL that cause the banks to loose BILLIONS but I'm not going to say one way or another since I'm not ever remotely sure... failed mortgage loans were their biggest problem which can be tied to a loss of jobs which can be tied to a downturn in the economy with can be tied to the market crash... So its not a huge stretch spot a connection but again I lack the economic background to make a claim one way or another.

You can say VC FIRMS are evil if you want, but they do provide a service to 'startup companies' who could NEVER get money for their business operation from traditional sources like a commercial bank... even in their most 'frivolous' moments a commercial bank wouldn't EVER risk loaning MILLIONS of dollars to a company that hasn't even established itself yet and without a exact time frame in which the loan would need to be repaid. A 'great idea' alone wont get you a loan from a bank... they aren't about to make those kinds of risks too many people with too many 'great ideas'.

This is where the need for a VC FIRM kicks in... Someone with an ENORMOUSLY brilliant idea needs funds to finish their R&D, Testing, prototyping, etc and it might cost 30 million or more and a bank will simply laugh in their face... A VC FUND (if convinced) will give them the money they need in exchange for a very large cut of the company 70% , 80% isn't unheard of. The genius had the cash they need and the VC FIRM has ownership in a company that might eventually BUST due to unforeseen complications or just bad luck... On the other hand the company could end up the next Apple, Microsoft, Netscape , Amazon or Google and 30 million will be a laughable sum... In essence they roll the dice (in an somewhat informed manner) and hope they don't loose everything. If they DO then hopefully one of the other 10 or 20 companies the VC FRIM has invested in makes it... It only takes 1 HIT and suddenly 19 'loser investments' become all but meaningless.

Frankly they provide a service that nobody else will offer and lots of great companies wouldn't be in operation today had they not existed. Were they so SOLE reason for the .com bubble and bust? Debatable but I don't think so..

I agree with your summary of the difference between VC funds and other types of financial services. I also agree with your explanation of the key role of these companies in providing funding options to companies that otherwise may remain only an idea in the mind of a socially awkward, but brilliant innovator. However, I disagree with the idea that the government gave out bailout money like candy with no useful objective that benefited the country. I don't want to get this thread off topic too much, but I think a case can be made that government intervention averted a catastrophic cascade of failures that would have made all of our lives much more difficult. We're fortunate that Ben Bernanke learned some key lessons from studying the Great Depression.
post #18 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

$100 million across 14 companies?
They made it sound like they were goping to help loads of start-ups and "entrepreneurs".

They're targeting the most promising and most serious developers. Return on investment is critical in this situation. These VC guys are not going to fund tiny companies or single developers with apps that look like the latest Tetris knockoff.

Sadly this also means that I will never get any funding, so my idea of an app for City of Heroes players will never see the light of day
post #19 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brometheus View Post

He was supporting the idea that the iPad will open up computing to people who could benefit from computers, but are intimidated by them.

Right, the iPad is less intimidating and complex, but it's not a standalone device, it's dependent upon a real computer to operate, update and likely other things like buying Apps.

So someone in the household is got to have a real computer, as they are going to be managing the iPad for these people Woz mentions.

This is why I think it's a more of a niche product.


Quote:
Then you add the huge numbers of people who struggle with non-telephony uses of iPhones and other smart phone because they are over 45 and the tiny text is too hard to read.

It also has a highly reflective screen, which is a considerable problem for older folks.
post #20 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpotOn View Post

Right, the iPad is less intimidating and complex, but it's not a standalone device, it's dependent upon a real computer to operate, update and likely other things like buying Apps.

So someone in the household is got to have a real computer, as they are going to be managing the iPad for these people Woz mentions.

This is why I think it's a more of a niche product.

Okay, I see how you're using the word "niche". I thought that you meant that only a small segment of people would find an iPad useful. You're saying that it will not replace a computer in most situations. I agree. As much as I know I will love my iPad, there's no way it can replace my iMac. So the iPad will be a product that works best in the context of being coupled with a computer; however, I think that iPad-like devices tablets will be used in many computer using segments of society, and will change how we think about using computers. I would not have used the word "niche" for such a device, but I'm willing to accept alternative ways of thinking.
post #21 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brometheus View Post

but I think a case can be made that government intervention averted a catastrophic cascade of failures that would have made all of our lives much more difficult. We're fortunate that Ben Bernanke learned some key lessons from studying the Great Depression.

Yes, much like the forest service in the early 1900's when their policy as to put out any fire before sunset on the same day it was discovered.
This way, none of the undergrowth was burned away, thereby allowing catastrophic fires in the future (because all the undergroth would continue to build up, fueling these fires) and preventing new growth, which in many cases (redwoods and seqoias are good examples), actually require a fire to open the seeds.

Now all these companies that should have gone under in the true capitalist way, (because they suck) are robbing the taxpayers and preventing true competiton from weeding out the garbage.
post #22 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brometheus View Post

They're targeting the most promising and most serious developers. Return on investment is critical in this situation. These VC guys are not going to fund tiny companies or single developers with apps that look like the latest Tetris knockoff.(

So that's not where all the fart apps came from?
post #23 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Yes, much like the forest service in the early 1900's when their policy as to put out any fire before sunset on the same day it was discovered.
This way, none of the undergrowth was burned away, thereby allowing catastrophic fires in the future (because all the undergroth would continue to build up, fueling these fires) and preventing new growth, which in many cases (redwoods and seqoias are good examples), actually require a fire to open the seeds.

Now all these companies that should have gone under in the true capitalist way, (because they suck) are robbing the taxpayers and preventing true competiton from weeding out the garbage.

Interesting analogy, and I understand your point. Good intentions are often shortsighted and hurt in the long run. I agree that some of the companies that were propped up should have gone under. In an ideal capitalist system, perhaps market forces would have made their demise happen naturally. However, our world is truly complicated today. The idealized capitalist system in which market forces allow us to adjust to change and promote survival of those who are weaker is not dependable. Human greed, emotion, and increased compartmentalization of financial expertise meant that the effect of market forces was diminished by deception and clueless regulators.
Now we have a global economy, instant access to emerging financial data, a 24 hour news cycle, pundits and bloggers pontificating about everything under the sun, and a tendency to panic at the slightest sign of trouble. Had the government not stepped in, as each institution fell, others would have been caught in their wake and become vulnerable, there would have been global panic, and the system would have collapsed. The impact of a collapse would have been felt everywhere. It's probably unlikely that we would be discussing the iPad this week. These are not my ideas; these are the ideas of people who understand the financial world much better than I do (even though most of them failed to predict the predicament in which we found ourselves).
post #24 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brometheus View Post

Had the government not stepped in, as each institution fell, others would have been caught in their wake and become vulnerable, there would have been global panic, and the system would have collapsed.

Doubtful. Damaged yes, collapsed, no.
Quote:
The impact of a collapse would have been felt everywhere. It's probably unlikely that we would be discussing the iPad this week. These are not my ideas; these are the ideas of people who understand the financial world much better than I do (even though most of them failed to predict the predicament in which we found ourselves).

My point is if you think it would have been bad, it's gonna be so much worse when it does (and it will) happen.

To continue with the forest service analogy, look at Yellowstone fires in 1988.
They decided to let it burn and everyone thought that was the worst possible thing they could do and that it would take years to recover, yet before anyone could blink an eye, it came back stronger than ever.
Researchers learned a LOT from that specific fire and it is still being studied.
post #25 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris_CA View Post

Doubtful. Damaged yes, collapsed, no.

My point is if you think it would have been bad, it's gonna be so much worse when it does (and it will) happen.

Who knows? I'm not sure. I'm just not as upset about the bailout as you are, based on my understanding of the situation.

Unfortunately, human nature never changes. There will always be economic bubbles that eventually burst, there will always be greed, there will always be petty politics, and a bunch of forces beyond our control and beyond our awareness. So you're probably right. The next economic crisis may bring badness on a massive scale.
post #26 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brometheus View Post

I agree with your summary of the difference between VC funds and other types of financial services. I also agree with your explanation of the key role of these companies in providing funding options to companies that otherwise may remain only an idea in the mind of a socially awkward, but brilliant innovator. However, I disagree with the idea that the government gave out bailout money like candy with no useful objective that benefited the country. I don't want to get this thread off topic too much, but I think a case can be made that government intervention averted a catastrophic cascade of failures that would have made all of our lives much more difficult. We're fortunate that Ben Bernanke learned some key lessons from studying the Great Depression.

Thanks... it's refreshing to find someone here on AI that doesn't immediately take the polar opposite of my point of view and then do their level headed best to twist the discussion up so badly that the actual point I was trying to make isn't even being discussed anymore.

So again... thank you!

As to the bailouts... you're right this really isn't the place to discuss them but clearly I've tipped my hand as to how I feel. (thats SO unlike me)

But I see nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree... that topic is chock-full of different point to be made both in defense of them as well as deriding them. Finally, given the magnitude of the action it might not be known for years or even decades if it was the best move to make and even then I'm quite sure people will still argue on both sides of the issue. Short term they certainly seem to have achieved positive results. How the bailout money was used is clearly a sensitive issue as well as the overall .... 'impression' it leaves with ... everyone.

Finally, and in all honesty, I'm too much of a fiscal libertarian to think it was the right action to take but that is a topic for a DIFFERENT thread...
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
Apple Fanboy: Anyone who started liking Apple before I did!
Reply
post #27 of 28
$100 million from only 18 titles? Am I misreading that? Wow... wow... wow.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #28 of 28
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

$100 million from only 18 titles? Am I misreading that?

Yes you are misreading that.
All iFund ventures (14 companies) scored more that 100 million downloads and more than $100 million in revenues.
18 of those titles released made it to the top 10 sales in the App store.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Mac Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Current Mac Hardware › Venture capital firm doubles iPhone OS 'iFund' to $200 million