Electronics giant Sony rumored for potential Apple acquisition - Page 5

Now we are getting somewhere. Sony owns content that Apple licenses. Apple owning content eases negotiation processes with at least one major record company, and one movie studio -- they own the studio and the record labels! Additionally, Apple owning Sony Entertainment creates incredible incentive for music artists to sign with a Sony/Apple music label, as they will always have iTunes access.


So you're saying that Apple would find a way to reverse the current Sony MO of loss-leading on the hardware? I think that's what you're saying, and if so, that's a good thing, as Apple isn't a company who is a loss leader in hardware. I don't think they'll change that MO just for the PlayStation, nor should they.

That said: I don't think buying all of Sony is a good idea. Why own a redundant division like the computer hardware division (Windows computers)? What would a consumer-oriented company do with Sony Broadcast (professional TV cameras like this one, etc.)? The only divisions of Sony that would make sense for an Apple acquisition would be its entertainment and home entertainment hardware (TV's, audio systems, etc.) divisions. The other divisions run counter to Apple's goals, unless Apple has something up their sleeves that I can't think of. Plus, the additional divisions would further complicate Apple's corporate structure, making it less streamlined, and therefore more cost-inefficient, to run the company.

Speak for your small corner of Europe; it's not true for London and the UK.

I suspect there are more people setting foot within the Apple Store Regent Street alone than in all the Sony Centres in London put together!

People aren''t just looking, they're buying, so many visitors everywhere within the store!
There's Apple everywhere, Apple ads on the TV, Apple kit discussed on TV, radio, the blogs, the press. Apple kit given away as prizes.

I'm sorry, but Sony doesn't even get a look in, I think the last time I saw a Sony ad was when they were promoting their TVs for the World Cup.

What on earth can Sony offer Apple?

Sony had a showcase store in the Metreon Center in San Francisco. Lots of shiny gear, but it was over-priced and always empty. They shut it down a few years back.

C.

Sony's TTM revenues is $89 billion and Apple's is now $65 billion. Sony has 172,000 employees while Apple has around 34,000. Sony's net income was a measly $270 million (0.3% net margin) for the TTM while Apple's was $14 billion (21.5%). That's nearly 52 times more earnings for Apple on far less revenues. Why in the heck would Apple want to take on this kind of grotesquely bloated dinosaur? Plus, Japan would never allow it to happen. Even minority stakes investment makes no sense. Sony's stock price is about the same as it was 5 years ago. What return will Apple get for investing in Sony?

See my above post. Here's a more simplified version of what they could gain:

1. Movie studios (Columbia Pictures, MGM, Sony Pictures Classics, Screen Gems)
2. Sony Records (multiple labels, including Jive and Columbia Records, which include artists like Beyonce and Justin Timberlake)
3. Televisions (for the rumored all-in-one Apple TV)
4. Surround sound audio systems (to sell with Apple TV's)

As noted above, purchasing just the television and entertainmemt divisions of Sony could fulfill Apple's goals.


I heard that Sony's market cap is around $30 billion. With Apple's ~$50 billion cash on hand, that's enough for Apple to theoretically buy the company, apparently. You do have a point about Japanese approval. Only buying certain Sony divisions would fix that problem, and also reduce the price.

Apple doesn't license this content from Sony, they retail it. Apple owning content creates a huge disincentive for other content owners to allow Apple to retail their products. They're having problems enough now. You suggestion makes it close to impossible. One step forward, five steps backwards.

Yes, Apple could buy a lot of companies with $51 billion but doing so has to make business sense - both short-term and long-term. Most major M&A's fail. That has proven to be the case time and time again. What looks good on paper normally doesn't pan out in reality. And it would be even more so for a company with as unique of a culture as Apple's.

Regarding Sony's content assets, Disney would make more sense but I really don't see why Apple needs to own content of a few studios and media companies when Apple is trying to court all of them to provide media for Apple's iTunes and iOS devices. Apple would be competing with other media companies that Apple wants on their side.

As for the rumored Apple HDTV set, Sony is already an established brand. What would be the point of removing the Sony logo and putting the Apple logo on one? They could have many other TV set makers just build one for Apple without owning Sony. Also, I don't think an Apple TV set really makes that much sense either to begin with when a continually improving set-top box will do. Just how important is it to have the Apple logo on the TV set?

If Apple decides they need an audio system (which I highly doubt), they could spend far less on a company like Bose. But then, why would Apple want to compete with other audio system makers that they're partnering with to put in AirPlay in all of their future systems as an industry standard?

If Apple wanted to just cherry-pick certain businesses and assets of Sony, they'd have to divest a whole bunch (a great majority) of the remaining businesses that are not profitable and that just do not fit into where Apple is going. That would mean selling those assets off to Sony's competitors and laying off many tens of thousands of employees. It would end up looking like a fire sale of what was once the prime symbol of Japan's rise as an economic superpower. No, Japan wouldn't have any of that.

Touché

Nope - you must have missed this:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_C...Apple_Computer

Exactly. I had the same reaction when I heard about this, but the more I think about it, the more I think it makes sense.

I could see Apple divesting themselves of the parts of Sony that don't make sense - much like Jobs dramatically simplified the Mac line to the infamous four square box upon his return to Apple.

And integration of Apple technologies with Sony products is brilliant - who wouldn't love an iOS mulit-touch car stereo that syncs with your house when you park your car in the garage? Would make the Microsoft Sync stuff that Ford is pushing (which is pretty cool, don't get me wrong) pale in comparison.

I see lots if interesting synergy - and not just from component parts. Isn't the new chip for the main camera in the iPhone 4 from Sony? And replacing GoogleTV with Apple TV would be delicious too

In some aspects, it makes sense. I can see Apple having a need to make better cameras for their hardware. Sony would fill that need. Movies and music rights and such? Sony would fill that need. Finally getting Blu-Ray into their computers? Sony would fill that too.

But Sony also has the PlayStation, TV and other productions and so much more and I doubt Apple wants all that.

I think this will just remain a rumor. I can't see any truth to this.

Not quite. First off, there's a similar argument with the Comcast/NBC merger -- why put ABC, FOX, and CBS content on Comcast? But it looks like the FCC will let the merger go through. Obviously they're not worried, there, and why should they? Comcast customers will continue to want their other local channels, and if they don't get them, they'll go to a competing cable or satellite company.

Second: Sure, Apple "retails" music and movies on iTunes. But what I'm saying is that in order to retail it, an agreement has to be made between Apple and the content providers on how much Apple can sell the content for, how much the labels get, etc. Any musician who signs with an Apple-owned Sony Records would know that Apple would never stop selling their music on iTunes, because of a contract dispute between Apple and an outside content provider. There's a lot of peace of mind there.

iTunes is the 800-pound gorilla in the room. Appx. half of all modern music sales is from iTunes, and more and more movie purchases go through iTunes; you have to sell through them, especially music. If other content providers don't make a deal with Apple, they lose a lot of profit. Read what happened to Rubbermaid when they couldn't get a deal with WalMart in the 90's. Same thing here. Apple would have the leverage, and there's nothing Warner Records or 20th Century Fox could do about it.


You bring up a good point. When I first heard this story, the first thing I thought was a shocked, "What?!" It made no sense to me, either. I'm still not convinced that a purchase of Sony would be a good one. But what do I know? I'm not Steve. Maybe he sees something I don't. But usually, these kind of purchases don't work. (How lucky does Microsoft feel for not purchasing Yahoo?)

That said, if Steve purchases Adobe, then I would believe he went off the deep end.


Disney is an even bigger and more complex corporate conglomerate. Which parts would be important for Apple? Besides, Sony offers television IP that Disney can't offer.


You do make a good point about simply making their own IPS-based LCD display and contracting Samsung or LG to make it. That would be the route I would take, and it's the route Steve has taken for iPhones. Why would he mess with success with an all-in-one TV? That said, it seems like the all-in-one TV/media player/5.1 audio system is what's on Apple's mind, and Sony's expertise could, in theory, get it done.


Also, what if Bose is not for sale? And Bose doesn't have the combination of media content and A/V expertise of Sony. One deal to rule them all, etc. etc. etc.


I found a loophole to this potential issue: Apple could choose to simply purchase the American subsidiary of Sony, also known as Sony Corporation of America. This subsidiary owns Sony's music and movie arms, as well as Sony Electronics Inc, which controls production of televisions and audio systems. In other words, everything that I believe Apple needs, and nothing more. Here is a list of products under Sony Electronics. During or after acquisition, Apple could simply sell back to Sony of Japan all the divisions they don't need, such as the "Business Solutions", Vaio, and Broadcast divisions.

Purchase of simply the American arm of Sony doesn't include the intellectual properties of the PlayStation, and leaves Sony Worldwide otherwise intact and autonomous of Apple. This should pass Japanese muster.

http://www.electronista.com/articles...etails.emerge/

Curious this comes out on the same day as these rumors...

Interesting. The fact that they waited until even after Microsoft to release a (potentially decent) touch-based phone, despite being in this industry for years, says it all.

As I said before, a has-been company.

Brilliant!

Quit making sense.

I'll state it again... AppleTV + decent GPU + controller = bye bye PS3.


That's a fascinating idea but for TV and movies access to content and studios is the biggest hurdle.


Going to be brutal here, bear with me.
-Apple just needs to make 30 Apple Retail Stores in China by 2013, and they have all the access they need. China sees Apple as the premier luxury brand, not Sony. By the way by the end of 2013 we will see at least 20 Apple Retail Stores in China, Apple has said so, more or less. Also, the problem across Asia is there is simply not enough iPhones and iPads to sell, not whether people want them or not. Macs could be bigger but there isn't enough knowledge, support and access to parts and technicians.
-Apple doesn't need Sony music libraries. iTunes is close to being the number 1 legal purchase music site, and soon will surpass CDs.
-Apple doesn't specifically need Sony movies, TV, whatever. They need a whole bunch of studios and content from many different sources. We know that people want the most choice possible when it comes to content. I don't care if a show is "published" by Sony Pictures or Viacom or CBS or Baskin Robbins. I just want my darn Futurama or Mad Men or Iron Man 2 at a low, low price. Preferably free. Studios barely get this, that's why they're bleeding billions to torrents and the quality of most movies has absolutely gone down the drain.
-Xbox. If tomorrow AppleTV had a controller and solid GPU, and could deliver 1080p graphics that surpass the Xbox360, it will be a true console gaming device. With all the App Store and iDevice clout, there is no way there wouldn't be tripleA titles released simultaneously on AppleTV. Apple basically just has to flip a switch somewhere in Cupertino and Boom! PS3 killer. Maybe even huge Xbox competitor. BTW IMO Move on the PS3 is a terrible, terrible hack to get Wii like functionality. You need a camera and a lighted ball for motion detection. If that doesn't say Sony is losing it I don't know what does.
-Blu-Ray? Yeah Steve would love to own it so he can bury it once and for all and move everyone to streaming/digital.
-Apple in the living room? They just need to take any TV panel, put the Apple logo on it and it would be a major TV brand overnight, no Sony required. They don't make the best or cheapest panels anyway.

Hilarious!


I know I'm hammering this pretty hard, but the PlayStation franchise is not needed by Apple. The graphics are poorer than Xbox360 and a standard PC gaming rig. Move is a desperate hack, the iPhone4 does better as a motion controller. A decent GPU and with the App Store an Apple console will be an overnight success, just need to factor in devs to do their porting.

They shut it down? I loved that place. Well, this was 8 to 10 years ago. So much, so fast. From my posts it sounds like I am a Sony hater but it really was one of my favourite brands until I got my iPod, iPhone, etc. and Sony started losing direction in the past five years.

God I hope not. Sony is such a has-been company.

Jobs admired Sony for what it was when Apple was tiny. Now, Apple is eating their lunch. This sort of takeover never works. SGI swallowed Cray, and never recovered. Compaq swallowed DEC, and is history (what swallowing that lump of indigestible detritus did to HP is another story).

Anyone post this?

http://gizmodo.com/5481454/infograph...gadget-line+up

Why on Earth would Apple want to buy a company with such a massive and unfocused product lineup??

How much capital do you think it takes, presently, to run Apple? How much lost capital and debt absorbed by Apple do you think SONY would entail?

Their debt out paces their valuation. SONY's Debt to Assets ratio:

DEBT TO ASSET RATIO::

9.48 : 1

They have a nearly 10 to 1 debts to assets balance sheet. You'd have to be a crack addict to think that's a healthy company.

They have 171,900 employees.

GET REAL.

Apple searches for corporations in the few hundreds of employees, period.

Do you actually know what market capitalisation actually means?

Well Sony does that right now, so why would it be an issue for someone else?

Can you please explain how you think this could happen? You would also need a serious CPU upgrade in the AppleTV, and some serious storage added to come up to PS3 levels, which both would add a serious price increase to the device

Musings are fun, but not always worth publishing. Remember not long ago, people thought Sony should buy Apple:
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/1...tart.html?pg=2

Side note from article, if Apple's 4 billion was a hoard of cash then, what is the 51 Billion now?

Sony is a deeply troubled company. So is Panasonic for that matter. Say what you will about Samsung but Samsung is worth around twice as much as Sony and Panasonic combined by market cap. Samsung's net earnings are approximately equal to Apple's although Apple will continue to grow at breakneck speed and earn much more in the next few years ahead. Samsung's global brand value (according to Interbrand) is way, way higher than either Sony or Panasonic. In consumer electronics Samsung is a juggernaut that is leaving Sony and Panasonic in the dust in the same way Apple is leaving HP and Dell in the dust. Steve Jobs admired the Sony of the 80's. That's a long, long time ago...

Reading all these speculations about who Apple should acquire reminds me of baseball fans speculating about who their favorite teams should sign (or "buy") as free agents during the offseason. And Apple is now like the New York Yankees - the richest and the most "glamorous" team. The difference between Apple and the Yankees is that Apple understands value and develops from within. Now, a major acquisition in the world of big business is infinitely more complex than putting together a baseball team that might win the World Series next year, but let's simplify and use this analogy about putting together a winning team.

The Yankees spend mega bucks on aging stars or players already in their prime to long-term contracts. Apple doesn't do anything of the sort. Apple scouts the minor leagues looking for high-value young studs with long-term potential who will fit in the Apple team. This is about Apple, not a collection of all-stars doing their own things. You do it the Apple way or you're not welcome. Sony is like a 35-year-old former star whose glory days are a distant memory. Yeah, Sony can still swing a big bat and hit the occasional dingers but it strikes out a lot more than hitting the walk-off homer. It's also lead-footed with gimpy knees and clogs up the base paths and can't play defense at all anymore. Sony is like an aging designated hitter.

Apple is rich but Apple is going to stick to its tried-and-true method of developing "homegrown" talent and growing organically while trading for or signing young minor league or rookie talent that enhances the team, not disrupt it with an old star's ego and baggage. Apple scours far, wide and deep for young and fresh talent all over the world for little pieces that will help the team in the long run. If Apple is an MLB team, it's already a dynasty winning 110+ games per year and winning the WS handily every year as well. Why would you want to add an old, slow, injury-prone and boring has-been "star" with the name of a long-gone glorious past to this still-young, dynamic and growing team?

Apple will be well over $100 billion in annual revenues by the end of fiscal '12. It won't be much longer before Apple challenges Samsung and HP as the largest tech and consumer electronics company in the world by revenues. By then, Apple's market cap will be the largest in the world and the earnings will be much greater than any other tech company's as well. Apple can do all this without a single major acquisition along the way. So why do it? Why take on the bloat and all the distractions that come with it? Perhaps Jobs is just buying time. In 2~3 years Apple could have $100 billion in the bank. In 5 years, who knows? Maybe then, Apple could do something really big. Be patient, my brethren Apple enthusiasts, let's take things one game (a quarter) at a time and continue winning while developing promising young talent for the future.

AppleTV right now = $99

Sony PS3 160GB = $299

Now, what could Apple do. Go to a 1.5ghz or so dualcore ARM A9. This is more than enough CPU power for console gaming. The Xbox360 is based on a PowerPC G5 - esque chip which is rather old by now. GPU? Something low power from Nvidia. Combined with smart coding, it's all you need. Storage? 128GB Flash. Lightning fast storage. Or, Apple could go with hard drives for the lower-cost models.

Imagine... $399 USD
Apple TV2
1.5ghz dualcore ARM A9
Custom ATI 5750 512MB
250GB Hard Drive*
App Store
Gyroscope and accelerometer controller

*All your games are stored on the cloud, you only need to download for what you are currently playing, you can re-download as needed. Steam on PC and Mac already does this.

$100 more than a PS3. But you know people would buy it. Hardcore gamers would trash the heck out of it but the proof will be in the graphics and performance and control. Hardcore gamers would cave in after a while.

Personally, I don't think this would happen, there just isn't enough incentive in pushing a dedicated console gaming unit from Apple. They could simply extend the current AppleTV with App Store access and maintain OpenGL ES games.

But I think clearly there is a theoretical possibility for Apple to jump into console-quality 1080p gaming. Remember Xbox360 and PS3 are using years-old technology. The progress in ARM chips and ATI GPUs would be enough to really push the boundaries. A $499 PC alone is sufficient to destroy an Xbox360 in performance and graphics, but the advantage is that because PS3 and Xbox360 have dedicated hardware, it's much easier to develop, optimise and squeeze the absolute most out of those platforms.

Apple have pulled-off two major disruptions of late.
The music distribution business.
The mobile handset business.
Both of these have added billions to Apple's bottom line.

In both cases, the business Apple entered had long-standing problems which created the opportunity for Apple.

The video games business is not in that state. It is broken, and one of the reasons it is broken is far too much investment chasing too little cash. The videogames business is not making money for these high-rolling companies, because their business model is fatally flawed.

There is room for disruption, and it happened already. Nintendo launched the WII, which was as commercially successful as it was despised by the hard-core. Nintendo adopted a different model, where they launched lower-specced hardware with novelty controllers.

There is no way Apple wants to enter this broken market. There is certainly no way it wants to spend $50B to gain old technology that has never made a penny.

If Apple invests this amount of money, it will be to enter a market that is flush with cash, and ripe for disruption.

C.

Do you?

If so, please enlighten us all.

digitalclips was also mocking iMeMine's spelling of the word "hostile". That also changes the meaning significantly.

Eats, Shoots & Leaves

Punctuation errors can cost jobs, money, esteem

I think it's far easier for Apple to hire specific talents or areas than to purchase Sony.
It has purchased specific companies with a specific group of people or applications, e.g. SoundJam to create iTunes, Emagic for Logic Pro, etc.

Sony has such a diverse range of businesses that I think it'll be very costly for Apple in effort and money figuring what to do with each division (retain, close down or divest). Sony itself hasn't been sure what to do with itself in recent years; what hope for Apple to retain focus on its business whilst trying to deal with a Sony acquisition?

It's much simpler and cheaper for Apple to buy in specific talent and/or specialist companies whilst keeping its focus on creating great products.

A hedge-o-money.

Stole that one from Guy Kawasaki, who coined the term to describe Microsoft, back in the day.

Yep. You're prolly right.

Let me make something clear, if I haven't already: I don't think an Apple-Sony merger would make complete sense. Apple merging with Sony Of America makes more sense, but I would still be wary of spending billions of dollars for it. Apple's previous way of buying startups makes more sense in terms of organizational complexity and cost-efficiency. I would be very careful about buying any part of any conglomerate.

However, I can somewhat rationalize buying some parts of Sony, namely, most of Sony America, for its media content and TV manufacturing IP. Sony's at the forefront of power-efficient LCD TV technology, and we all know how Apple likes low-power. Perhaps Apple doesn't think it can currently create a giant 1080p TV display in-house. What startup company purchase could help Apple produce big-screen 3DTV panels?

Buying all of Sony, so they can get access to SonyEricsson and PlayStation IP, makes no sense, as that technology's over-ripe. Apple could make a quality gaming console in-house, with their current IP. And of course, they already have the iPhone. But Sony of America has vast media content and power-efficient 3DTV intellectual property. That's all Apple needs here.


I'm not going to quote the whole post, but that might be the best way to describe the whole situation, that I've read. It's cool to speculate about this story, but I think it's likely to be an Apple-induced smokescreen. Classic misdirection, I think.


Perhaps this is why Apple feels like they have to build a million square feet of servers -- that it's not just for iTunes or Lion cloud storage... Makes sense.

By "hard drive" you do mean flash memory, right? I think that's where Apple will go in their future laptop computers. I wouldn't be surprised if Lion is only available in flash ROM memory form -- no DVD's.


During the acquisition process, Apple could choose to let some divisions of Sony of America remain in Sony of Japan's hands. Simple. If I were Steve, that's what I'd do. Simplify the purchase, and simultaneously lower the price. It makes sense.

And look beyond Apple. Content is king. In this day, there are battles between content providers and media distributors on how much to charge for distributing media. For an example of that, see Fox TV vs. Cablevision and Dish Network. Taking some content in-house so you'll never have to worry about taking content off of iTunes is a major advantage to have, especially in the music industry, where iTunes is king of all sales. It also creates incentive for artists to sign with Sony/Apple Records, since they'll get prime and exclusive access to deals and promotions from iTunes, and otherwise having the Apple marketing juggernaut at your fingertips. Plus, artists will never have to worry about iTunes removing their music over their label's refusal to come to an iTunes agreement with Apple. These are major advantages for artists.

The last thing Apple wants or needs is to become another studio!

I don't think Steve's objection to Blu-Ray had anything to do with Apple somehow not being able to get it into their computers. I think it's mainly because it's a new technology that is coming at the twilight of optical media. In other words, the days of having movies, applications and video games distributed on little 5" plastic discs are fading fast. Steve sees a future world where movies & television will be streamed, applications will be downloaded or served, and video games will be played online. Blu-Ray will have no relevance in that world. Hence, Blu-Ray is a "bag of hurt" in Steve's vision of the future.

The XBox 360 uses a three core, 3.2GHz PPC style chip, do you honestly think, a ARM A9 is going to keep up with that? Then the PS3 has an even faster chip in it. And both these consoles have trouble drive full HD games now. Storage, Wii games are small, they also look like crap, XBox games are much larger, and PS3 games even bigger. How would your 128GB go holding a few 8GB Xbox style game, or maybe some 25GB PS3 style games? Don't worry, we can store them in the cloud. Let's start playing GT5, just wait 40 hours for the 40GB download (you milage may vary), and then we will be off....


THe PS3 and XBox can get away with small drives now due to them having optical drives in them, a download only service would need a very big drive. And the concept of redownloading them from Apple? They won't let you do this with songs, it is a big step to allow you to do this with very large games.


Everyone would trash the heck out of it, the PS3s price was, and still is, abused a lot, especially compared to the other devices.


Of course, you have missed the major thing you need for gaming, especially console gaming, and that is the exclusive grade A titles. And don't mention EA, they must be the worst of the game developers out there.


Simple 1080p games are not hard, it is the complex ones that your suggestions have issues with.
I think you are placing your excessive love of Apple in the way of common sense. Sure, Apple could surprise everyone, release a console and be the number one player, people were surprised that Sony did this, and that MS did this.

One of the big reasons people purchase consoles over computers is they work, you don't need to keep checking specs, you don't need to keep upgrading them, they are usually in spec for a number of years (not months likes computers). They just work. Would Apple be happy sitting on virtually the same hardware base for 6 years, and actually have to drop the price every so often? Personally, I would not purchase a 3 year old Apple Console for the same price is was at release time

I do, and I know that a large market cap doesn't mean you can just purchase anything you like, you actually have to have the means to do it. It is just a market valuation of your company, that is all.

Published, hanging-out, close observation, been around, old enough to have a Apple ][ plus in my garage.

You have Apple TV not going away, despite the fact that it isn't really shaking the world. they are learning how to be the best at presenting a user interface for management of video programming.

You have the start of the streaming of video...they are going to learn to be the best at streaming video and video DRM.

You have strategic relationship with Disney...better understand what drives those who own content...Apple doesn't need to own content...if they provide the best way to get content to consumers...best streaming, best interface...the content owners will happily drive over their bridge.


Apple strategists think in terms of pipelines of content...be the guy who owns the only bridge over the river and then constantly make it nicer and charge a toll low enough so that no one else will build a better bridge. And then think of implications if everyone is using your bridge. In other words, they don't want to build something like the best computer or gaming platform or the best social network...they want to build the "only" of something. That is what apple does well.

If I were thinking of a strategic acquisition based on what apple does and what Steve has talked about in the past...and I was thinking about a TV technology that revolutionized the way we watch television...and if apple will eventually have best video streaming and best user interface and will be something content providers will be anxious to use

and I were thinking of the pieces that apple cannot create on their own.

and I were thinking of the size of the pile of money


and the Financial Times had written about Verizon as a potential future acquisition....

...I would have paid attention