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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
Hmmmm. That WOULD take care of the that pesky IP lawsuit now wouldn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
- Buy Sprint / Nextel and bring Nextel features to the iDevices and use your own service as an alternative to everyone elses fully bundled with MobileMe and other valued Apple perks...
- Buy a graphics chip maker and add custom hardware to macs to support open standards
Okay let's get a little whacky...
- Sponsor a European soccer team - black shirt with white apple, white trucks with black stripes and black socks
Comments
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
Drobo is good too, but i dont think it take much work for Apple to create an Equivalent one.
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.
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.
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.
Time to bitch-slap Kodak AND Nokia.
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!!!
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.
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.
- Buy a graphics chip maker and add custom hardware to macs to support open standards
Okay let's get a little whacky...
- Sponsor a European soccer team - black shirt with white apple, white trucks with black stripes and black socks
Okay I'm dreaming a little too much