Think big - Data facility, many new stores world wide, iPad, iPhone. The way Apple does them these are BIG ideas. AppleTV and all that that entails (living room, movies, television) is potentially huge but Apple wont go there unless they can make a difference and sell a lot of hardware, and there are more obstacles posed by entrenched business models than in just about any other media industry. But in spite of the claim that the ATV is a hobby I am sure that this is one of the areas Apple has its eyes on in a BIG way.
Given the iPad is without a CD/DVD drive (remember loosing the floppy disk? Here we go again!) the only way for new software to be loaded onto it is via an internet download off iTunes. So the next big step for Apple might be to provide a core base of applications for use on the iPad beyond what they have already on offer (perhaps looking to stuff that can crossover with appleTV?). Perhaps some small scale acquistions of minor companies in order to create those apps?
Think big - Data facility, many new stores world wide, iPad, iPhone. The way Apple does them these are BIG ideas. AppleTV and all that that entails (living room, movies, television) is potentially huge but Apple wont go there unless they can make a difference and sell a lot of hardware, and there are more obstacles posed by entrenched business models than in just about any other media industry. But in spite of the claim that the ATV is a hobby I am sure that this is one of the areas Apple has its eyes on in a BIG way.
Yep the Movie industry made $400 million last year on Downloaded movies, They made $18 Billion on DVD sales, $17 Billion on movies airing on paid and unpaid TV and 8 Billion on theatre sales.
Although the future is obviously online digital distribution the 'tipping point' has not been reached yet. Unlike music where it has and 10 Billion downloads later we are where we are.
As far as movies the bottle neck is the intransigence of the Movie Industry. In other words, they are scared of Apple! Apple may have been a little too successful with music.
I think if the Movie industry did some serious analysis of Piracy they would see they are losing millions a day and should sign up with Apple sooner rather than later!
Apple's Tim Cook (from AppleInsider Post a few days back):
Keeping it simple
One focus for Apple, Cook revealed, is to keep matters simple. The Cupertino, Calif., company hasn't been interested in doing large acquisitions because of value and compatibility issues.
"We've always been about making the best product, not having the highest market share or the highest revenue," he said. "And so acquiring a company so our revenue gets larger isn't something that drives us."
The same philosophy applies to Apple's product line. Cook said the company doesn't want to overextend itself, and noted that the company's entire line of products could fit on one table. The only other high-revenue, publicly traded companies that could likely say that would be oil companies, he said.
Most companies, he said, simply aim to get bigger as they become more successful, but Apple has intentionally avoided that approach.
"The management team at Apple would never let that happen," Cook said. "That's not what we're about."
Steve Jobs:
Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big"
Huh, seems like opposite ends of the spectrum!
Really? You cannot possibly conceive of situations where thinking big doesn't mean overextending oneself, doesn't mean highest marketshare or highest revenue? I guess you just failed CEO 101 dude.
That's ridiculous. Canada is the second largest nation in the world behind Russia. You can ask most people about world geography and elicit a correct answer. The US public education system is notorious and unfortunately there may be truth to the conspiracy that it is purposely being dismantled by the powers that be in order to keep the citizens out of the loop and disinformed.
The Canadian population is right around 34 million. And that is pretty much focussed along the border with the US too! US population is a little over 300 million, or nearly ten times the population of Canada. The state of California, for example has a larger population than Canada, at right around 36 million.
Comparatively, if you include Russia and Turkey in the mix, Europe has 831.4 million, in 56 separate countries, but Russia is the only country that come close to the US in size, at roughly 143 million. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine and the UK all are much larger than Canada, but all under 100 million. I'm sorry - what was your point again???
I'm not worried about Apple "thinking big." I'm worried about them having so much cash burning a hole in their pockets that they make a very large and very unwise acquisition. Just listen to some of the dumb suggestions we hear around this place about the companies it would be great for Apple to own, for no particular reason. I know Apple's management wouldn't deliberately buy a boat anchor, but then nobody does -- and they still do it all the time. It seems ridiculous to say it, but since the concept seems to elude so many people: $40 billion is huge amount of money no matter how you cut it. By this time next year, the hoard will very likely have grown to over $50 billion. Then what?
Apple shouldn't buy Netflix but your reasoning is warped. If what you say is true, then why haven't those other content creators pulled their content from the iTunes Store?
Because there's a big difference between Jobs being a large stockholder and sitting on their board, something which is common in all industries, and Apple owning the whole shebang.
Even now, Disney is doing things that are opposed to Apple's interests.
I'm not worried about Apple "thinking big." I'm worried about them having so much cash burning a hole in their pockets that they make a very large and very unwise acquisition. Just listen to some of the dumb suggestions we hear around this place about the companies it would be great for Apple to own, for no particular reason. I know Apple's management wouldn't deliberately buy a boat anchor, but then nobody does -- and they still do it all the time. It seems ridiculous to say it, but since the concept seems to elude so many people: $40 billion is huge amount of money no matter how you cut it. By this time next year, the hoard will very likely have grown to over $50 billion. Then what?
Fortunately, none of these people have anything to do with any decision Apple will make.
While I don't agree with any of the suggestions here, and some are pretty harebrained, I can't think of one myself that would make sense right now.
Whatever it would be, if Apple would do it, it would have to do with their supplies, not other products. Apple is frantic about acquiring steady supplies at good prices. Any major acquisition would have to do with that. Remember three years ago, I think it was, when they ere going to invest, with Samsung, in a new chip plant? That only dropped after Samsung got caught in one of the price fixing schemes the chip industry gets involved in every few years. So maybe Micron. That would solve the memory supply problem, and give them a new plant along with IBM. It could also allow them to make their own ARM's.
But in spite of the claim that the ATV is a hobby I am sure that this is one of the areas Apple has its eyes on in a BIG way.
If Apple wants to skate towards where the puck will be then I am not sure that that is television. TV seems to be dying fast. In five years time I think it will be hanging on by an even more slender thread. I think that television has to be liberated from the idea of someone else programming your night. Increasingly people will want to watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it.
If Apple wants to skate towards where the puck will be then I am not sure that that is television. TV seems to be dying fast. In five years time I think it will be hanging on by an even more slender thread. I think that television has to be liberated from the idea of someone else programming your night. Increasingly people will want to watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it.
Tv isn't dying at all. People are watching it more than ever. What's having problems is the traditional networks. More people are watching cable, and taking viewers from broadcast.
Fortunately, none of these people have anything to do with any decision Apple will make.
While I don't agree with any of the suggestions here, and some are pretty harebrained, I can't think of one myself that would make sense right now.
Whatever it would be, if Apple would do it, it would have to do with their supplies, not other products. Apple is frantic about acquiring steady supplies at good prices. Any major acquisition would have to do with that. Remember three years ago, I think it was, when they ere going to invest, with Samsung, in a new chip plant? That only dropped after Samsung got caught in one of the price fixing schemes the chip industry gets involved in every few years. So maybe Micron. That would solve the memory supply problem, and give them a new plant along with IBM. It could also allow them to make their own ARM's.
Though dropping Apple's 'fabless' structure for a more encompassing manufacturing procedure
would give them more control (especially where secrecy is concerned), it can become very irksome.
For a huge company like Apple (thanks to Steve baby) to now go down the manufacturing path
would open the floodgates of even more ecological reports and the troubles posed by more & more employees on the payroll.
Though helpful to the US economy, I'm unsure how the shareholders would feel about it.
As you said, I can't think of a readily viable investment they can make without a feeling of foreboding.
It's about the best I can think of. It would actually make some sense. Payroll isn't important. Apple has increased the payroll by very large numbers over the past few years. Controlling their own process (along with IBM in Micron and IBMs new plant) is the way that Intel is able to stay ahead. Fabless design firms are always at a disadvantage.
Buying micron is just an idea though, because Apple would then have to sell to their competitors, and it's not likely they would want to do such a thing. Otherwise, it would be a good idea.
I'm not worried about Apple "thinking big." I'm worried about them having so much cash burning a hole in their pockets that they make a very large and very unwise acquisition. Just listen to some of the dumb suggestions we hear around this place about the companies it would be great for Apple to own, for no particular reason. I know Apple's management wouldn't deliberately buy a boat anchor, but then nobody does -- and they still do it all the time. It seems ridiculous to say it, but since the concept seems to elude so many people: $40 billion is huge amount of money no matter how you cut it. By this time next year, the hoard will very likely have grown to over $50 billion. Then what?
I don't believe Apple will make such a mistake as what you describe. They're just too well run for that (imo). If you take a realistic look over the management of the corporation over the last several years, I think you see a picture of exquisite operation. Not flawless, but not too far short of it.
Specifically, I think it very unlikely that Apple would drop a large portion of their warchest on a large acquisition. Primarily because it would be very difficult to guarantee the kind of return on that investment that it would require to justify the cost. Even in cases where you would think there is symmetry and strategic purpose (for example Adobe). There is just so much baggage that comes along with a large organization, and the tremendous amount of effort required to consolidate operations. In doing so, Apple would both spend a great deal of their capital and incur significant costs in time and labor on top of that. In all but the rarest of circumstances is a large acquisition worth the expense. In my view, it's more often a sign of corporations that have stagnated and that can no longer innovate.
Keep in mind also that having such a large amount of capital on hand is a tremendous benefit to Apple. Harkening back to a time when Apple's position was a bit more precarious, having a large cash position made hostile takeovers more difficult. As that is no longer a real threat, the large cash position gives Apple leverage over component supplies, and makes smaller, strategic acquisitions more easily manageable. It as well gives them resources to fight legal battles, fund marketing initiatives and invest in retail expansion and other infrastructure.
Comments
Think big - Data facility, many new stores world wide, iPad, iPhone. The way Apple does them these are BIG ideas. AppleTV and all that that entails (living room, movies, television) is potentially huge but Apple wont go there unless they can make a difference and sell a lot of hardware, and there are more obstacles posed by entrenched business models than in just about any other media industry. But in spite of the claim that the ATV is a hobby I am sure that this is one of the areas Apple has its eyes on in a BIG way.
Yep the Movie industry made $400 million last year on Downloaded movies, They made $18 Billion on DVD sales, $17 Billion on movies airing on paid and unpaid TV and 8 Billion on theatre sales.
Although the future is obviously online digital distribution the 'tipping point' has not been reached yet. Unlike music where it has and 10 Billion downloads later we are where we are.
As far as movies the bottle neck is the intransigence of the Movie Industry. In other words, they are scared of Apple! Apple may have been a little too successful with music.
I think if the Movie industry did some serious analysis of Piracy they would see they are losing millions a day and should sign up with Apple sooner rather than later!
Apple's Tim Cook (from AppleInsider Post a few days back):
Keeping it simple
One focus for Apple, Cook revealed, is to keep matters simple. The Cupertino, Calif., company hasn't been interested in doing large acquisitions because of value and compatibility issues.
"We've always been about making the best product, not having the highest market share or the highest revenue," he said. "And so acquiring a company so our revenue gets larger isn't something that drives us."
The same philosophy applies to Apple's product line. Cook said the company doesn't want to overextend itself, and noted that the company's entire line of products could fit on one table. The only other high-revenue, publicly traded companies that could likely say that would be oil companies, he said.
Most companies, he said, simply aim to get bigger as they become more successful, but Apple has intentionally avoided that approach.
"The management team at Apple would never let that happen," Cook said. "That's not what we're about."
Steve Jobs:
Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big"
Huh, seems like opposite ends of the spectrum!
Really? You cannot possibly conceive of situations where thinking big doesn't mean overextending oneself, doesn't mean highest marketshare or highest revenue? I guess you just failed CEO 101 dude.
That's ridiculous. Canada is the second largest nation in the world behind Russia. You can ask most people about world geography and elicit a correct answer. The US public education system is notorious and unfortunately there may be truth to the conspiracy that it is purposely being dismantled by the powers that be in order to keep the citizens out of the loop and disinformed.
The Canadian population is right around 34 million. And that is pretty much focussed along the border with the US too! US population is a little over 300 million, or nearly ten times the population of Canada. The state of California, for example has a larger population than Canada, at right around 36 million.
Comparatively, if you include Russia and Turkey in the mix, Europe has 831.4 million, in 56 separate countries, but Russia is the only country that come close to the US in size, at roughly 143 million. France, Germany, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey, Ukraine and the UK all are much larger than Canada, but all under 100 million. I'm sorry - what was your point again???
... By this time next year, the hoard will very likely have grown to over $50 billion. Then what?
60?
(I do grasp your point, however)
Apple shouldn't buy Netflix but your reasoning is warped. If what you say is true, then why haven't those other content creators pulled their content from the iTunes Store?
Because there's a big difference between Jobs being a large stockholder and sitting on their board, something which is common in all industries, and Apple owning the whole shebang.
Even now, Disney is doing things that are opposed to Apple's interests.
I'm not worried about Apple "thinking big." I'm worried about them having so much cash burning a hole in their pockets that they make a very large and very unwise acquisition. Just listen to some of the dumb suggestions we hear around this place about the companies it would be great for Apple to own, for no particular reason. I know Apple's management wouldn't deliberately buy a boat anchor, but then nobody does -- and they still do it all the time. It seems ridiculous to say it, but since the concept seems to elude so many people: $40 billion is huge amount of money no matter how you cut it. By this time next year, the hoard will very likely have grown to over $50 billion. Then what?
Fortunately, none of these people have anything to do with any decision Apple will make.
While I don't agree with any of the suggestions here, and some are pretty harebrained, I can't think of one myself that would make sense right now.
Whatever it would be, if Apple would do it, it would have to do with their supplies, not other products. Apple is frantic about acquiring steady supplies at good prices. Any major acquisition would have to do with that. Remember three years ago, I think it was, when they ere going to invest, with Samsung, in a new chip plant? That only dropped after Samsung got caught in one of the price fixing schemes the chip industry gets involved in every few years. So maybe Micron. That would solve the memory supply problem, and give them a new plant along with IBM. It could also allow them to make their own ARM's.
Yeah but you know someone here would complain that it didn't have a camera and a blu-ray player.
YES YES YES
EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE A Blue-Ray or something or other
EVERYTHING! 'HE' demands it! a blue-ray player that is.
But in spite of the claim that the ATV is a hobby I am sure that this is one of the areas Apple has its eyes on in a BIG way.
If Apple wants to skate towards where the puck will be then I am not sure that that is television. TV seems to be dying fast. In five years time I think it will be hanging on by an even more slender thread. I think that television has to be liberated from the idea of someone else programming your night. Increasingly people will want to watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it.
If Apple wants to skate towards where the puck will be then I am not sure that that is television. TV seems to be dying fast. In five years time I think it will be hanging on by an even more slender thread. I think that television has to be liberated from the idea of someone else programming your night. Increasingly people will want to watch what they want to watch, when they want to watch it.
Tv isn't dying at all. People are watching it more than ever. What's having problems is the traditional networks. More people are watching cable, and taking viewers from broadcast.
Fortunately, none of these people have anything to do with any decision Apple will make.
While I don't agree with any of the suggestions here, and some are pretty harebrained, I can't think of one myself that would make sense right now.
Whatever it would be, if Apple would do it, it would have to do with their supplies, not other products. Apple is frantic about acquiring steady supplies at good prices. Any major acquisition would have to do with that. Remember three years ago, I think it was, when they ere going to invest, with Samsung, in a new chip plant? That only dropped after Samsung got caught in one of the price fixing schemes the chip industry gets involved in every few years. So maybe Micron. That would solve the memory supply problem, and give them a new plant along with IBM. It could also allow them to make their own ARM's.
Though dropping Apple's 'fabless' structure for a more encompassing manufacturing procedure
would give them more control (especially where secrecy is concerned), it can become very irksome.
For a huge company like Apple (thanks to Steve baby) to now go down the manufacturing path
would open the floodgates of even more ecological reports and the troubles posed by more & more employees on the payroll.
Though helpful to the US economy, I'm unsure how the shareholders would feel about it.
As you said, I can't think of a readily viable investment they can make without a feeling of foreboding.
Ah, to hell with it anyway, JUST THINK BIG ©
Though dropping Apple's 'fabless' structure for a more encompassing manufacturing procedure
would give them more control (especially where secrecy is concerned), it can become very irksome.
For a huge company like Apple (thanks to Steve baby) to now go down the manufacturing path
would open the floodgates of even more ecological reports and the troubles posed by more & more employees on the payroll.
Though helpful to the US economy, I'm unsure how the shareholders would feel about it.
As you said, I can't think of a readily viable investment they can make without a feeling of foreboding.
Ah, to hell with it anyway, JUST THINK BIG ©
It's about the best I can think of. It would actually make some sense. Payroll isn't important. Apple has increased the payroll by very large numbers over the past few years. Controlling their own process (along with IBM in Micron and IBMs new plant) is the way that Intel is able to stay ahead. Fabless design firms are always at a disadvantage.
Buying micron is just an idea though, because Apple would then have to sell to their competitors, and it's not likely they would want to do such a thing. Otherwise, it would be a good idea.
I'm not worried about Apple "thinking big." I'm worried about them having so much cash burning a hole in their pockets that they make a very large and very unwise acquisition. Just listen to some of the dumb suggestions we hear around this place about the companies it would be great for Apple to own, for no particular reason. I know Apple's management wouldn't deliberately buy a boat anchor, but then nobody does -- and they still do it all the time. It seems ridiculous to say it, but since the concept seems to elude so many people: $40 billion is huge amount of money no matter how you cut it. By this time next year, the hoard will very likely have grown to over $50 billion. Then what?
I don't believe Apple will make such a mistake as what you describe. They're just too well run for that (imo). If you take a realistic look over the management of the corporation over the last several years, I think you see a picture of exquisite operation. Not flawless, but not too far short of it.
Specifically, I think it very unlikely that Apple would drop a large portion of their warchest on a large acquisition. Primarily because it would be very difficult to guarantee the kind of return on that investment that it would require to justify the cost. Even in cases where you would think there is symmetry and strategic purpose (for example Adobe). There is just so much baggage that comes along with a large organization, and the tremendous amount of effort required to consolidate operations. In doing so, Apple would both spend a great deal of their capital and incur significant costs in time and labor on top of that. In all but the rarest of circumstances is a large acquisition worth the expense. In my view, it's more often a sign of corporations that have stagnated and that can no longer innovate.
Keep in mind also that having such a large amount of capital on hand is a tremendous benefit to Apple. Harkening back to a time when Apple's position was a bit more precarious, having a large cash position made hostile takeovers more difficult. As that is no longer a real threat, the large cash position gives Apple leverage over component supplies, and makes smaller, strategic acquisitions more easily manageable. It as well gives them resources to fight legal battles, fund marketing initiatives and invest in retail expansion and other infrastructure.
Yeah screw the environment. Let's just focus on money. [Sarcasm]
It wouldn't surprise me if many shareholders don't even own Apple products.
Though dropping Apple's 'fabless' structure for a more encompassing manufacturing procedure
would give them more control (especially where secrecy is concerned), it can become very irksome.
For a huge company like Apple (thanks to Steve baby) to now go down the manufacturing path
would open the floodgates of even more ecological reports and the troubles posed by more & more employees on the payroll.
Though helpful to the US economy, I'm unsure how the shareholders would feel about it.
As you said, I can't think of a readily viable investment they can make without a feeling of foreboding.
Ah, to hell with it anyway, JUST THINK BIG ©
I can see Apple pumping in say, $1 Billion into GlobalFoundries.
http://www.globalfoundries.com/
http://www.globalfoundries.com/newsr..._releases.aspx
That was my thought. I'm expecting a completely new AppleTV from HW, to OS, to services, and hopefully an SDK within a year.
That would seem viable relative to the roadmap---and it would be "big."
Instead, Jobs reportedly said Apple must "think big" in order to move its stock price higher.
Indeed.
Well, if you care to notice ivan's last three suggestive words, you know what biggy's coming next.
Steve and Apple management, would you take a couple of years off and run the country?? Please
Apple Samsung TV with dvr and wifi. Thank you.