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.
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.
I'll state it again... AppleTV + decent GPU + controller = bye bye PS3.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by alexkhan2000
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiA
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.
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.
Movies and music rights and such? Sony would fill that need. Finally getting Blu-Ray into their computers? Sony would fill that too.
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.
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.
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....
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
*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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
$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.
Everyone would trash the heck out of it, the PS3s price was, and still is, abused a lot, especially compared to the other devices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nvidia2008
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.
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.
Now this is extremely interesting. FaceTime comes to mind, as does the mystery data center.
Is your SJ info based on published info, or on first-hand, hanging-out kind of info? Or second-hand, for that matter. Not doubting, just wondering if one could look this up.
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....
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.
Are you asking if I think Comcast buying NBC is a good idea? Happens that I don't. As we've seen several times recently, the cable industry and the content owners are increasingly at loggerheads over how much the cable companies should be paying for content. Cable subscribers are often held hostage -- as in New York, where they won't be able to watch the World Series this year for that very reason (assuming they're interested in any baseball games where the Yankees aren't playing, but that's another story). Put one of those content producers under the same roof with a cable company, and you've only multiplied the problem by increasing the conflicting interests.
Yes, Apple retails, and like any other retailer, they make deals with manufacturers. If the terms aren't right, the manufacturer walks -- to another retailer. Musicians don't drive the music industry, and if you don't believe that, try asking one. They're the flea on the tail of the dog -- when they're lucky. You also forget that not all musicians are exactly thrilled with digital distribution.
Apple and iTunes are big, but not so dominant that Apple can call the shots. Amazon and other music retailers have received deals from the industry that Apple has not. We've seen other signs of chafing. The industry clearly is very keen to not give Apple too much power over them, and so the situation remains quite fluid, particularly for TV and movies, a retailing area in which Apple has not been nearly as successful as music. If Apple becomes not only a big, demanding retailer, but also a competitor -- then look out below. Run this big, risky and expensive experiment just to see what happens? I don't think so.
Comments
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??
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.
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.
The article may be stupid or not.
However, capitalization:
Apple 280 B
Sony34 B
Now tell me, who is small and who is big.
Do you actually know what market capitalisation actually means?
That could be possibly antitrust to run a movie store and own the largest movie distributor.
Well Sony does that right now, so why would it be an issue for someone else?
I'll state it again... AppleTV + decent GPU + controller = bye bye PS3.
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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 actually know what market capitalisation actually means?
Do you?
If so, please enlighten us all.
I think he dropped a comma between the word "bid" and the word "and". It changes the meaning significantly.
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
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.
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?
A hedge-o-money.
Stole that one from Guy Kawasaki, who coined the term to describe Microsoft, back in the day.
Both. They would rebuild all dev tools to produce HTML5 instead of proprietary flash bits.
Yep. You're prolly right.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Movies and music rights and such? Sony would fill that need. Finally getting Blu-Ray into their computers? Sony would fill that too.
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.
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.
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....
*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.
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.
$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.
Everyone would trash the heck out of it, the PS3s price was, and still is, abused a lot, especially compared to the other devices.
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.
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.
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.
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
Do you?
If so, please enlighten us all.
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.
Now this is extremely interesting. FaceTime comes to mind, as does the mystery data center.
Is your SJ info based on published info, or on first-hand, hanging-out kind of info? Or second-hand, for that matter. Not doubting, just wondering if one could look this up.
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
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.
Are you asking if I think Comcast buying NBC is a good idea? Happens that I don't. As we've seen several times recently, the cable industry and the content owners are increasingly at loggerheads over how much the cable companies should be paying for content. Cable subscribers are often held hostage -- as in New York, where they won't be able to watch the World Series this year for that very reason (assuming they're interested in any baseball games where the Yankees aren't playing, but that's another story). Put one of those content producers under the same roof with a cable company, and you've only multiplied the problem by increasing the conflicting interests.
Yes, Apple retails, and like any other retailer, they make deals with manufacturers. If the terms aren't right, the manufacturer walks -- to another retailer. Musicians don't drive the music industry, and if you don't believe that, try asking one. They're the flea on the tail of the dog -- when they're lucky. You also forget that not all musicians are exactly thrilled with digital distribution.
Apple and iTunes are big, but not so dominant that Apple can call the shots. Amazon and other music retailers have received deals from the industry that Apple has not. We've seen other signs of chafing. The industry clearly is very keen to not give Apple too much power over them, and so the situation remains quite fluid, particularly for TV and movies, a retailing area in which Apple has not been nearly as successful as music. If Apple becomes not only a big, demanding retailer, but also a competitor -- then look out below. Run this big, risky and expensive experiment just to see what happens? I don't think so.