When I saw the pic I was going to mention Peter Jackson’s use of it, but I see you beat me to it. I really want a RED ONE camera. I keep debating on if it’s worth wasting my money on. So far, reason is winning.
edit: I’ll likely buy a RED SCARLET should they ever start selling that slated price point.
When I saw the pic I was going to mention Peter Jackson?s use of it, but I see you beat me to it. I really want a RED ONE camera. I keep debating on if it?s worth wasting my money on. So far, reason is winning.
edit: I?ll likely buy a RED SCARLET should they ever start selling that slated price point.
I'm still happy with my Panny HDC-SD1 12x Optical zoom from 2-3 years ago. Great Video and pics.
Big problem is that an 8GB SDHC uncompresses to about 57 GB of Video @ 1440 × 1080. On my current iMac it takes about 2 hrs to decompress.
I have about 15 TBytes of HDD storage dedicated to Home movie clips, FCS Projects, iMovie Projects, etc. No Backup on any of this, except copies of the original 8GB HDSC cards.
I want, no need, a Home Server/Cloud Backup solution.
well, i see now from these good comments that Sony has just too much "baggage" for Apple to buy it.
but the holy grail in the pivotal battle for the consumer living room is a single unit that does everything important so you don't have to connect several boxes together and juggle inputs and settings - which most consumers still can't figure out. plus we all hate all those damn messy cables and wires.
Apple builds excellent monitors now up to 27" and so could certainly make a TV with good speakers and AppleTV built in. i bet we will see this by Fall 2011.
with iTunes/NetFlix streaming, DVD players are no longer necessary. but that still is missing the CATV and DVR components that are essential for many. which TiVo does best independent of the cablecos, and with patent control.
but without an iTunes store for revenue, TiVo has to charge a hefty subscription fee in addition to its purchase price, which leaves it no competitive price advantage vs. a cableco CATV DVR. and TiVo has no bigger ecosystem or big marketing machine to help sales either. so it is struggling despite having a nifty product - even its new iPad app is very nice.
which is why i think Apple should buy TiVo, which certainly could be bought cheap now. and build all this into an Apple big screen TV. That would be a breakthrough product. with no subscription fee, consumers will pay a premium price for it.
someone commented the TiVo patents would not matter to Apple. are you kidding? with all the patent lawsuits these days? of course Apple would love to have those proven patents. because while TiVo does not have the muscle to take on the cablecos and everyone else in court or in the market, Apple does.
Exactly. I'm trying to figure out what Apple gains by buying Sony. Maybe some patents, some engineering talent... but really, in the grand scheme, big deal. The negatives with Sony (i.e., their quality control, which for the last decade has sucked) far outweigh the positives.
Sony's a horribly run company that squandered their position as a great CE company by becoming undisciplined and unfocused. It's not hate to see them as a bad acquisition candidate, or to belittle them for their hubris.
Anyone who's been buying electronics for any length of time looks at Sony and just shakes their head. The customer hating and proprietary formats are just icing on the cake, although again, for anyone who's dealt with them for more than a few years, it puts a little edge into one's perception.
"proprietary formats"? you mean kinda like Apple uses?
they are both control freak companies but sony is run by the mindless while apple has its wizards.
"proprietary formats"? you mean kinda like Apple uses?
No. Not remotely. What proprietary formats do you associate with Apple?
Quote:
they are both control freak companies but sony is run by the mindless while apple has its wizards.
Out of all the things that have been mentioned, I have no idea why you think "control freak" is an interesting or relevant point of comparison.
If anything, Sony could have used a great deal more of Apple's capacity to not do things. In fact, you could make the case that Apple is Sony with the ability to say "no."
I am sorry but where is the real meat in this story or... news?
It basically just retold the story of Apple Software history.
The article deals with more than just Apple. What I got from it was historical comparisons and contrasts between Sony and Apple as their software development evolved, highlighting the successes, failures, and different paths taken. It's had a major role in the success of Apple and how Sony has languished in recent years.
Sony has been blamed, I think, for more than its fair share of management and strategy mistakes, when much of their decline can be traced to fate and how evolving technologies, product innovations and customer tastes turn yesterday's stars into today's artifacts. Two decades ago, the model for the electronics leaders was to own both the technology and the manufacturing capability. The Japanese model of owning manufacturing internationally turned into a millstone for Sony with the rise of contract manufacturing capability in Third World and developing nations. So much costly plant and equipment in place led to Sony's reluctance to abandon or write down these operations and the products they made. Sony was a cutting edge maker of $5000+ flat screen TVs in 2004 - before the flood of cheaper sets from China and Southeast Asia knocked the pins out from what Sony expected would be massive profits.
We still need and buy TVs, entertainment systems, gaming devices, computers and the like, but the nature of the hardware business has fundamentally changed to one of razor-thin margins. Apple is one of the few hardware exceptions, developing products with unique functions that consumers perceive as offering greater value, therefore commanding higher prices and greater margins. Apple is not encumbered with plant and equipment that the next big game-changer could turn into white elephants.
So Sony is stuck, along with all the other veteran brands like Panasonic, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, etc. I would hate to see Sony diminish or disappear. Sony continues to be my hardware brand of choice for flat screens and audio systems (speakers excepted), just as Apple is our household's main source for gear that handles and distributes entertainment content home and away. Sony's product line is shrinking, however. We recently bought a 40-inch Sony HDTV to replace a 2004 flat screen that cost five times as much, but we were unable to find a 19-inch Sony for the kitchen. They've trimmed their TV line to 22 inches and larger, so we ended up buying a 19-inch Samsung that fit our space requirements.
Insofar as consumer electronics is concerned, there's no possible way that Apple could ever "turn Sony's business around" to generate margins remotely approaching what Apple makes from its existing products. I would hate to see Sony acquired by Apple. All the effort required to nurse such a sick puppy would only divert Apple management's attention from doing what Apple does best.
This is very interesting. I really want to know why it was put on hold... maybe they are in legal discussions with Apple. It would be cool if this starts back up, but I have no idea where this is going. Most likely it has to do with the fact that languages that use static typing are difficult to program for complex gestures and implicit animation (Core Animation). Most other dynamic programming languages are scripting languages and not well suited for a mobile device. I wonder if they have a particular product in mind for this though.
This reminds me of when Sony announced that they were trying to get permission to run OS X as a secondary operating system on the PS3.
Actually, Apple does have the management chops to turn Sony around. Steve Jobs does " focused vision" better than any CEO and Tim Cook is the best operations/supply chain guy working today. When history books are written about Apple, you must spend a lot of time on how Tim Cook completely made over the morass that was Apple's ops business. He shuttered factories, negotiated new deals and got their supply chain under control inside of 18 months. Remember when Apple was famous for promising a new product but not being able to ship it for weeks or months? I do. Apple is no longer that company, white iPhone not withstanding.
It really doesn't matter what Tim and Steve did in the past, they don't have the chops to reorganize a foreign enity like Sony. There are all sorts of issues like cultural barriers, a foriegn legal system and the pull of talent away from Apple just when they are going through dramatic upheavals at Apple. Nothing has demonstrated that Apples current team has what it takes to reform Sony.
Quote:
Turning a company who was one quarter away from bankruptcy into the second most valued company on earth in 15 years is a ridiculous achievement in anyone's book.
They turned the company around quickly but that to me wasn't a big achievement, but rather sound management. What has made the difference is having a vision to take Apple in new directions. Be it the iPod, iTunes or iPhone they created new business where there was none.
Quote:
Regardless, buying Sony is still a huge mistake. Unless there is a huge pot of gold waiting to be unlocked from that organization, most of Sony's divisions make too little on margin to be worth Apple's while. It's all about making money.
Well Apple could use a division or two but as a whole Sony is a dieing company. The management effort required to turn it into a viable organization again is outside of Apples reach. A comPlete take over would spread the staff too thin.
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve would agree with me. It is more or less the reason for the sale of Pixar to Disney. Anything they buy has to quickly adapt to the Apple way. Part of that implies adding to Apple with minimal fuss.
It really doesn't matter what Tim and Steve did in the past, they don't have the chops to reorganize a foreign enity like Sony. There are all sorts of issues like cultural barriers, a foriegn legal system and the pull of talent away from Apple just when they are going through dramatic upheavals at Apple. Nothing has demonstrated that Apples current team has what it takes to reform Sony.
With this I can agree.
Quote:
They turned the company around quickly but that to me wasn't a big achievement, but rather sound management.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. There are many companies out there with sound management and yet they didn?t grow phenomenally through recessions and get pulled from the brink of death to be the largest technology company in the world.
Take RiM, for example, great management which has allows them to hold their own, but they are still being taken down by the rest of the industry. Management alone doesn?t pay the bills for very long.
Quote:
What has made the difference is having a vision to take Apple in new directions. Be it the iPod, iTunes or iPhone they created new business where there was none.
So it?s more than just management, it?s also vision and engineering. BTW, Every single one of the product types you mention existed by other vendors in some way before Apple got in the mix and how quickly we forget that the iPhone was ?doomed? because it was entering an entrenched market.
Quote:
Well Apple could use a division or two but as a whole Sony is a dieing company. The management effort required to turn it into a viable organization again is outside of Apples reach. A comPlete take over would spread the staff too thin.
i don?t know where you think Apple could be divided into smaller companies and still be able to offer the integration that makes Apple?s products what they are. I suppose Mac and iDevices, but why? What monopoly would that shatter? How would that benefit the customer?
As for Sony, there are parts that are faltering, but they are far from dying.
Quote:
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve would agree with me. It is more or less the reason for the sale of Pixar to Disney. Anything they buy has to quickly adapt to the Apple way. Part of that implies adding to Apple with minimal fuss.
I don?t get what Pixar being sold to Disney has to do with Apple buying companies. Are you saying Jobs sold Pixar to Disney because he couldn?t integrate into Apple with ?minimal fuss??
No matter what you think of Sony and Apple's synergy potentials, but the people who say Sony is a bad buy because it's down, they don't understand anything about investing or M&A businesses.
You buy companies that are down, and that you can thus get for comparatively little money.
Apple now is a SHITTY buy, because you'd overpay. Apple when it was about to go belly up was a great buy.
You buy companies or better BRANDs, based on what hard assets they have, what brand recognition they have, and how little you have to pay for it. You buy them based on your strategy for the future, and what they could do for that strategy, not based on what they do now.
Apple has a brand. The problem is, you can't stretch a brand too wide, or people don't get the brand anymore. Why do you think Audi, VW, Porsche, Skoda, Seat produce cars based on the same chassis? Because they target different markets. VW failed in the US with the Phaeton while Audi does just fine with the A8, because in the US VW isn't perceived as an up-market brand. In Europe, VW has moved upmarket, so the VAG company has Seat and Skoda to fill the lower market brackets.
Now back to Apple: Apple constantly fights with content providers. Between the sway Apple has with Disney (which IMO they should just buy) and Sony's Columbia, they would have enough pull to get the rest to fall in line.
Apple also has a good image for quality, but not so much for professional tools.
Apple could have bought SUN for the pro-IT markets, Sony for the AV market, and sit in the middle as glue and parent.
Sony could serve as a launch-pad for licensing MacOS and iOS to third parties that doesn't threaten Apple's survival, by smoothing the transition (hardware profits are still going back to the same source), while broadening the reach.
Sony may have enough hard assets (manufacturing, real-estate, patents, etc.) that make the company interesting regardless of operating profits, if the price is right.
In short, there are many angles under which an acquisition can work. It's not a matter of if Sony is a good or bad deal, it's a matter where Apple wants to go, what markets it wants to pursue in the future or which it wants to abandon, which markets will hurt if Apple stretches its brand over ever more product categories, etc. It's not a matter of Sony, but a matter of the future you envision for Apple as a company or as a holding company, that decides if a purchase is meaningful or not.
Sony is in a way exactly in the state you want a take-over target to be: hurt, so the price is depressed, but not beyond repair, i.e. there is a potential for massive profit if you turn things around. A company that's doing well is a bad take-over target, because it's too expensive, and a company that's failing will crush you like a falling bank-safe you trying to catch.
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve would agree with me. It is more or less the reason for the sale of Pixar to Disney. Anything they buy has to quickly adapt to the Apple way. Part of that implies adding to Apple with minimal fuss.
I think you have to learn to differentiate between Jobs and Apple. Apple NEVER owned Pixar, Jobs did.
Jobs was smart enough to realize that Pixar on its own was just a niche player, that might eventually get crushed by the big guys, but that it contained extremely valuable know-how to turn around an ailing giant like Disney.
Jobs was also smart enough that he has more pull as the largest shareholder of a giant company (Disney) than as a more or less ruler of a much smaller company (Pixar).
That Jobs' involvement with Pixar and now Disney also helped Jobs investment in Apple, that's a different story, but Pixar never was part of Apple.
How smart Job's moves were is clear from the fact that at this point he managed to get Apple in a position where they could just swallow Disney, and in the resulting share swap he might even become a controlling share holder of the combined company.
Comments
Just noticed this little jewel:
image: http://photos.macnn.com/news/1011/redepic-lg1.jpg
Included in a bundle with lots of goodies -- only $58,000 per...
http://www.electronista.com/articles...ot.the.hobbit/
When I saw the pic I was going to mention Peter Jackson’s use of it, but I see you beat me to it. I really want a RED ONE camera. I keep debating on if it’s worth wasting my money on. So far, reason is winning.
edit: I’ll likely buy a RED SCARLET should they ever start selling that slated price point.
When I saw the pic I was going to mention Peter Jackson?s use of it, but I see you beat me to it. I really want a RED ONE camera. I keep debating on if it?s worth wasting my money on. So far, reason is winning.
edit: I?ll likely buy a RED SCARLET should they ever start selling that slated price point.
I'm still happy with my Panny HDC-SD1 12x Optical zoom from 2-3 years ago. Great Video and pics.
Big problem is that an 8GB SDHC uncompresses to about 57 GB of Video @ 1440 × 1080. On my current iMac it takes about 2 hrs to decompress.
I have about 15 TBytes of HDD storage dedicated to Home movie clips, FCS Projects, iMovie Projects, etc. No Backup on any of this, except copies of the original 8GB HDSC cards.
I want, no need, a Home Server/Cloud Backup solution.
but the holy grail in the pivotal battle for the consumer living room is a single unit that does everything important so you don't have to connect several boxes together and juggle inputs and settings - which most consumers still can't figure out. plus we all hate all those damn messy cables and wires.
Apple builds excellent monitors now up to 27" and so could certainly make a TV with good speakers and AppleTV built in. i bet we will see this by Fall 2011.
with iTunes/NetFlix streaming, DVD players are no longer necessary. but that still is missing the CATV and DVR components that are essential for many. which TiVo does best independent of the cablecos, and with patent control.
but without an iTunes store for revenue, TiVo has to charge a hefty subscription fee in addition to its purchase price, which leaves it no competitive price advantage vs. a cableco CATV DVR. and TiVo has no bigger ecosystem or big marketing machine to help sales either. so it is struggling despite having a nifty product - even its new iPad app is very nice.
which is why i think Apple should buy TiVo, which certainly could be bought cheap now. and build all this into an Apple big screen TV. That would be a breakthrough product. with no subscription fee, consumers will pay a premium price for it.
someone commented the TiVo patents would not matter to Apple. are you kidding? with all the patent lawsuits these days? of course Apple would love to have those proven patents. because while TiVo does not have the muscle to take on the cablecos and everyone else in court or in the market, Apple does.
Ah. In the AppleTV go to Settings » General » Name.
Oh Sweet.
No its not.
SONY is a bad investment. It's bleeding RED.
Exactly. I'm trying to figure out what Apple gains by buying Sony. Maybe some patents, some engineering talent... but really, in the grand scheme, big deal. The negatives with Sony (i.e., their quality control, which for the last decade has sucked) far outweigh the positives.
Sony's a horribly run company that squandered their position as a great CE company by becoming undisciplined and unfocused. It's not hate to see them as a bad acquisition candidate, or to belittle them for their hubris.
Anyone who's been buying electronics for any length of time looks at Sony and just shakes their head. The customer hating and proprietary formats are just icing on the cake, although again, for anyone who's dealt with them for more than a few years, it puts a little edge into one's perception.
"proprietary formats"? you mean kinda like Apple uses?
they are both control freak companies but sony is run by the mindless while apple has its wizards.
"proprietary formats"? you mean kinda like Apple uses?
No. Not remotely. What proprietary formats do you associate with Apple?
they are both control freak companies but sony is run by the mindless while apple has its wizards.
Out of all the things that have been mentioned, I have no idea why you think "control freak" is an interesting or relevant point of comparison.
If anything, Sony could have used a great deal more of Apple's capacity to not do things. In fact, you could make the case that Apple is Sony with the ability to say "no."
Something tells me Sony doesn't have a coherent strategy.
From what I hear about the company's internal dynamics, you're 100% correct.
It basically just retold the story of Apple Software history.
Outside of the Columbia Pictures vault, what technology or product does Sony have that sets it apart from other competing companies?
Sony Computer Entertainment?
I am sorry but where is the real meat in this story or... news?
It basically just retold the story of Apple Software history.
The article deals with more than just Apple. What I got from it was historical comparisons and contrasts between Sony and Apple as their software development evolved, highlighting the successes, failures, and different paths taken. It's had a major role in the success of Apple and how Sony has languished in recent years.
Sony has been blamed, I think, for more than its fair share of management and strategy mistakes, when much of their decline can be traced to fate and how evolving technologies, product innovations and customer tastes turn yesterday's stars into today's artifacts. Two decades ago, the model for the electronics leaders was to own both the technology and the manufacturing capability. The Japanese model of owning manufacturing internationally turned into a millstone for Sony with the rise of contract manufacturing capability in Third World and developing nations. So much costly plant and equipment in place led to Sony's reluctance to abandon or write down these operations and the products they made. Sony was a cutting edge maker of $5000+ flat screen TVs in 2004 - before the flood of cheaper sets from China and Southeast Asia knocked the pins out from what Sony expected would be massive profits.
We still need and buy TVs, entertainment systems, gaming devices, computers and the like, but the nature of the hardware business has fundamentally changed to one of razor-thin margins. Apple is one of the few hardware exceptions, developing products with unique functions that consumers perceive as offering greater value, therefore commanding higher prices and greater margins. Apple is not encumbered with plant and equipment that the next big game-changer could turn into white elephants.
So Sony is stuck, along with all the other veteran brands like Panasonic, Toshiba, Mitsubishi, etc. I would hate to see Sony diminish or disappear. Sony continues to be my hardware brand of choice for flat screens and audio systems (speakers excepted), just as Apple is our household's main source for gear that handles and distributes entertainment content home and away. Sony's product line is shrinking, however. We recently bought a 40-inch Sony HDTV to replace a 2004 flat screen that cost five times as much, but we were unable to find a 19-inch Sony for the kitchen. They've trimmed their TV line to 22 inches and larger, so we ended up buying a 19-inch Samsung that fit our space requirements.
Insofar as consumer electronics is concerned, there's no possible way that Apple could ever "turn Sony's business around" to generate margins remotely approaching what Apple makes from its existing products. I would hate to see Sony acquired by Apple. All the effort required to nurse such a sick puppy would only divert Apple management's attention from doing what Apple does best.
This reminds me of when Sony announced that they were trying to get permission to run OS X as a secondary operating system on the PS3.
I know I'm dreaming. The anti-trust people would never allow it, but it would be so sweet.
Just noticed this little jewel:
Included in a bundle with lots of goodies -- only $58,000 per...
http://www.electronista.com/articles...ot.the.hobbit/
RED vs. WEBBIE
Who in their right mind would buy a RED? Especially when you can buy 580 Webbies for the price of a single RED!
Actually, Apple does have the management chops to turn Sony around. Steve Jobs does " focused vision" better than any CEO and Tim Cook is the best operations/supply chain guy working today. When history books are written about Apple, you must spend a lot of time on how Tim Cook completely made over the morass that was Apple's ops business. He shuttered factories, negotiated new deals and got their supply chain under control inside of 18 months. Remember when Apple was famous for promising a new product but not being able to ship it for weeks or months? I do. Apple is no longer that company, white iPhone not withstanding.
It really doesn't matter what Tim and Steve did in the past, they don't have the chops to reorganize a foreign enity like Sony. There are all sorts of issues like cultural barriers, a foriegn legal system and the pull of talent away from Apple just when they are going through dramatic upheavals at Apple. Nothing has demonstrated that Apples current team has what it takes to reform Sony.
Turning a company who was one quarter away from bankruptcy into the second most valued company on earth in 15 years is a ridiculous achievement in anyone's book.
They turned the company around quickly but that to me wasn't a big achievement, but rather sound management. What has made the difference is having a vision to take Apple in new directions. Be it the iPod, iTunes or iPhone they created new business where there was none.
Regardless, buying Sony is still a huge mistake. Unless there is a huge pot of gold waiting to be unlocked from that organization, most of Sony's divisions make too little on margin to be worth Apple's while. It's all about making money.
Well Apple could use a division or two but as a whole Sony is a dieing company. The management effort required to turn it into a viable organization again is outside of Apples reach. A comPlete take over would spread the staff too thin.
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve would agree with me. It is more or less the reason for the sale of Pixar to Disney. Anything they buy has to quickly adapt to the Apple way. Part of that implies adding to Apple with minimal fuss.
It really doesn't matter what Tim and Steve did in the past, they don't have the chops to reorganize a foreign enity like Sony. There are all sorts of issues like cultural barriers, a foriegn legal system and the pull of talent away from Apple just when they are going through dramatic upheavals at Apple. Nothing has demonstrated that Apples current team has what it takes to reform Sony.
With this I can agree.
They turned the company around quickly but that to me wasn't a big achievement, but rather sound management.
This makes absolutely no sense to me. There are many companies out there with sound management and yet they didn?t grow phenomenally through recessions and get pulled from the brink of death to be the largest technology company in the world.
Take RiM, for example, great management which has allows them to hold their own, but they are still being taken down by the rest of the industry. Management alone doesn?t pay the bills for very long.
What has made the difference is having a vision to take Apple in new directions. Be it the iPod, iTunes or iPhone they created new business where there was none.
So it?s more than just management, it?s also vision and engineering. BTW, Every single one of the product types you mention existed by other vendors in some way before Apple got in the mix and how quickly we forget that the iPhone was ?doomed? because it was entering an entrenched market.
Well Apple could use a division or two but as a whole Sony is a dieing company. The management effort required to turn it into a viable organization again is outside of Apples reach. A comPlete take over would spread the staff too thin.
i don?t know where you think Apple could be divided into smaller companies and still be able to offer the integration that makes Apple?s products what they are. I suppose Mac and iDevices, but why? What monopoly would that shatter? How would that benefit the customer?
As for Sony, there are parts that are faltering, but they are far from dying.
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve would agree with me. It is more or less the reason for the sale of Pixar to Disney. Anything they buy has to quickly adapt to the Apple way. Part of that implies adding to Apple with minimal fuss.
I don?t get what Pixar being sold to Disney has to do with Apple buying companies. Are you saying Jobs sold Pixar to Disney because he couldn?t integrate into Apple with ?minimal fuss??
You buy companies that are down, and that you can thus get for comparatively little money.
Apple now is a SHITTY buy, because you'd overpay. Apple when it was about to go belly up was a great buy.
You buy companies or better BRANDs, based on what hard assets they have, what brand recognition they have, and how little you have to pay for it. You buy them based on your strategy for the future, and what they could do for that strategy, not based on what they do now.
Apple has a brand. The problem is, you can't stretch a brand too wide, or people don't get the brand anymore. Why do you think Audi, VW, Porsche, Skoda, Seat produce cars based on the same chassis? Because they target different markets. VW failed in the US with the Phaeton while Audi does just fine with the A8, because in the US VW isn't perceived as an up-market brand. In Europe, VW has moved upmarket, so the VAG company has Seat and Skoda to fill the lower market brackets.
Now back to Apple: Apple constantly fights with content providers. Between the sway Apple has with Disney (which IMO they should just buy) and Sony's Columbia, they would have enough pull to get the rest to fall in line.
Apple also has a good image for quality, but not so much for professional tools.
Apple could have bought SUN for the pro-IT markets, Sony for the AV market, and sit in the middle as glue and parent.
Sony could serve as a launch-pad for licensing MacOS and iOS to third parties that doesn't threaten Apple's survival, by smoothing the transition (hardware profits are still going back to the same source), while broadening the reach.
Sony may have enough hard assets (manufacturing, real-estate, patents, etc.) that make the company interesting regardless of operating profits, if the price is right.
In short, there are many angles under which an acquisition can work. It's not a matter of if Sony is a good or bad deal, it's a matter where Apple wants to go, what markets it wants to pursue in the future or which it wants to abandon, which markets will hurt if Apple stretches its brand over ever more product categories, etc. It's not a matter of Sony, but a matter of the future you envision for Apple as a company or as a holding company, that decides if a purchase is meaningful or not.
Sony is in a way exactly in the state you want a take-over target to be: hurt, so the price is depressed, but not beyond repair, i.e. there is a potential for massive profit if you turn things around. A company that's doing well is a bad take-over target, because it's too expensive, and a company that's failing will crush you like a falling bank-safe you trying to catch.
I wouldn't be surprised if Steve would agree with me. It is more or less the reason for the sale of Pixar to Disney. Anything they buy has to quickly adapt to the Apple way. Part of that implies adding to Apple with minimal fuss.
I think you have to learn to differentiate between Jobs and Apple. Apple NEVER owned Pixar, Jobs did.
Jobs was smart enough to realize that Pixar on its own was just a niche player, that might eventually get crushed by the big guys, but that it contained extremely valuable know-how to turn around an ailing giant like Disney.
Jobs was also smart enough that he has more pull as the largest shareholder of a giant company (Disney) than as a more or less ruler of a much smaller company (Pixar).
That Jobs' involvement with Pixar and now Disney also helped Jobs investment in Apple, that's a different story, but Pixar never was part of Apple.
How smart Job's moves were is clear from the fact that at this point he managed to get Apple in a position where they could just swallow Disney, and in the resulting share swap he might even become a controlling share holder of the combined company.