I'm sure that they would not refuse hundreds of millions of dollars. However it is apt that their logo be a bird. No human can express adequately, in as few characters as Twitter provides, any kind of complex idea. It is the reduction of men to animals, to the simple visual and perceptual, with no complex ideas attached. i.e. the level of an animal or bird.
Actually, don't. It serves no benefit to anyone, all this social media stuff. We are loosing contact with what matters. People don't communicate anymore; this SM has got to stop. All poppycock.
"Apple doesn't have to own a social network," Cook said during a D10 panel. "But does Apple have to be social? Yes."
Is this not a clear enough statement? Apple doesn't want to buy Twitter. It just doesn't fit the corporate or product structure. But Apple does need to get into the social scene. An investment. a BIG investment, means Twitter stays integrated with IOS and Mac OS. And if the investment is REALLY big, it can prevent Twitter from being bought by someone else: think Google and Sparrow.
I wouldn't be surprised if we later learn that Apple is talking to other "up and coming" social firms that have not yet gone public.
Apple has considered an investment in the hundreds of millions of dollars and this could push the market cap of Twitter to more than $10 billion, up from an $8.4 billion valuation last year, these people said.
Whatever. Makes no difference to me if Apple invests in Twitter. Why should I care?
However, as soon as twitter goes public I'll stop using it just as I did with FaceBook. There are limits to my willingness to be a companies product instead of a customer.
It's always a bad idea when a company strays from their core business.
Apple makes hardware, media apps, mobile devices, and operating systems.
Branching out doesn't mean you're straying from or ignoring your core business or that would mean that 3 of the 4 things you mention are strays from their original business strategy.
Comments
What would Twitter do for Apple????........Nothing
No advantage for Apple to buy it. Integration is already there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Ellen Feiss.
Oh yeah.... I forgot.
OK, I'll cut them some slack. For now.
I'm sure that they would not refuse hundreds of millions of dollars. However it is apt that their logo be a bird. No human can express adequately, in as few characters as Twitter provides, any kind of complex idea. It is the reduction of men to animals, to the simple visual and perceptual, with no complex ideas attached. i.e. the level of an animal or bird.
Hmmm.. sounds like Apple plans on patenting the Status Update next.
Actually, don't. It serves no benefit to anyone, all this social media stuff. We are loosing contact with what matters. People don't communicate anymore; this SM has got to stop. All poppycock.
[IMG]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/9184/width/500/height/1000[/IMG]
See this [URL=http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html]TedTalk[/URL]
"Apple doesn't have to own a social network," Cook said during a D10 panel. "But does Apple have to be social? Yes."
Is this not a clear enough statement? Apple doesn't want to buy Twitter. It just doesn't fit the corporate or product structure. But Apple does need to get into the social scene. An investment. a BIG investment, means Twitter stays integrated with IOS and Mac OS. And if the investment is REALLY big, it can prevent Twitter from being bought by someone else: think Google and Sparrow.
I wouldn't be surprised if we later learn that Apple is talking to other "up and coming" social firms that have not yet gone public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
From the NYT report:
Fixed...
Whatever. Makes no difference to me if Apple invests in Twitter. Why should I care?
However, as soon as twitter goes public I'll stop using it just as I did with FaceBook. There are limits to my willingness to be a companies product instead of a customer.
Wall Street Journal says New York Times is one year behind on this story, and it's not happening.
Which is what I thought as soon as I read he headline.
Please buy Twitter outright, Apple. Thanks
If I want social networking I'll get the app.
Makes no sense for Apple to make any kind of investment in this area. This is something Steve Ballmer would do.
Why!?
Originally Posted by haar
please no more rumours!... if it is not about hardware...
Why would they listen to that request at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Why!?
1. To save Twitter.
2. To not just save it, but to fix the apps and keep it as the best social network.
3. Apple's foray into the social network world would be done and would work with the signing of a cheque.
4. To stop MS, Google and Facebook from buying them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by xRCx
I dont see what they would gain by investing in twitter.
Increased profits.
Dvorak makes a good point about Twitter lately...
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2407756,00.asp
It's a long way from its roots, and doesn't look like it will recover on its road to obsolescence.
It's always a bad idea when a company strays from their core business.
Apple makes hardware, media apps, mobile devices, and operating systems.
Steve Jobs always said that Tim Cook was not a product person.
Tim, learn your own business before you try to learn someone else's.
Twitter will be gone before too long... save your big pile of cash for something that helps your own products.
Branching out doesn't mean you're straying from or ignoring your core business or that would mean that 3 of the 4 things you mention are strays from their original business strategy.