I think it would be a good idea. Nuance has other useful assets that Apple could use. I think Apple should add OCR capabilities to Cocoa framework/API and as and iCloud service for developer apps.
The Post is clueless. Nuance just adopted a poision pill and is not likely up for sale. Nobody can buy more than 20% of the stock. They would have to hold their arms open to an Apple purchase and that isn't likely as there are no strong reasons to justify this. Apple has likely got a long term licensing deal in place and doesn't need more than that.
If Icahn cares so much, he should buy Nuance and give to Apple as gift!
Otherwise, mind your own business.
He can't. When he upped his stake, they adopted a poison pill so that if he buys more than 20% they can print new shares and sell them to drive his (or anyone else's) stake back to 20%.
Indeed, investment return is his only interest and this is how it starts. Idle chatter with a couple of analyst chums, get the NYT to take the bait, alert other companies to the fact that Nuance might be for sale and who wouldn't want Apple to own it...etc...etc
I doubt Icahn cares a toss either way, be it MS, Apple or someone else, just as long as his stake gets a big boost. Hope Tim Cook keeps some distance from this man.
I share your concerns but I think Tim needs to meet with him. Icahns influence on companies is from his deep pockets and his market smarts. If he's prowling around anyway you might as well see if you can find anything useful out. He is a very powerful person, no sense snubbing him if you're not going to gain from it. I think Tim is a master at keeping the cards close to his chest. Not that Icahn couldn't be a problem for Apple or that Tim Cook is a magician. But I think They're doing the right thing.
TL;DR: Carl Icahn needs to be handled. Tim Cook can do that.
The Post is clueless. Nuance just adopted a poision pill and is not likely up for sale. Nobody can buy more than 20% of the stock. They would have to hold their arms open to an Apple purchase and that isn't likely as there are no strong reasons to justify this. Apple has likely got a long term licensing deal in place and doesn't need more than that.
Most publicly traded companies in the US have poison pills. That is fairly standard. There are many legal ways to work around it -- acquirers do it all the time.
In any event, your point is moot since an acquisition of this sort would be 'friendly'. I doubt that Apple will ever do a 'hostile' deal. In such friendly deals, target company boards usually rescind the pill.
I don't know if acquisition of Nuance would help Apple a whole lot, but given Apple's interest in speech recognition, I'd like to see them hire Janet & Jim Baker as consultants, if they haven't already. Then, if Nuance was bought, the Bakers would be perfectly situated to take it (the technology they invented) to the next level of excellence. And there would be a modicum of justice in it, too.
Read how the Bakers were swindled out of their inventions, which Apple now exploits:
Fantastic article, thanks very much for posting. Everyone in tech should read this. I did a quick search for trial results, and it doesn't look like it went well for the Bakers, but what I saw didn't really have any details, nor any information about appeals.
For me, the key is that you never trust any one source. Not only with "internet research", but investment advice, M&A, whatever.
This is what I thought about - do Google and Microsoft use Nuance as well? What alternatives exist? How easy would it be for competitors to find a replacement technology?
...Nuance doesn't do voice recognition only for Apple. In addition to the company's own Dragon dictation software, Nuance works with Samsung ? presumably on that company's S-Voice Siri competitor ? and other companies to develop voice applications on Android.
Nuance, however, is not involved with Google's speech-recognition effort, Google Now. That feature ? recently brought to iOS and even more recently named in a Siri patent suit? is thought to have largely derived from Google's own voice recognition efforts and voice services.
I don't think Apple will buy Nuance at 5 to $7 Billion for many reasons in addition to the price.
Nuance has excellent voice recognition but their other products can be undermined. I think Carl Icahn realizes this.
When Visioneer + ScanSoft bought Dragon Systems/Nuance, they got excellent voice recognition that gives them an advantage and pushed their original ScanSoft imaging scanning product to the background. Nuance has since licensed the voice recognition to many other companies including Apple. They have also purchased other companies such as Dictaphone and BeVocal to build up their products arsenal.
The companies licensing the voice recognition from Nuance can undermine Nuance's other products. Apple will soon undermine their car voice recognition products products to some extent with iOS in the car. Apple's SIRI speech/voice system in iOS 7 demonstrated at WWDC will beat Nuance and the other licenses. Note that speech and voice recognition go together and Apple certainly wants to differentiate itself from the other Nuance licenses.
If Apple can enhance the Nuance voice recognition technology or better yet come up with it's own voice recognition to match or beat Nuance, Nuance would quickly be in big trouble.
Considering the market cap of Nuance and licensees that it has, and Apple's goal to differentiates itself, it makes more sense for Apple to keep licensing from Nuance until Apple can come up with it's own voice recognition system that is at least as good as Nuance's system.
How the **** could an investor "push" Apple to do anything, especially such a massively expensive and strategic move? If Apple thinks that buying Nuance will best serve its interests, then it will do so. If it doesn't, I don't see how someone like Icahn, who knows nothing about whats best for Apple's strategic interests or its consumers, can convince Apple to do so.
How the **** could an investor "push" Apple to do anything, especially such a massively expensive and strategic move? If Apple thinks that buying Nuance will best serve its interests, then it will do so. If it doesn't, I don't see how someone like Icahn, who knows nothing about whats best for Apple's strategic interests or its consumers, can convince Apple to do so.
ICahn can not push Apple nor Nuance for that matter but he does own 17% of Nuance and over a Billion invested in Apple, so he has some pull.
He could be more of an ally to Apple if it came to a Nuance purchase. It would also be better for him if Apple bought Nuance at this point.
Thi
This is what I thought about - do Google and Microsoft use Nuance as well? What alternatives exist? How easy would it be for competitors to find a replacement technology?
No, Google does not use Nuance licensed voice recognition, having developed their own just as Microsoft has. Nuance, Google and MS all use IBM patents in their speech recognition products tho AFAIK.
"Ricci went on to note that Nuance doesn't do voice recognition only for Apple. In addition to the company's own Dragon dictation software, Nuance works with Samsung — presumably on that company's S-Voice Siri competitor — and other companies to develop voice applications on Android.
Nuance, however, is not involved with Google's speech-recognition effort, Google Now. That feature — recently brought to iOS and even more recently named in a Siri patent suit — is thought to have largely derived from Google's own voice recognition efforts and voice services. "
Apple buying Nuance seems highly unlikely. Not only did Nuance institute the "poison pill," but Apple seems to be developing its own in-house voice tech. I remember Apple coming out with patents >1 year ago dealing with with is topic, particularity as it related to naturalistic speech and speech prosody (a reported new improvement with Siri). Also, there was that report not too long ago about Apple putting together a voice tech team in Boston, made up primarily of poached Nuance employees. I'm looking forward to seeing (hearing) what they come up with by the time Siri comes out of beta.
Apple won't do this. It's a bad buy for Apple. The high price tag of Nuance can't be justified.
Actually I see it as highly justified.
Apple's licensing costs for Siri are far less than purchasing the company outright.
Costs are nothing, it is about control.
As for Icahn, he may be able to push around the boards of smaller and weaker companies, but he won't have much clout at Apple given it's management team continues to prove its abilities at the helm.
Baloney! Once you own a significant amount of stock you can force a company to do anything. The one ugly thing about the stock market is that it is very democratic in that anybody can buy your stock be that a saint or a sinner. If you end up being owned buy the wrong people they can milk you for every cent you make, compel you do make stupid business decisions and have you focused on the wrong issues. Many a good company in America has failed due to its stock falling into the wrong hands. You need to remember many people are in the stock market for ony one thing, that is to make money for themselves. They will do so at the expense of others without even thinking about it.
How the **** could an investor "push" Apple to do anything, especially such a massively expensive and strategic move? If Apple thinks that buying Nuance will best serve its interests, then it will do so. If it doesn't, I don't see how someone like Icahn, who knows nothing about whats best for Apple's strategic interests or its consumers, can convince Apple to do so.
As a stock holder you effectively own part of the company. Our influence is in proportion to the percentage of stock you own. Once past ten percent ownership you have a tremendous amount of persuasion. Ally with another large stock holder and you can get Apple to dance the Macarena.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There is none. Even IBM pretty much gave up on this.
Would there be a risk of Holder and the "Justice" Department coming after Apple on this then?
"Integrate Microsoft%u2019s robust cloud-based optical character recognition capabilities into your Windows 8 and 8.1 Store XAML C# apps..."
http://datamarket.azure.com/dataset/bing/ocrcontrol
Otherwise, mind your own business.
He can't. When he upped his stake, they adopted a poison pill so that if he buys more than 20% they can print new shares and sell them to drive his (or anyone else's) stake back to 20%.
I share your concerns but I think Tim needs to meet with him. Icahns influence on companies is from his deep pockets and his market smarts. If he's prowling around anyway you might as well see if you can find anything useful out. He is a very powerful person, no sense snubbing him if you're not going to gain from it. I think Tim is a master at keeping the cards close to his chest. Not that Icahn couldn't be a problem for Apple or that Tim Cook is a magician. But I think They're doing the right thing.
TL;DR: Carl Icahn needs to be handled. Tim Cook can do that.
Originally Posted by eponymous
Would there be a risk of Holder and the "Justice" Department coming after Apple on this then?
Yes.
"Why?"
Because that's what they do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy
The Post is clueless. Nuance just adopted a poision pill and is not likely up for sale. Nobody can buy more than 20% of the stock. They would have to hold their arms open to an Apple purchase and that isn't likely as there are no strong reasons to justify this. Apple has likely got a long term licensing deal in place and doesn't need more than that.
Most publicly traded companies in the US have poison pills. That is fairly standard. There are many legal ways to work around it -- acquirers do it all the time.
In any event, your point is moot since an acquisition of this sort would be 'friendly'. I doubt that Apple will ever do a 'hostile' deal. In such friendly deals, target company boards usually rescind the pill.
Tim wants to steal his French fries
Quote:
Originally Posted by TeaEarleGreyHot
I don't know if acquisition of Nuance would help Apple a whole lot, but given Apple's interest in speech recognition, I'd like to see them hire Janet & Jim Baker as consultants, if they haven't already. Then, if Nuance was bought, the Bakers would be perfectly situated to take it (the technology they invented) to the next level of excellence. And there would be a modicum of justice in it, too.
Read how the Bakers were swindled out of their inventions, which Apple now exploits:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/business/goldman-sachs-and-a-sale-gone-horribly-awry.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Fantastic article, thanks very much for posting. Everyone in tech should read this. I did a quick search for trial results, and it doesn't look like it went well for the Bakers, but what I saw didn't really have any details, nor any information about appeals.
For me, the key is that you never trust any one source. Not only with "internet research", but investment advice, M&A, whatever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by reydn
Thi
This is what I thought about - do Google and Microsoft use Nuance as well? What alternatives exist? How easy would it be for competitors to find a replacement technology?
Not sure about Microsoft, but according to an earlier AI article (http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/157774/nuance-confirms-its-voice-technology-is-behind-apples-siri):
Quote:
...Nuance doesn't do voice recognition only for Apple. In addition to the company's own Dragon dictation software, Nuance works with Samsung ? presumably on that company's S-Voice Siri competitor ? and other companies to develop voice applications on Android.
Nuance, however, is not involved with Google's speech-recognition effort, Google Now. That feature ? recently brought to iOS and even more recently named in a Siri patent suit? is thought to have largely derived from Google's own voice recognition efforts and voice services.
I don't think Apple will buy Nuance at 5 to $7 Billion for many reasons in addition to the price.
Nuance has excellent voice recognition but their other products can be undermined. I think Carl Icahn realizes this.
When Visioneer + ScanSoft bought Dragon Systems/Nuance, they got excellent voice recognition that gives them an advantage and pushed their original ScanSoft imaging scanning product to the background. Nuance has since licensed the voice recognition to many other companies including Apple. They have also purchased other companies such as Dictaphone and BeVocal to build up their products arsenal.
The companies licensing the voice recognition from Nuance can undermine Nuance's other products. Apple will soon undermine their car voice recognition products products to some extent with iOS in the car. Apple's SIRI speech/voice system in iOS 7 demonstrated at WWDC will beat Nuance and the other licenses. Note that speech and voice recognition go together and Apple certainly wants to differentiate itself from the other Nuance licenses.
If Apple can enhance the Nuance voice recognition technology or better yet come up with it's own voice recognition to match or beat Nuance, Nuance would quickly be in big trouble.
Considering the market cap of Nuance and licensees that it has, and Apple's goal to differentiates itself, it makes more sense for Apple to keep licensing from Nuance until Apple can come up with it's own voice recognition system that is at least as good as Nuance's system.
How the **** could an investor "push" Apple to do anything, especially such a massively expensive and strategic move? If Apple thinks that buying Nuance will best serve its interests, then it will do so. If it doesn't, I don't see how someone like Icahn, who knows nothing about whats best for Apple's strategic interests or its consumers, can convince Apple to do so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
There is none. Even IBM pretty much gave up on this.
How long did it take Google and Microsoft to create their proprietary voice recognition technologies? Neither of them license Nuance as far as I know.
Is Apple incapable of perfecting their own in-house solution? I remember they did have a basic voice recognition feature back in 1993.
Which competitor would Apple be preventing from using Nuance licensing if they did buy it?
Samsung? As far as I could find out they don't use Nuance either. They have something called Vlingo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
How the **** could an investor "push" Apple to do anything, especially such a massively expensive and strategic move? If Apple thinks that buying Nuance will best serve its interests, then it will do so. If it doesn't, I don't see how someone like Icahn, who knows nothing about whats best for Apple's strategic interests or its consumers, can convince Apple to do so.
ICahn can not push Apple nor Nuance for that matter but he does own 17% of Nuance and over a Billion invested in Apple, so he has some pull.
He could be more of an ally to Apple if it came to a Nuance purchase. It would also be better for him if Apple bought Nuance at this point.
EDIT:
I thought I remembered a previous article here at AI and here it is:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/13/05/30/nuance-confirms-its-technology-is-behind-apples-siri
"Ricci went on to note that Nuance doesn't do voice recognition only for Apple. In addition to the company's own Dragon dictation software, Nuance works with Samsung — presumably on that company's S-Voice Siri competitor — and other companies to develop voice applications on Android.
Nuance, however, is not involved with Google's speech-recognition effort, Google Now. That feature — recently brought to iOS and even more recently named in a Siri patent suit — is thought to have largely derived from Google's own voice recognition efforts and voice services. "
Baloney! Once you own a significant amount of stock you can force a company to do anything. The one ugly thing about the stock market is that it is very democratic in that anybody can buy your stock be that a saint or a sinner. If you end up being owned buy the wrong people they can milk you for every cent you make, compel you do make stupid business decisions and have you focused on the wrong issues. Many a good company in America has failed due to its stock falling into the wrong hands. You need to remember many people are in the stock market for ony one thing, that is to make money for themselves. They will do so at the expense of others without even thinking about it.
As a stock holder you effectively own part of the company. Our influence is in proportion to the percentage of stock you own. Once past ten percent ownership you have a tremendous amount of persuasion. Ally with another large stock holder and you can get Apple to dance the Macarena.