<strong>Seb, hmm...that term hasn't been used frequently since the early 90s, but oh well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's pretty much what I told them.
I know a lot of people who know very little about computing. Many of them still use the term "IBM compatible" <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> (of course, I try to politely correct them). May sound strange but it's true.
It's a pet peeve that frustrates the hell out of me actually. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
If Apple really has 135M shares outstanding then purchasing them at $45 per share works out to 15 to 17 billion bucks.
<cough> not going to happen.
I suppose IBM could bu enough shares to take effective control of the board (5%?).
Given that that is still a wopping big pile of cash, the tech market is still moribund, and the fit questionable it is hard to see IBM doing this. What could they gain they couldn't get through a partnership?
Also, Gerstener is retiring soon and comitting his company to this kind of deal right before he goes is Very Bad Form in corporate culture. He wouldn't do it.
<strong>This may have been in the back of IBM's mind for awhile now especially since they recently announced they are closing down their consumer PC arm. Replacing it with Apple? There's no way to tell what IBM would do with Apple or how it would be treated but, it sure would make Gates squirm! :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think IBM would take what suits their needs, which is the MacOS X server software, and dispose of the rest of Apple's assets. That would mean the end of the consumer version of MacOS X. IBM would then probably rename the server software OS X or IBM-OS X. Consumers would be left with two choices: switch to WindowsXP or some form of Linux. Hopefully though this is just another bad rumor. If it's not, be afraid, very afraid!
<strong>If Apple really has 135M shares outstanding then purchasing them at $45 per share works out to 15 to 17 billion bucks.
<cough> not going to happen.
I suppose IBM could bu enough shares to take effective control of the board (5%?).
Given that that is still a wopping big pile of cash, the tech market is still moribund, and the fit questionable it is hard to see IBM doing this. What could they gain they couldn't get through a partnership?
Also, Gerstener is retiring soon and comitting his company to this kind of deal right before he goes is Very Bad Form in corporate culture. He wouldn't do it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has 350 million shares outstanding. At 45 dollars that comes to 16 billion dollars. Course apple has 4 billion in the bank so the net cost is 12 billion assuming all stock is tendered. Not a lot for IBM and of course they could offer stock as well as cash..Apple has no controlling shareholder so the only 2 questions to ask is does it make sense for IBM (yes imho) and would SJ go along.(probably depends on autonomy among other things imo)
Apple has 350 million shares outstanding. At 45 dollars that comes to 16 billion dollars. Course apple has 4 billion in the bank so the net cost is 12 billion assuming all stock is tendered. Not a lot for IBM and of course they could offer stock as well as cash..Apple has no controlling shareholder so the only 2 questions to ask is does it make sense for IBM (yes imho) and would SJ go along.(probably depends on autonomy among other things imo)</strong><hr></blockquote>
I think this would be a fantastic thing IF the 2 companies did it right.
1) IBM gets rid of all its computers.
2) SJ stays, Apple becomes a division of IBM.
3) IBM keeps Apple's 4 corners and OS like they are.
4) IBM expands Apple so they start producing computers outside the 4 corners for the corporate world. Servers, rackmount servers.
5) IBM revamps its PowerPC line with Velocity Engine (AltiVec is a Motorola trademark, VE is an Apple one). PowerPC G5 cache-deprived CPU, PowerPC G5 lots of cache CPU, PowerPC G5 multicore.
6) Apples Digital Device range is expanded beyond iPod style devices. Think stuff like a tablet thin-client for the corporate world. All you system admins, imagine being able to be anywhere when you access someone's computer remotely. You could probably get rid of 1/2 the computers in your IT dept., just walk around with one of these ~$200 machines.
7) IBM Global Services uses Apple computers, increasing Apple's acceptance and market share.
8) IBM puts the full force of it's marketing behind Apple, increasing Apple's acceptance and market share.
9) IBM continues to expand Apple Stores and makes them an international project, increasing Apple's acceptance and market share.
10) IBM doesn't try to take over the world with Apple. There is more to expansion than market share. Best case scenario, the Mac is at 25-35% market share. You can lower margins and get more market share but make less money, or you can keep the margins high and make more money on acceptable market share.
11) Microsoft must die. IBM works with all the PC manufactures, OS manufactures, software manufactures and hardware manufactures, and established a 'computer forum' so PC makers can discover cheaper, non-Microsoft solutions. Software manufactures can work with both to support the most successful solutions.
[quote] You only need 51% to have complete control <hr></blockquote>
actually, that assumes that the current shareholders are all against you. While, I'm a shareholder and against an IBM-Apple merger, I don't think all shareholders are against it. It's actually 50% - (% in favor of merger).
The main reason I'm against it is I don't like the whole ibm image. The idea of a huge multinational is disgusting, especially for my favorite computer company.
I do doubt that, if true, IBM would end up dissolving apple, or letting it neglect until it dried up. Its stupid to spend billion$ on buying out a company that doesn't even compete with you. It seems, though I'm not sure, that IBM is getting out of the cons. pc business, not looking to expand it. Apple is heading more and more toward consumer pcs now. It's silly for them to not kick up their personal efforts before dropping 6B dollars.
You only need 51% to have complete control </strong><hr></blockquote>
Not complete control. you have voting control and probably the majority of board seats. You cannot fold it into IBM for instance. You are responsible to minority shareholders. Only with 90.1% would you have complete control.
All the shareholders have a vote. Assuming Steve Jobs (who has Apple's board of director's pretty much under control) wants it and if the majority of shareholders (one share one vote) agree to it, then each of your ~$25 Apple shares buy you $45 worth of IBM shares.
I don't have a problem with IBM. They are very well managed, and I don't think there is anything wrong with being a huge company if you explore new ideas and push to boundaries instead of dissolving things. And corporation which just dissolves other corporate entities and sits still will go under eventually.
actually, that assumes that the current shareholders are all against you. While, I'm a shareholder and against an IBM-Apple merger, I don't think all shareholders are against it. It's actually 50% - (% in favor of merger).
The main reason I'm against it is I don't like the whole ibm image. The idea of a huge multinational is disgusting, especially for my favorite computer company.
I do doubt that, if true, IBM would end up dissolving apple, or letting it neglect until it dried up. Its stupid to spend billion$ on buying out a company that doesn't even compete with you. It seems, though I'm not sure, that IBM is getting out of the cons. pc business, not looking to expand it. Apple is heading more and more toward consumer pcs now. It's silly for them to not kick up their personal efforts before dropping 6B dollars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a shareholder I would like it. As an apple user I would not. However I would be assured that MS will not dominate the tech universe. I suspect most of the shares are held by investors and funds and the immediate profit would be paramount.....As long as goofy rumors abound how about SJ running the whole thing?
I would like to add just one more thing; most of the doomsayers who complain about this complained about Mac OS X. Why? Because they see everything as the end of the world. I see this as an opportunity. A buyout or merger would be hard, but there is no reason that it could never be a benefit to the Mac or computing as a whole.
In the end, we don't know. It could be (and probably is) just a rumor. If it isn't, then we clients and shareholders need to give input to both companies on this issue. The input needs to be constructive, not critical. You can wait until a final plan is hammered out before you can criticize this. As I said before, this could possibly be bad, but it is an opportunity above all else.
Comments
I used to say IBM compatible all the time...but in the day of the 8088 and the 286...
<strong>Seb, hmm...that term hasn't been used frequently since the early 90s, but oh well.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
That's pretty much what I told them.
I know a lot of people who know very little about computing. Many of them still use the term "IBM compatible" <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> (of course, I try to politely correct them). May sound strange but it's true.
It's a pet peeve that frustrates the hell out of me actually. <img src="graemlins/hmmm.gif" border="0" alt="[Hmmm]" />
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: seb ]</p>
<cough> not going to happen.
I suppose IBM could bu enough shares to take effective control of the board (5%?).
Given that that is still a wopping big pile of cash, the tech market is still moribund, and the fit questionable it is hard to see IBM doing this. What could they gain they couldn't get through a partnership?
Also, Gerstener is retiring soon and comitting his company to this kind of deal right before he goes is Very Bad Form in corporate culture. He wouldn't do it.
<strong>This may have been in the back of IBM's mind for awhile now especially since they recently announced they are closing down their consumer PC arm. Replacing it with Apple? There's no way to tell what IBM would do with Apple or how it would be treated but, it sure would make Gates squirm! :eek: </strong><hr></blockquote>
I think IBM would take what suits their needs, which is the MacOS X server software, and dispose of the rest of Apple's assets. That would mean the end of the consumer version of MacOS X. IBM would then probably rename the server software OS X or IBM-OS X. Consumers would be left with two choices: switch to WindowsXP or some form of Linux. Hopefully though this is just another bad rumor. If it's not, be afraid, very afraid!
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Mac007 ]</p>
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: snipe ]</p>
<strong>If Apple really has 135M shares outstanding then purchasing them at $45 per share works out to 15 to 17 billion bucks.
<cough> not going to happen.
I suppose IBM could bu enough shares to take effective control of the board (5%?).
Given that that is still a wopping big pile of cash, the tech market is still moribund, and the fit questionable it is hard to see IBM doing this. What could they gain they couldn't get through a partnership?
Also, Gerstener is retiring soon and comitting his company to this kind of deal right before he goes is Very Bad Form in corporate culture. He wouldn't do it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Apple has 350 million shares outstanding. At 45 dollars that comes to 16 billion dollars. Course apple has 4 billion in the bank so the net cost is 12 billion assuming all stock is tendered. Not a lot for IBM and of course they could offer stock as well as cash..Apple has no controlling shareholder so the only 2 questions to ask is does it make sense for IBM (yes imho) and would SJ go along.(probably depends on autonomy among other things imo)
<strong>
Apple has 350 million shares outstanding. At 45 dollars that comes to 16 billion dollars. Course apple has 4 billion in the bank so the net cost is 12 billion assuming all stock is tendered. Not a lot for IBM and of course they could offer stock as well as cash..Apple has no controlling shareholder so the only 2 questions to ask is does it make sense for IBM (yes imho) and would SJ go along.(probably depends on autonomy among other things imo)</strong><hr></blockquote>
You only need 51% to have complete control
1) IBM gets rid of all its computers.
2) SJ stays, Apple becomes a division of IBM.
3) IBM keeps Apple's 4 corners and OS like they are.
4) IBM expands Apple so they start producing computers outside the 4 corners for the corporate world. Servers, rackmount servers.
5) IBM revamps its PowerPC line with Velocity Engine (AltiVec is a Motorola trademark, VE is an Apple one). PowerPC G5 cache-deprived CPU, PowerPC G5 lots of cache CPU, PowerPC G5 multicore.
6) Apples Digital Device range is expanded beyond iPod style devices. Think stuff like a tablet thin-client for the corporate world. All you system admins, imagine being able to be anywhere when you access someone's computer remotely. You could probably get rid of 1/2 the computers in your IT dept., just walk around with one of these ~$200 machines.
7) IBM Global Services uses Apple computers, increasing Apple's acceptance and market share.
8) IBM puts the full force of it's marketing behind Apple, increasing Apple's acceptance and market share.
9) IBM continues to expand Apple Stores and makes them an international project, increasing Apple's acceptance and market share.
10) IBM doesn't try to take over the world with Apple. There is more to expansion than market share. Best case scenario, the Mac is at 25-35% market share. You can lower margins and get more market share but make less money, or you can keep the margins high and make more money on acceptable market share.
11) Microsoft must die. IBM works with all the PC manufactures, OS manufactures, software manufactures and hardware manufactures, and established a 'computer forum' so PC makers can discover cheaper, non-Microsoft solutions. Software manufactures can work with both to support the most successful solutions.
12) Thats all I can think of for now.
Barto
[Edit: example on digital device added]
[ 02-16-2002: Message edited by: Barto ]</p>
actually, that assumes that the current shareholders are all against you. While, I'm a shareholder and against an IBM-Apple merger, I don't think all shareholders are against it. It's actually 50% - (% in favor of merger).
The main reason I'm against it is I don't like the whole ibm image. The idea of a huge multinational is disgusting, especially for my favorite computer company.
I do doubt that, if true, IBM would end up dissolving apple, or letting it neglect until it dried up. Its stupid to spend billion$ on buying out a company that doesn't even compete with you. It seems, though I'm not sure, that IBM is getting out of the cons. pc business, not looking to expand it. Apple is heading more and more toward consumer pcs now. It's silly for them to not kick up their personal efforts before dropping 6B dollars.
<strong>
You only need 51% to have complete control
Not complete control. you have voting control and probably the majority of board seats. You cannot fold it into IBM for instance. You are responsible to minority shareholders. Only with 90.1% would you have complete control.
I don't have a problem with IBM. They are very well managed, and I don't think there is anything wrong with being a huge company if you explore new ideas and push to boundaries instead of dissolving things. And corporation which just dissolves other corporate entities and sits still will go under eventually.
Barto
<strong>
actually, that assumes that the current shareholders are all against you. While, I'm a shareholder and against an IBM-Apple merger, I don't think all shareholders are against it. It's actually 50% - (% in favor of merger).
The main reason I'm against it is I don't like the whole ibm image. The idea of a huge multinational is disgusting, especially for my favorite computer company.
I do doubt that, if true, IBM would end up dissolving apple, or letting it neglect until it dried up. Its stupid to spend billion$ on buying out a company that doesn't even compete with you. It seems, though I'm not sure, that IBM is getting out of the cons. pc business, not looking to expand it. Apple is heading more and more toward consumer pcs now. It's silly for them to not kick up their personal efforts before dropping 6B dollars.</strong><hr></blockquote>
As a shareholder I would like it. As an apple user I would not. However I would be assured that MS will not dominate the tech universe. I suspect most of the shares are held by investors and funds and the immediate profit would be paramount.....As long as goofy rumors abound how about SJ running the whole thing?
In the end, we don't know. It could be (and probably is) just a rumor. If it isn't, then we clients and shareholders need to give input to both companies on this issue. The input needs to be constructive, not critical. You can wait until a final plan is hammered out before you can criticize this. As I said before, this could possibly be bad, but it is an opportunity above all else.
Barto
<strong>Would M$ make a counter bid for Apple at say $60 per share? Might be in their interests?</strong><hr></blockquote>
Nah, it would never get past antitrust regulations. And they're in enough trouble as it is.
EDIT: there != they're
[ 02-17-2002: Message edited by: Brian J. ]</p>
Apple bought neXt. Steve Jobs took over Apple.
IBM buys Apple. Steve Jobs takes over IBM.
Steve Jobs changes name of IBM to ibApple.