AT&T to buy Time Warner for $80B, deal announcement imminent - report [u: confirmed]

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 53
    vmarksvmarks Posts: 685editor
    ireland said:
    Apple should pull their finger out and buy Netflix ($55B). Regardless of the premium they'd get a return over time and it'd put Apple TV on the map. By 15 years time the amount of great new content on Netflix will be humongous!! And every production outfit on the planet want their show on Netflix. It's the place to be. Time to make some good use of 1/4 of that war chest. Give Apple TV users a discount for Netflix, lower ATV entry price to $99. Make up the difference and then some on the slice of the app-pie. Get everyone to want ATV with its discounted Netflix—own the living room.
    jsmythe00 said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should pull their finger out and buy Netflix ($55B). Regardless of the premium they'd get a return over time and it'd put Apple TV on the map. By 15 years time the amount of great new content on Netflix will be humongous!! And every production outfit on the planet want their show on Netflix. It's the place to be. Time to make some good use of 1/4 of that war chest. Give Apple TV users a discount for Netflix, lower ATV entry price to $99. Make up the difference and then some on the slice of the app-pie. Get everyone to want ATV with its discounted Netflix—own the living room.
    OR...spend 55 billion building out your own content to compete with netflix. Create your own bundles based on the content agreements you already have. Create new fantasy, murder, sci fi series on on Apple.  Lock in deals for starwars, Star Trek and FireFly and others. 


    They could do more with 55B than buy Netflix. BUT I like your line of thinking
    The Roku box was originally made by Netflix. It was designed and engineered at Netflix, and they decided to give it to Roku, who at the time made digital signage and audio streamers. The reason being, if Netflix made the box, every other box maker would see them as a competitor, and it would limit their ability to grow the service. By letting Roku sell the box, Netflix was able to be on every DVD / BD player, every smart TV, and grow the service like crazy. Apple only wants to sell an AppleTV, and iOS devices - so it's maybe appropriate for them to own the content and the box where it wasn't for Netflix. Buying Netflix would mean considering shutting off Roku, Android, and all the other third parties. That's a lot of bad will to generate.
    kspt02
  • Reply 22 of 53
    ATT Total Debt to Equity, before the announcement: 102.78:1. What a pig. I wouldn't touch that stock. It's nothing but a dead end, dividend only pig.
  • Reply 23 of 53
    jsmythe00 said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should pull their finger out and buy Netflix ($55B). Regardless of the premium they'd get a return over time and it'd put Apple TV on the map. By 15 years time the amount of great new content on Netflix will be humongous!! And every production outfit on the planet want their show on Netflix. It's the place to be. Time to make some good use of 1/4 of that war chest. Give Apple TV users a discount for Netflix, lower ATV entry price to $99. Make up the difference and then some on the slice of the app-pie. Get everyone to want ATV with its discounted Netflix—own the living room.
    OR...spend 55 billion building out your own content to compete with netflix. Create your own bundles based on the content agreements you already have. Create new fantasy, murder, sci fi series on on Apple.  Lock in deals for starwars, Star Trek and FireFly and others. 


    They could do more with 55B than buy Netflix. BUT I like your line of thinking
    Without a doubt. Apple can buy a bunch of small studios up, build teams and get the writers onboard to develop their own Network with original works for a fraction of the cost that ATT just dumped.
    cali
  • Reply 24 of 53
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    sog35 said:
    vukasika said:
    Nah this will face too much opposition to be passed besides, AT&T only has a cash reserve of $7billion and would need financing for the remaining cash portion of the deal. However, they are already carrying $120 Billion (yes Billion) in Debt. Also don't forget AT&T just acquired Direct TV in 2013 and already owns the U-Verse cable brand. I seriously doubt this makes it pass the antitrust regulations even if AT&T manages to come up with the financing it would need to close the deal.
    You sound like you're just making up stuff. The $85B is being paid for with 50% stock, 50% cash. The amount they will borrow is $40B (and they already have commitments from J P Morgan and Bank of America for that).
    Damn. Apple should start buying companies with stock, since they spent over $120 billion on buybacks already.

    it blows my mind Tim Cook is unwilling to take risks to buy companies
    It's not about avoiding risk. Most companies compared to Apple have fatal flaws. In fact, they're mostly trading in obsolete or dead-end garbage, like Time-Warner is.

    Think about it. Apple when it makes a move is always pushing evolution. When they buy a company, it's always one that is on some cutting edge in technology or software. 

    Entertainment, the so-called content business, is a shrinking, fading enterprise. Younger people aren't watching TV or going to movies like they used to. They're watching each other do their own broadcasting. "Consuming" media is dead, or dying.

    Digital media in the hands of the  masses will disrupt the "content providers" in the same way that the printing press disrupted the monopoly of the Roman Church.
    edited October 2016 kspt02pscooter63
  • Reply 25 of 53
    irelandireland Posts: 17,569member
    vmarks said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should pull their finger out and buy Netflix ($55B). Regardless of the premium they'd get a return over time and it'd put Apple TV on the map. By 15 years time the amount of great new content on Netflix will be humongous!! And every production outfit on the planet want their show on Netflix. It's the place to be. Time to make some good use of 1/4 of that war chest. Give Apple TV users a discount for Netflix, lower ATV entry price to $99. Make up the difference and then some on the slice of the app-pie. Get everyone to want ATV with its discounted Netflix—own the living room.
    jsmythe00 said:
    ireland said:
    Apple should pull their finger out and buy Netflix ($55B). Regardless of the premium they'd get a return over time and it'd put Apple TV on the map. By 15 years time the amount of great new content on Netflix will be humongous!! And every production outfit on the planet want their show on Netflix. It's the place to be. Time to make some good use of 1/4 of that war chest. Give Apple TV users a discount for Netflix, lower ATV entry price to $99. Make up the difference and then some on the slice of the app-pie. Get everyone to want ATV with its discounted Netflix—own the living room.
    OR...spend 55 billion building out your own content to compete with netflix. Create your own bundles based on the content agreements you already have. Create new fantasy, murder, sci fi series on on Apple.  Lock in deals for starwars, Star Trek and FireFly and others. 


    They could do more with 55B than buy Netflix. BUT I like your line of thinking
    The Roku box was originally made by Netflix. It was designed and engineered at Netflix, and they decided to give it to Roku, who at the time made digital signage and audio streamers. The reason being, if Netflix made the box, every other box maker would see them as a competitor, and it would limit their ability to grow the service. By letting Roku sell the box, Netflix was able to be on every DVD / BD player, every smart TV, and grow the service like crazy. Apple only wants to sell an AppleTV, and iOS devices - so it's maybe appropriate for them to own the content and the box where it wasn't for Netflix. Buying Netflix would mean considering shutting off Roku, Android, and all the other third parties. That's a lot of bad will to generate.
    Apple Music is available on Android. Buying Netflix doesn't mean Apple has to remove Netflix from anyone else's box. It just means for every Netflix user out there Apple would get a cut and by offering a discount for the service on ATV they sell more ATVs and more other content and apps and hardware to more than cover that discount.
    edited October 2016 calibaconstangdiplication
  • Reply 26 of 53
    flaneur said:

    Digital media in the hands of the  masses will disrupt the "content providers" in the same way that the printing press disrupted the monopoly of the Roman Church.

     That's one of the most profound sentences I have ever read! 

    edited October 2016 kamiltoncali
  • Reply 27 of 53
    flaneur said:
    sog35 said:
    vukasika said:
    Nah this will face too much opposition to be passed besides, AT&T only has a cash reserve of $7billion and would need financing for the remaining cash portion of the deal. However, they are already carrying $120 Billion (yes Billion) in Debt. Also don't forget AT&T just acquired Direct TV in 2013 and already owns the U-Verse cable brand. I seriously doubt this makes it pass the antitrust regulations even if AT&T manages to come up with the financing it would need to close the deal.
    You sound like you're just making up stuff. The $85B is being paid for with 50% stock, 50% cash. The amount they will borrow is $40B (and they already have commitments from J P Morgan and Bank of America for that).
    Damn. Apple should start buying companies with stock, since they spent over $120 billion on buybacks already.

    it blows my mind Tim Cook is unwilling to take risks to buy companies
    It's not about avoiding risk. Most companies compared to Apple have fatal flaws. In fact, they're mostly trading in obsolete or dead-end garbage, like Time-Warner is.

    Think about it. Apple when it makes a move is always pushing evolution. When they buy a company, it's always one that is on some cutting edge in technology or software. 

    Entertainment, the so-called content business, is a shrinking, fading enterprise. Younger people aren't watching TV or going to movies like they used to. They're watching each other do their own broadcasting. "Consuming" media is dead, or dying.

    Digital media in the hands of the  masses will disrupt the "content providers" in the same way that the printing press disrupted the monopoly of the Roman Church.
    What was/is cutting edge about Beats?
  • Reply 28 of 53
    ATT Total Debt to Equity, before the announcement: 102.78:1. What a pig. I wouldn't touch that stock. It's nothing but a dead end, dividend only pig.
    This Is debt-to-BOOK VALUE-of equity, an essentially meaningless number. And, it's not "102.78", but 102.78%, so 1.0278:1.00.

    Take a look at what Apple's equivalent D-E number is. It's 67% or 0.67:1.00. In market value terms, it's 13%.
    edited October 2016 baconstang
  • Reply 29 of 53

    sog35 said:
    vukasika said:
    Nah this will face too much opposition to be passed besides, AT&T only has a cash reserve of $7billion and would need financing for the remaining cash portion of the deal. However, they are already carrying $120 Billion (yes Billion) in Debt. Also don't forget AT&T just acquired Direct TV in 2013 and already owns the U-Verse cable brand. I seriously doubt this makes it pass the antitrust regulations even if AT&T manages to come up with the financing it would need to close the deal.
    You sound like you're just making up stuff. The $85B is being paid for with 50% stock, 50% cash. The amount they will borrow is $40B (and they already have commitments from J P Morgan and Bank of America for that).
    Damn. Apple should start buying companies with stock, since they spent over $120 billion on buybacks already.

    it blows my mind Tim Cook is unwilling to take risks to buy companies
    Buying companies with stock is not a free lunch. You're giving away claims to ownership of future value from the upside (which is presumably the reason you're doing the acquisition, in the first place) to a new group of shareholders. In other words, you're diluting the value to existing shareholders, people like you and me. 

    When you take on debt, you're paying cash. You're telling existing owners to go away, and that you want to keep all of the upside.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 30 of 53
    ireland said:
    Apple should pull their finger out and buy Netflix ($55B). Regardless of the premium they'd get a return over time and it'd put Apple TV on the map. By 15 years time the amount of great new content on Netflix will be humongous!! And every production outfit on the planet want their show on Netflix. It's the place to be. Time to make some good use of 1/4 of that war chest. Give Apple TV users a discount for Netflix, lower ATV entry price to $99. Make up the difference and then some on the slice of the app-pie. Get everyone to want ATV with its discounted Netflix—own the living room.
    and if Apple did buy Netflix would those distributors who eschew Apple TV allow their content to go through Apple - Netflix? IMHO, there are some that won't deal with Apple just because it is Apple.

    Personally, if Tim Cook had the guts, he'd put in an all cash bid for Time Warner. That would be more attractive to TW investors.
    cali
  • Reply 31 of 53
    OK.  So this looks like it's a done deal.

    The question now is what is at&t going to do with TimeWarner?  Keeping the status quo is not an option.

    One positive money maker for at&t is to partner with Apple and offer several bundles from skinny to fat exclusively on AppleTV.
    Exclusively because of standard interface and superb capabilities of Apple's tvOS.

    I think this was the plan all along otherwise at&t would not have bought TimeWarner.

    Time will tell.
    cali
  • Reply 32 of 53
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    flaneur said:
    sog35 said:
    vukasika said:
    Nah this will face too much opposition to be passed besides, AT&T only has a cash reserve of $7billion and would need financing for the remaining cash portion of the deal. However, they are already carrying $120 Billion (yes Billion) in Debt. Also don't forget AT&T just acquired Direct TV in 2013 and already owns the U-Verse cable brand. I seriously doubt this makes it pass the antitrust regulations even if AT&T manages to come up with the financing it would need to close the deal.
    You sound like you're just making up stuff. The $85B is being paid for with 50% stock, 50% cash. The amount they will borrow is $40B (and they already have commitments from J P Morgan and Bank of America for that).
    Damn. Apple should start buying companies with stock, since they spent over $120 billion on buybacks already.

    it blows my mind Tim Cook is unwilling to take risks to buy companies
    It's not about avoiding risk. Most companies compared to Apple have fatal flaws. In fact, they're mostly trading in obsolete or dead-end garbage, like Time-Warner is.

    Think about it. Apple when it makes a move is always pushing evolution. When they buy a company, it's always one that is on some cutting edge in technology or software. 

    Entertainment, the so-called content business, is a shrinking, fading enterprise. Younger people aren't watching TV or going to movies like they used to. They're watching each other do their own broadcasting. "Consuming" media is dead, or dying.

    Digital media in the hands of the  masses will disrupt the "content providers" in the same way that the printing press disrupted the monopoly of the Roman Church.
    What was/is cutting edge about Beats?
    I was thinking you might ask that. Beats was an expanding mobile audio platform (like the iPod) when Apple bought it. 

    Because it appealed to a demographic that you aren't familiar with, you've consistently missed its potential for Apple to take on a huge new market. Both Apple and Beats have shown that it's all in the package, Apple many times over. Making that kind of package is a technology called industrial design. 
    Rayz2016cali
  • Reply 33 of 53
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member

    flaneur said:

    Digital media in the hands of the  masses will disrupt the "content providers" in the same way that the printing press disrupted the monopoly of the Roman Church.

     That's one of the most profound sentences I have ever read! 

    Thanks, but it takes one to know one. It would be straight out of Marshall McLuhan, if he were still with us. It's amazing to me that he's no longer remembered much.

    Now, what were you doing up at 3 AM?

    Afterthought — McLuhan always said he got his approach from Harold Innis, whose Empire and Communications started the whole inquiry into the effects of media on society and our senses. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harold_Innis
    edited October 2016 cali
  • Reply 34 of 53
    flaneur said:
    flaneur said:
    sog35 said:
    vukasika said:
    Nah this will face too much opposition to be passed besides, AT&T only has a cash reserve of $7billion and would need financing for the remaining cash portion of the deal. However, they are already carrying $120 Billion (yes Billion) in Debt. Also don't forget AT&T just acquired Direct TV in 2013 and already owns the U-Verse cable brand. I seriously doubt this makes it pass the antitrust regulations even if AT&T manages to come up with the financing it would need to close the deal.
    You sound like you're just making up stuff. The $85B is being paid for with 50% stock, 50% cash. The amount they will borrow is $40B (and they already have commitments from J P Morgan and Bank of America for that).
    Damn. Apple should start buying companies with stock, since they spent over $120 billion on buybacks already.

    it blows my mind Tim Cook is unwilling to take risks to buy companies
    It's not about avoiding risk. Most companies compared to Apple have fatal flaws. In fact, they're mostly trading in obsolete or dead-end garbage, like Time-Warner is.

    Think about it. Apple when it makes a move is always pushing evolution. When they buy a company, it's always one that is on some cutting edge in technology or software. 

    Entertainment, the so-called content business, is a shrinking, fading enterprise. Younger people aren't watching TV or going to movies like they used to. They're watching each other do their own broadcasting. "Consuming" media is dead, or dying.

    Digital media in the hands of the  masses will disrupt the "content providers" in the same way that the printing press disrupted the monopoly of the Roman Church.
    What was/is cutting edge about Beats?
    I was thinking you might ask that. Beats was an expanding mobile audio platform (like the iPod) when Apple bought it. 

    Because it appealed to a demographic that you aren't familiar with, you've consistently missed its potential for Apple to take on a huge new market. Both Apple and Beats have shown that it's all in the package, Apple many times over. Making that kind of package is a technology called industrial design. 
    Beats is one of the best purchases that Apple has ever made.
    It was making money and growing rapidly when Apple bought it and the explosive trajectory has not lost a Beat, hardware, software and audio wise.
    Not to mention "people" wise.
    edited October 2016 cali
  • Reply 35 of 53
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member

    flaneur said:
    flaneur said:
    sog35 said:
    vukasika said:
    Nah this will face too much opposition to be passed besides, AT&T only has a cash reserve of $7billion and would need financing for the remaining cash portion of the deal. However, they are already carrying $120 Billion (yes Billion) in Debt. Also don't forget AT&T just acquired Direct TV in 2013 and already owns the U-Verse cable brand. I seriously doubt this makes it pass the antitrust regulations even if AT&T manages to come up with the financing it would need to close the deal.
    You sound like you're just making up stuff. The $85B is being paid for with 50% stock, 50% cash. The amount they will borrow is $40B (and they already have commitments from J P Morgan and Bank of America for that).
    Damn. Apple should start buying companies with stock, since they spent over $120 billion on buybacks already.

    it blows my mind Tim Cook is unwilling to take risks to buy companies
    It's not about avoiding risk. Most companies compared to Apple have fatal flaws. In fact, they're mostly trading in obsolete or dead-end garbage, like Time-Warner is.

    Think about it. Apple when it makes a move is always pushing evolution. When they buy a company, it's always one that is on some cutting edge in technology or software. 

    Entertainment, the so-called content business, is a shrinking, fading enterprise. Younger people aren't watching TV or going to movies like they used to. They're watching each other do their own broadcasting. "Consuming" media is dead, or dying.

    Digital media in the hands of the  masses will disrupt the "content providers" in the same way that the printing press disrupted the monopoly of the Roman Church.
    What was/is cutting edge about Beats?
    I was thinking you might ask that. Beats was an expanding mobile audio platform (like the iPod) when Apple bought it. 

    Because it appealed to a demographic that you aren't familiar with, you've consistently missed its potential for Apple to take on a huge new market. Both Apple and Beats have shown that it's all in the package, Apple many times over. Making that kind of package is a technology called industrial design. 
    Beats is one of the best purchases that Apple has ever made.
    It was making money and growing rapidly when Apple bought it and the explosive trajectory has not lost a Beat, hardware, software and audio wise.
    Not to mention "people" wise.
    Right on. 
  • Reply 36 of 53
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member

    OK.  So this looks like it's a done deal.

    The question now is what is at&t going to do with TimeWarner?  Keeping the status quo is not an option.

    One positive money maker for at&t is to partner with Apple and offer several bundles from skinny to fat exclusively on AppleTV.
    Exclusively because of standard interface and superb capabilities of Apple's tvOS.

    I think this was the plan all along otherwise at&t would not have bought TimeWarner.

    Time will tell.
    Very interesting. 
  • Reply 37 of 53
    Won't this have to pass regulatory approval of some sort?
    As long as the correct political contributions have been made, that shouldn't be an issue. 
    If Hillary wins, this should sail through, no problems.

    http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=Career&cid=N00000019

    As a holder of stock in both companies, this is OK by me, except it is only happening BECAUSE of regulations, not because of laissez faire capitalism. The law created and protected the original AT&T monopoly and it's happening again.

    Believe it or not, Trump has openly opposed the Washington revolving door and even said he wants Term Limits. Now think again why there is so much organized anti-Trump propaganda out there. 
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 38 of 53
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,437member
    Won't this have to pass regulatory approval of some sort?
    As long as the correct political contributions have been made, that shouldn't be an issue. 
    So AT&T/T-Mobile, Direct TV/Dish, United/U.S. Air, Staples/Office Depot and General Electric/Honeywell all were stopped because political contributions weren't made?

    While not all large mergers are stopped, many are.   However, since Time Warner no longer owns the cable unit or Warner Bros. records, I think this one will be permitted, especially since Comcast/NBC Universal was permitted.  
    baconstangSpamSandwich
  • Reply 39 of 53
    vukasika said:
    Nah this will face too much opposition to be passed besides, AT&T only has a cash reserve of $7billion and would need financing for the remaining cash portion of the deal. However, they are already carrying $120 Billion (yes Billion) in Debt. Also don't forget AT&T just acquired Direct TV in 2013 and already owns the U-Verse cable brand. I seriously doubt this makes it pass the antitrust regulations even if AT&T manages to come up with the financing it would need to close the deal.
    I believe Time Warner sold their cable business to Charter. It is now called Spectrum. They just license the Time Warner Name and the Eye logo, but that is already being phased out now with the new Spectrum branding. Now that they don't have distribution, I'm not so sure this will be blocked.
    AT&T owns DirecTV, so they have satellite distribution, but more importantly now, they'll own both Batman and Wolf Blitzer. LOL. First order of business: Fire both Zack Snyder for hopelessly ruining the DC universe and and John Oliver for being unfunny.
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 40 of 53
    I wouldn't be surprised if Viacom becomes available in the near future... 
    A possible pick up for Apple.
Sign In or Register to comment.