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

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 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. 
    None of your word salad says anything about cutting edge.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 42 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.
    Oh please. Prior to the acquisition nobody was saying Apple (or anyone else) should acquire Beats. And right after it was announced most were saying WTF. It's only the kool-aid drinkers spinning this as a brilliant purchase.
    singularity
  • Reply 43 of 53
    I wouldn't be surprised if Viacom becomes available in the near future... 
    A possible pick up for Apple.
    Rumors are hook up with CBS agin (they split in 2005). These are the Viacom properties. I don't see anything cutting edge. Do people even watch MTV and VH1 anymore? If Apple needs to acquire something big then I'd rather they acquire something like Dropbox or Snap not an old media company.

    image
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 44 of 53
    Netflix (NFLX) is currently move away from physical DVD rental and sales. Spending its revenue toward expansion in Europe and South America. Its creating content exclusively for its network and It has revenue sharing agreements with the various studios. It still has the problem, what to do with its many distribution centers all across the US. Its failed attempt to spin off its DVD division--> Qwikster. I think Amazon (AMZN) would probable be a better candidate to purchase Netflix than Apple.
  • Reply 45 of 53
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,563member
    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.
    Oh please. Prior to the acquisition nobody was saying Apple (or anyone else) should acquire Beats. And right after it was announced most were saying WTF. It's only the kool-aid drinkers spinning this as a brilliant purchase.
    You keep bleating on about this, but you've never actually said why the purchase was a mistake (possibly because it wasn't, so you can't).  The hardware is still selling and Apple got a running jump into music streaming. They landed exclusive deals and a rare interview with Bruce Springsteen (which had Iovine's fingerprints all over it). 

    You seem to think that Apple didn't need to buy Beats because the had the talent to build a streaming service themselves, and the fact that you think building the service was the biggest challenge demonstrates how little you understand about the music business. 

    Tim Cook looked at the top folk at Apple and saw a group of hard working, dedicated, driven middle-aged men, and he had the good sense to realise that they didn't understand enough about the culture behind the modern music industry to build a streaming service that would make a dent, no matter how great the technology behind it was. 

    Apple didn't buy Beats for the headphones; they bought knowledge they didn't have in-house, and I'm surprised that after so long you haven't twigged this because this the reason behind every purchase they make. 

    It wasn't a brilliant purchase; it was a necessary purchase. 

    Sometimes  I could swear you and Sog are the same person. 
    edited October 2016 calizoetmbbrucemcwatto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 53
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,437member
    I wouldn't be surprised if Viacom becomes available in the near future... 
    A possible pick up for Apple.
    Doubtful.  There's talk that they're going to merge it back into CBS, after separating it in 2006.  
  • Reply 47 of 53
    Rayz2016 said:
    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.
    Oh please. Prior to the acquisition nobody was saying Apple (or anyone else) should acquire Beats. And right after it was announced most were saying WTF. It's only the kool-aid drinkers spinning this as a brilliant purchase.
    You keep bleating on about this, but you've never actually said why the purchase was a mistake (possibly because it wasn't, so you can't).  The hardware is still selling and Apple got a running jump into music streaming. They landed exclusive deals and a rare interview with Bruce Springsteen (which had Iovine's fingerprints all over it). 

    You seem to think that Apple didn't need to buy Beats because the had the talent to build a streaming service themselves, and the fact that you think building the service was the biggest challenge demonstrates how little you understand about the music business. 

    Tim Cook looked at the top folk at Apple and saw a group of hard working, dedicated, driven middle-aged men, and he had the good sense to realise that they didn't understand enough about the culture behind the modern music industry to build a streaming service that would make a dent, no matter how great the technology behind it was. 

    Apple didn't buy Beats for the headphones; they bought knowledge they didn't have in-house, and I'm surprised that after so long you haven't twigged this because this the reason behind every purchase they make. 

    It wasn't a brilliant purchase; it was a necessary purchase. 

    Sometimes  I could swear you and Sog are the same person. 
    Yes I know Apple didn't buy Beats because of the headphones. But I'll say it again, NO ONE was saying Apple should buy Beats. Nest, Netflix, Dropbox, event Twitter, yes, but not Beats. And no I don't think Apple needed Jimmy Iovine and Trent Reznor to stand up a streaming music service. My god, the company that created iTunes should be able to stand up a Spotify competitor on their own. We don't really know how well Beats 1 is doing. Apple doesn't provide any figures. All I go off of is what I see on social media, that people don't listen much because it plays too much of one style of music. Apple Music is successful but that could be down to the power of defaults. Would it be as successful if Apple had left the Music app as is and created a separate music app that was not pre-installed on every device? Or if Apple allowed other services like Spotify access to Siri?
    edited October 2016
  • Reply 48 of 53
    irelandireland Posts: 17,570member
    Rayz2016 said:
    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.
    Oh please. Prior to the acquisition nobody was saying Apple (or anyone else) should acquire Beats. And right after it was announced most were saying WTF. It's only the kool-aid drinkers spinning this as a brilliant purchase.
    You keep bleating on about this, but you've never actually said why the purchase was a mistake (possibly because it wasn't, so you can't).  The hardware is still selling and Apple got a running jump into music streaming. They landed exclusive deals and a rare interview with Bruce Springsteen (which had Iovine's fingerprints all over it). 

    You seem to think that Apple didn't need to buy Beats because the had the talent to build a streaming service themselves, and the fact that you think building the service was the biggest challenge demonstrates how little you understand about the music business. 

    Tim Cook looked at the top folk at Apple and saw a group of hard working, dedicated, driven middle-aged men, and he had the good sense to realise that they didn't understand enough about the culture behind the modern music industry to build a streaming service that would make a dent, no matter how great the technology behind it was. 

    Apple didn't buy Beats for the headphones; they bought knowledge they didn't have in-house, and I'm surprised that after so long you haven't twigged this because this the reason behind every purchase they make. 

    It wasn't a brilliant purchase; it was a necessary purchase. 

    Sometimes  I could swear you and Sog are the same person. 
    Yes I know Apple didn't buy Beats because of the headphones. But I'll say it again, NO ONE was saying Apple should buy Beats. Nest, Netflix, Dropbox, event Twitter, yes, but not Beats. And no I don't think Apple needed Jimmy Iovine and Trent Reznor to stand up a streaming music service. My god, the company that created iTunes should be able to stand up a Spotify competitor on their own. We don't really know how well Beats 1 is doing. Apple doesn't provide any figures. All I go off of is what I see on social media, that people don't listen much because it plays too much of one style of music. Apple Music is successful but that could be down to the power of defaults. Would it be as successful if Apple had left the Music app as is and created a separate music app that was not pre-installed on every device? Or if Apple allowed other services like Spotify access to Siri?
    Enough on the Beats negativity already. It was a sound investment. If Beats was $30B your comment may be interesting, but it was $3B. Apple make $1B profit every 8 days. Let it go will you. Apple knew they were going to push a Bluetooth strategy going forward and they knew Beats was not only great branding and elegant iconography and iconic design but they owned 65% of the market. Beats can push their audio product strategy with Apple's help without Apple trying to make all those products and Apple get to take all the profits from the results and they can share any innovations one another might have and the businesses complement one another. And that's only one of the reasons they bought Beats.
    edited October 2016 watto_cobraRayz2016
  • Reply 49 of 53
    Time Warner CEO was on CNBC this morning. He was asked about Apple and made it clear merging with Apple is not something that was ever discussed. He basically laughed it off. Makes me wonder where the WSJ (and others) got that from. Unless it was being discussed inside Apple and Apple PR leaked it?
  • Reply 51 of 53
    But we’ve known that since before the Patriot Act was even passed. It’d take the removal of 66% of Congress to do anything about it.
  • Reply 52 of 53
    But we’ve known that since before the Patriot Act was even passed. It’d take the removal of 66% of Congress to do anything about it.
    The disclosure of them turning this activity into a profit center is a new part of the story. Yes, the spying part was first revealed in 2013.
Sign In or Register to comment.