SGI make workstations that still make any pc or mac system look like my original Sinclair ZX80, with graphics performance to make you cry, and which still rule the roost in industries that you haven't even heard of, with innovations in hpc that make a G4 on a 133 bus with SDRam look as sad as it really is
They developed a still profitable and shockingly powerful range of processors through Mips.
They own the major (profitable) softwares in 3d, both film and television, and product design.
IP and patents that Apple would (should) kill for.
Apple make transparent blue consumer pcs. Kiss of death, yeah right...
So who gives a shit about share price? What do those little wankers in Wall Street and The City know about anything anyway?<hr></blockquote>
So very True! NUMA ~ IRIX ~ MAYA ~ Reality Centers ~ Factory Planner ~ Demand Planner ~ This is all super high end stuff! But the Market Cap is 265 Million, Apple could buy this (and should) but that leaves 1.5 Billion plus left over, take 500 million for G4 & Altivec that still leaves a Billion for Quark. Hey if we are going to spend Apples money let's get it all!
What about buying Microsoft's Macintosh Business Unit while continuing keeping close ties with the MS Mothership? $2 billion for buying the largest software-company for the Mac platform?
Just speculation
And buying Quark? That application sucks so much Apple would have to do a complete rewrite of the damn app before selling right along it to Adobe who'd kill it proptly.
What is radical, and what makes me wonder about this, is Apple blowing half of their stash on anything. That would place the company in a riskier position financially (and, certainly, on the stock market), so the payoff would have to be a big move that boosted revenue. Like Ford pouring its last $3 billion into the Taurus and Sable in the '80s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would like to argue that having 4+ Billion on hand is risky, very risky. AAPL current market cap is 5.3 Billion. A company could borrow enough money to buy AAPL and use Apples' own money to repay the loan. The buyer would get everything for nothing when you consider that Apple generates 1.2+ Billion in NET profit each year. Let's see... buy for 6 Billion, little premium, and repay 4.5 Billion of loan with Apples' own cash then use Apples own net income to pay off the rest of the loan. Total time for transaction to begin producing profits 1 to 1.5 years.
I do not think that this would happen, all AAPL talent would leave, but still the owner would get some mighty great software and technologies for a song.
The point of my argument was to point out that having allot of cash and a very low market cap, one that is approaching the cash value of AAPL, is a very scary business position to be in. AAPL is almost worthless except for the cash under it.
I would like to argue that having 4+ Billion on hand is risky, very risky. AAPL current market cap is 5.3 Billion. A company could borrow enough money to buy AAPL and use Apples' own money to repay the loan. The buyer would get everything for nothing when you consider that Apple generates 1.2+ Billion in NET profit each year. Let's see... buy for 6 Billion, little premium, and repay 4.5 Billion of loan with Apples' own cash then use Apples own net income to pay off the rest of the loan. Total time for transaction to begin producing profits 1 to 1.5 years.
I do not think that this would happen, all AAPL talent would leave, but still the owner would get some mighty great software and technologies for a song.
The point of my argument was to point out that having allot of cash and a very low market cap, one that is approaching the cash value of AAPL, is a very scary business position to be in. AAPL is almost worthless except for the cash under it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what a couple of us were alluding to at the top of this thread -- forget all the silly buy-this/buy-that theories... Apple needs to make itself look a little less desirable to a takeover. Its current market cap vs. value is absolutely crazy! If a bunch of its money is tied up in other investments, however, then it stops being quite such a good deal. This is a fairly recent development since its share price dropped >$10.
With the amount of shares I own, I sure as hell would not allow buyout of Apple. I don't think Jobs would won't such a thing. Apple defines the computer industry, THEY INNOVATE, and like all artist, march to the beat to their own drums. The crazy ones, radicals, freaks, they think different.
Not as long as I'm a shareholder, hell no. Not without a fight, not on my watch. There's no Compaq being bought by HP here.
KISS MY ROYAL SHAREHOLDER BUTT!
Sorry guys, I'm on 4 beers now. It just feels good to stand up for a company you love sometimes. Oh, I feel better, thanks.
Apple hos (more than once) relied in it's 4 bill to hold up its profits through a quarter. They won't dip beliow 3 bill, but that still leaves about 1.6 bill to play around with... Frankly, I'm not worried unless it went to Arthur Anderson. <img src="graemlins/lol.gif" border="0" alt="[Laughing]" />
how 'bout they funnel'd the money to cover the $2b that the company lost track of since '98? <img src="graemlins/surprised.gif" border="0" alt="[Surprised]" /> *flame sheld up*
Certainly, Apple could spend their cash however they please without any legal ramifications, or even suspicion--why would it be criminal to invest capital in growing your company if you are actually spending the $ and its a valuable asset.
I'd be real interested in hearing some more context about this "overheard conversation" because this does kind of fit in to several rumors and what I think is Apple's best answer to the processor question.
Become involved in chip development using partners for manufacture and in part co-design. There is a lot of chip talent at Apple. The chip sector with Nvidia, AMD, Arm, ATI, IBM, and Moto... all factoring into an interesting competitive environment ? who knows what opportunities there are to exploit.
But let's see:
if this (getting CPUs into gear) involves continuing with the PPC, Apple needs to acquire or license patents from Moto and/or IBM. They would need to hire and/or contract many more engineers. They would not only need a manufacturer, but probably also guarantee the purchase of rather large quantities of these "new" chips.
So... the 2 Billion seems the right price. I don't find it crazy they would spend this. It's actually worse that they are holding on to so much cash when investors barely think they are worth that much! (Think about it--MS gets criticized for having 30 Bill, but that's only 10% of their value; Apple has 85% of their value sitting in a pile.) If anything, I think Apple has been building and saving this cash for the last 3 years, knowing that the opportunity would be arising.
The Register blew their Apple rumor credibility by being a year.5 ahead of the G5, but they also documented contractual arrangements between Apple and Moto--allowing Apple to acquire PPC patents for the desktop line of chips.
Moto was said to be attempting to regain profitability in each sector before selling units. And that they would no way sell the core asset of the embedded PPC market. They've gotten pretty close at this point.
iRumors/MacBuyersGuide misreports/gets out of context some very telling remarks from Maw about Moto no longer focusing on desktop PPC design.
With some licenses/patent purchases in key areas of Motos IP library and with further sharing cooperation within the AIM alliance, Apple may (?) be able to "acquire" the desktop PPC designs without affecting further Moto development of embedded PPCs, or IBMs for that matter, nor the Power4.
Then it gets really interesting... What about a new partner? AMD? ARM? Nvidia? Even with QuartzE cooperation, maybe, coding OpenGL, and maybe some new Mac specific mods to new GPUs, it seems like something very interesting is happening under the table between Apple and Nvidia. Maybe it's just chipsets... which would still be huge!!... but it seems like it could even be more interesting ? it would certainly be a major new partnership so they might as well, and better be, focusing on making it long term and interesting.
Anyway... I'm putting the crack down now, don't fear for me...
P.S. huh, hhh.... I meant to add: and the NV30 isn't ready, but I sure as hell hope there's something cool GPU-wise when the PowerMac draws nigh... So I hope and maybe it even kind of sound slike the NVidia CFO was being cagy, not wanting to let anything slip like ATI, Moto (see above), or Sun. (anybody else think Siress's denial does more to CONFIRM that Apple's working on SO or OOo now?)
personally i think this guy is lieing. he has shown no proof of what he's saying. he hasnt even listed a link to the website he says he got his information from.
and i think if apple just spent 2billion dollars that it would be on a few news stations/papers/websites by now dont you?
There are not going to be links to a conversation. There is not going to be definitive proof of a conversation even if the person could offer it, because proof of the conversation would betray the source, with dire consequences.
It's a rumor, and the original poster clearly identified it as such. Roll with it or ignore it, but don't make rude, absurd demands that serve only to derail the thread.
Comments
SGI make workstations that still make any pc or mac system look like my original Sinclair ZX80, with graphics performance to make you cry, and which still rule the roost in industries that you haven't even heard of, with innovations in hpc that make a G4 on a 133 bus with SDRam look as sad as it really is
They developed a still profitable and shockingly powerful range of processors through Mips.
They own the major (profitable) softwares in 3d, both film and television, and product design.
IP and patents that Apple would (should) kill for.
Apple make transparent blue consumer pcs. Kiss of death, yeah right...
So who gives a shit about share price? What do those little wankers in Wall Street and The City know about anything anyway?<hr></blockquote>
So very True! NUMA ~ IRIX ~ MAYA ~ Reality Centers ~ Factory Planner ~ Demand Planner ~ This is all super high end stuff! But the Market Cap is 265 Million, Apple could buy this (and should) but that leaves 1.5 Billion plus left over, take 500 million for G4 & Altivec that still leaves a Billion for Quark. Hey if we are going to spend Apples money let's get it all!
Just speculation
And buying Quark? That application sucks so much Apple would have to do a complete rewrite of the damn app before selling right along it to Adobe who'd kill it proptly.
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: Henriok ]</p>
<strong>
MSFT would be P-I-S-S-E-D. Apple could hold the xBox as much hostage as MSFT can Office.
</strong><hr></blockquote>
Damn, I love a good Evil Plot... you've got me smiling now. <img src="graemlins/smokin.gif" border="0" alt="[Chilling]" />
<strong>SNIP!
What is radical, and what makes me wonder about this, is Apple blowing half of their stash on anything. That would place the company in a riskier position financially (and, certainly, on the stock market), so the payoff would have to be a big move that boosted revenue. Like Ford pouring its last $3 billion into the Taurus and Sable in the '80s.</strong><hr></blockquote>
I would like to argue that having 4+ Billion on hand is risky, very risky. AAPL current market cap is 5.3 Billion. A company could borrow enough money to buy AAPL and use Apples' own money to repay the loan. The buyer would get everything for nothing when you consider that Apple generates 1.2+ Billion in NET profit each year. Let's see... buy for 6 Billion, little premium, and repay 4.5 Billion of loan with Apples' own cash then use Apples own net income to pay off the rest of the loan. Total time for transaction to begin producing profits 1 to 1.5 years.
I do not think that this would happen, all AAPL talent would leave, but still the owner would get some mighty great software and technologies for a song.
The point of my argument was to point out that having allot of cash and a very low market cap, one that is approaching the cash value of AAPL, is a very scary business position to be in. AAPL is almost worthless except for the cash under it.
<strong>
I would like to argue that having 4+ Billion on hand is risky, very risky. AAPL current market cap is 5.3 Billion. A company could borrow enough money to buy AAPL and use Apples' own money to repay the loan. The buyer would get everything for nothing when you consider that Apple generates 1.2+ Billion in NET profit each year. Let's see... buy for 6 Billion, little premium, and repay 4.5 Billion of loan with Apples' own cash then use Apples own net income to pay off the rest of the loan. Total time for transaction to begin producing profits 1 to 1.5 years.
I do not think that this would happen, all AAPL talent would leave, but still the owner would get some mighty great software and technologies for a song.
The point of my argument was to point out that having allot of cash and a very low market cap, one that is approaching the cash value of AAPL, is a very scary business position to be in. AAPL is almost worthless except for the cash under it.</strong><hr></blockquote>
This is what a couple of us were alluding to at the top of this thread -- forget all the silly buy-this/buy-that theories... Apple needs to make itself look a little less desirable to a takeover. Its current market cap vs. value is absolutely crazy! If a bunch of its money is tied up in other investments, however, then it stops being quite such a good deal. This is a fairly recent development since its share price dropped >$10.
Not as long as I'm a shareholder, hell no. Not without a fight, not on my watch. There's no Compaq being bought by HP here.
KISS MY ROYAL SHAREHOLDER BUTT!
Sorry guys, I'm on 4 beers now. It just feels good to stand up for a company you love sometimes. Oh, I feel better, thanks.
Hogwash.
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: JPF ]</p>
buying out nVidia and using their speedy manufacturing processes to make high bandwith integrated video/processor boards
<strong>Lock this please! There is no evidence. It is completely sad.</strong><hr></blockquote>
If that were a reason to lock a thread the entire FH forum would be gone.
or Sony??
I'd be real interested in hearing some more context about this "overheard conversation" because this does kind of fit in to several rumors and what I think is Apple's best answer to the processor question.
Become involved in chip development using partners for manufacture and in part co-design. There is a lot of chip talent at Apple. The chip sector with Nvidia, AMD, Arm, ATI, IBM, and Moto... all factoring into an interesting competitive environment ? who knows what opportunities there are to exploit.
But let's see:
if this (getting CPUs into gear) involves continuing with the PPC, Apple needs to acquire or license patents from Moto and/or IBM. They would need to hire and/or contract many more engineers. They would not only need a manufacturer, but probably also guarantee the purchase of rather large quantities of these "new" chips.
So... the 2 Billion seems the right price. I don't find it crazy they would spend this. It's actually worse that they are holding on to so much cash when investors barely think they are worth that much! (Think about it--MS gets criticized for having 30 Bill, but that's only 10% of their value; Apple has 85% of their value sitting in a pile.) If anything, I think Apple has been building and saving this cash for the last 3 years, knowing that the opportunity would be arising.
The Register blew their Apple rumor credibility by being a year.5 ahead of the G5, but they also documented contractual arrangements between Apple and Moto--allowing Apple to acquire PPC patents for the desktop line of chips.
Moto was said to be attempting to regain profitability in each sector before selling units. And that they would no way sell the core asset of the embedded PPC market. They've gotten pretty close at this point.
iRumors/MacBuyersGuide misreports/gets out of context some very telling remarks from Maw about Moto no longer focusing on desktop PPC design.
With some licenses/patent purchases in key areas of Motos IP library and with further sharing cooperation within the AIM alliance, Apple may (?) be able to "acquire" the desktop PPC designs without affecting further Moto development of embedded PPCs, or IBMs for that matter, nor the Power4.
Then it gets really interesting... What about a new partner? AMD? ARM? Nvidia? Even with QuartzE cooperation, maybe, coding OpenGL, and maybe some new Mac specific mods to new GPUs, it seems like something very interesting is happening under the table between Apple and Nvidia. Maybe it's just chipsets... which would still be huge!!... but it seems like it could even be more interesting ? it would certainly be a major new partnership so they might as well, and better be, focusing on making it long term and interesting.
Anyway... I'm putting the crack down now, don't fear for me...
P.S. huh, hhh.... I meant to add: and the NV30 isn't ready, but I sure as hell hope there's something cool GPU-wise when the PowerMac draws nigh... So I hope and maybe it even kind of sound slike the NVidia CFO was being cagy, not wanting to let anything slip like ATI, Moto (see above), or Sun. (anybody else think Siress's denial does more to CONFIRM that Apple's working on SO or OOo now?)
[ 08-01-2002: Message edited by: danaus plexippus ]</p>
and i think if apple just spent 2billion dollars that it would be on a few news stations/papers/websites by now dont you?
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
<strong>Masker is right. I live in RTP also (well, not in RTP, but in Cary, but you get the idea), and I overheard the same conversation!
<img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>
what conversation and from who? and where at? and when?
i can say "yeah i live their too and overheard the conversation too" but does that make it true? NO!
so if you dont have any proof that what you say even happened then stfu
There are not going to be links to a conversation. There is not going to be definitive proof of a conversation even if the person could offer it, because proof of the conversation would betray the source, with dire consequences.
It's a rumor, and the original poster clearly identified it as such. Roll with it or ignore it, but don't make rude, absurd demands that serve only to derail the thread.
Thank you.