Why Apple won't buy TikTok, even to attract younger users

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in General Discussion

Apple has the finances to buy just about anything, but with TikTok there are more reasons than money that mean it won't buy the social media platform.

Hand holding a smartphone displaying the TikTok logo on a black screen.
TikTok on a smartphone



For a company that has so much success, Apple is far from immune to failure -- and sometimes repeated failures. For whatever reason, Apple seems incapable of launching a social media platform, despite trying, so buying one should be a possibility.

Right now TikTok isn't exactly up for sale to the highest bidder, but it's close - as long as that bidder is America. No question, if Apple wanted to buy TikTok, it could even though Bloomberg estimates on Sunday that it would cost up to $60 billion.

Just as how Apple will never buy Disney no matter how many pundits tell it to, the price is not the problem, though. Not even when the price of buying Disney has been estimated at north of $175 billion.

The case against buying Disney, however, is more nuanced than buying TikTok. Both would have issues over how the companies would operate within Apple, but Disney could at least temporarily carry on exactly as it is doing.

TikTok can't. Under the terms of the US ban, TikTok can only be restored if an American company runs it entirely. Apple could doubtlessly hire people currently working for TikTok, but it would still be starting up a whole new operation.

And it would be setting up that operation in a market it has so far shown little competence. And it would be setting up that operation with a social media platform that will not be free of competition even after it's bought.

That's because TikTok as it stands is already limiting search results in a way that seems to be done to appease the more right-wing of the US's politicians. Various searches to do with, for instance, abortion, are already returning fewer or no results in the US compared to other countries.

Apple has to operate within the law, so if this type of censorship is made mandatory, it will have to do it. But if Apple censors, it will be Apple that gets a bad press rather the US government.

Moderation in all things



Then even if there is no political or legal pressure applied externally on Apple's TikTok, there will be immense pressures inside it. TikTok requires extensive moderation, and that costs a great deal of money.

Which is really why Meta and others have abandoned any moderation. There is of course an element of currying favor with the new US administration, but the cash saving is immense.

It would be for any company, so Apple could save a lot of money and effort if it bought TikTok and allowed anyone to say anything on it, without the remotest oversight. But when controversy blows up -- and it is when, not if -- it will again be Apple that gets the bad press.

TikTok would be easy to buy, but Apple would really be buying a world of hurt that it doesn't need and has no experience handling well. A $60 billion price tag would not be the problem but buyers' remorse would be.

Separately, Apple has radically cut down the number of firms it buys in the last few years. Its biggest-ever acquisition remains Beats, which cost $3 billion -- 20 times less than TikTok would cost -- back in 2014



Read on AppleInsider

ForumPost

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 20
    It makes sense to me.  Buying T-T will attract a whole new raft of scrutiny from Uncle Sam. Given the changes in Twitter and Facebook as they move to be more Trumpian Friendly, T-T's new owners will be expected to follow suit OR face 'the Spanish Inquisition' from Congress. The Oversight Committee could tie Apple up in lawsuits for years if they owned T-T and didn't start licking No 47's high heels.
    As if they didn't have a big enough target on their backs as it is...

    The same arguments would apply if Apple started its own search engine.  I am sure that we will soon start seeing Google change its promotion algorithms to put his latest grift subject at the top of all result sets.

    IMHO, it is far better for Apple to stay well clear of that part of the DC swamp. There be leopards ready to eat Tim Cook's face. 
    Anilu_777OferforegoneconclusionForumPostsconosciuto
     4Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 20
    hexclockhexclock Posts: 1,327member
    FTA: “Which is really why Meta and others have abandoned any moderation. There is of course an element of currying favor with the new US administration, but the cash saving is immense.”

    You mean abandonment of outright censorship demanded by the previous admin on differing opinions, inconvenient facts, and even jokes in some cases. 
    DAalsethbulk001CloudTalkinronnJanNLjas99bonobobgrandact73williamlondonwatto_cobra
     2Likes 9Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 20
    hexclock said: You mean abandonment of outright censorship demanded by the previous admin on differing opinions, inconvenient facts, and even jokes in some cases. 
    The Biden administration wanted social media companies to cut down on misinformation/disinformation about Covid, Covid vaccines and the 2020 election. None of that includes "differing opinions" or "inconvenient facts". Example: saying that vaccines cause autism isn't an "opinion" because it has no basis in reality. Same thing with claiming that the 2020 election was "stolen". 
    DAalsethXedCloudTalkinronndanoxbonobobwilliamlondonwatto_cobra
     8Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 20
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,963member
    I don't see where buying TikTok would be in Apple's best interest anyways. They already have young buyer's interests when it comes to Apple products. There's not a lot of good for Apple that would come from purchasing TikTok. The negatives far outweigh any possible positives. 
    ronnForumPostjas99watto_cobra
     4Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 20
    Tik-tok has zero inherent value. If all creators decided to leave tomorrow it would be completely worthless. It would be like buying an expensive piece of land just for a car that happened to be parked on it.
    ronnForumPostjas99bonobobwatto_cobrasconosciuto
     5Likes 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 20
    JamesCude said:
    Tik-tok has zero inherent value. If all creators decided to leave tomorrow it would be completely worthless. It would be like buying an expensive piece of land just for a car that happened to be parked on it.
    The same argument about inherent value can apply to Twitter, Facebook, WhatsApp etc.
    There are reports of hundreds of thousands of people leaving Twitter since Elon ruined it by making people follow him and other right-wingers. The same goes for Facebook since Zuck announced that Fact Checking was a thing of the past.

    I never saw the attraction of (anti-)social media after a bad experience with MySpace. 
    There is life outside of Social Media. 
    ForumPostdanoxjas99watto_cobrasconosciuto
     5Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 20
    It makes sense to me.  Buying T-T will attract a whole new raft of scrutiny from Uncle Sam. Given the changes in Twitter and Facebook as they move to be more Trumpian Friendly, T-T's new owners will be expected to follow suit OR face 'the Spanish Inquisition' from Congress. The Oversight Committee could tie Apple up in lawsuits for years if they owned T-T and didn't start licking No 47's high heels.
    As if they didn't have a big enough target on their backs as it is...

    The same arguments would apply if Apple started its own search engine.  I am sure that we will soon start seeing Google change its promotion algorithms to put his latest grift subject at the top of all result sets.

    IMHO, it is far better for Apple to stay well clear of that part of the DC swamp. There be leopards ready to eat Tim Cook's face. 
    It isn’t just about being Trump-friendly. It’s about ceasing the almost outright ban on views that oppose extreme left dogma. Regardless of political persuasion, social media platforms should be neutral, allowing the free flow of information. The only rules that should exist are ones that enforce current laws regarding pornography, inciting of riots, and personal threats.
    ronnJanNLForumPostdanoxjas99williamlondonwatto_cobrasconosciuto
     3Likes 5Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 20
    Apple should keep making the best products in the world. 

    Let the social media peeps do their thing - and share in the profits. 

    Don’t need apple spreading thrmselves thin. 

    Apple’s DNA doesn’t translate to everything. Even Apple TV would be better if the content was curated and managed by someone else. 
    edited January 26
    ronndanoxwatto_cobra
     1Like 2Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 20
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 802member
    hexclock said:
    FTA: “Which is really why Meta and others have abandoned any moderation. There is of course an element of currying favor with the new US administration, but the cash saving is immense.”

    You mean abandonment of outright censorship demanded by the previous admin on differing opinions, inconvenient facts, and even jokes in some cases. 
    When was whittle snowflake banned fwom saying anyfwing he wanted to say? (Put in 2 year old speak to help his comprehension) 
    XedDAalsethronnselleringtonJanNLwatto_cobrasconosciuto
     4Likes 3Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 20
    mpantonempantone Posts: 2,288member
    Apple buying TikTok -- or any other social network for that matter -- makes zero sense based on Apple's business model. They are a software/services company whose offerings work best on their proprietary hardware. Their quarterly earnings reports have explained this for decades.

    TikTok -- list most other social networks -- operates on a completely different business model. Those services make money selling user activity data to advertisers, etc.

    This is why Apple shuttered their ill-fated iTunes Ping (mostly focused on music discussion) in 2012 and has never since dabbled in social networking since. It's also why they don't run their own search engine even though they have been perfectly capable of spidering the entire Internet and setting up their own search engine for the past 25+ years.

    Apple buying TikTok is nonsense, just like Insta, Snap, Path, imeem, Myspace, et cetera ad nauseam. For Apple to consider such a move would require a fundamental change in their business model from the top down. For sure Tim Cook and the senior management team are not the people to do this. And the current board of directors aren't applying any pressure on Apple management to move this direction.
    edited January 26
    ronnForumPostjas99muthuk_vanalingamwatto_cobrasconosciuto
     6Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 20
    Pemapema Posts: 209member
    JamesCude said:
    Tik-tok has zero inherent value. If all creators decided to leave tomorrow it would be completely worthless. It would be like buying an expensive piece of land just for a car that happened to be parked on it.
    Not quite. 

    Like buying a piece of land and then finding out it is a cousin to Chernobyl.  :s 
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 20
    Xedxed Posts: 2,967member
    mpantone said:
    Apple buying TikTok -- or any other social network for that matter -- makes zero sense based on Apple's business model. They are a software/services company whose offerings work best on their proprietary hardware. Their quarterly earnings reports have explained this for decades.
    I've heard this argument countless times regarding Apple's so-called business model and kind of company they are. When they created the iPod / iTunes, when they offered iTunes to Windows, when they got into making/selling/renting/streaming licensed content on their iTunes, App, and TV+ store, when they bought PA Semi, when they announced the iPhone, when Cook said Apple will being pushing heavily into services in the coming years, when they researched building what I assume is an EV, when they built a watch, and on and on.

    The bottom line is that Apple is a company that wants to turn a profit. The most foolish thing a company can do is pigeon hole themselves. They have certain strengths from decades of experience and expertise, but that doesn't mean they can't use that to move into other industries

     Imagine if a company that produces energy via mining for coal only ever perceived themselves as a coal mining company? Eventually they die out. Now, if they look at themselves as an energy company they can mine for coal and still research and develop other ways in which to produce energy.

    Blockbuster is a great example of not seeing the bigger picture. With 16% of their revenue coming from late fees they chose not to invest in an online service because it eat that revenue. They were so focused on the current state of business that they lost everything because of it. No company can truly innovate if you only ever focus on the current quarter's earning report.

    TikTok -- list most other social networks -- operates on a completely different business model. Those services make money selling user activity data to advertisers, etc.

    This is why Apple shuttered their ill-fated iTunes Ping (mostly focused on music discussion) in 2012 and has never since dabbled in social networking since. It's also why they don't run their own search engine even though they have been perfectly capable of spidering the entire Internet and setting up their own search engine for the past 25+ years.

    Apple had an ad business for over 6 years called iAd. This didn't change their business model and that was absolutely using targeted ads the way Meta and Alphabet do. Apple could absolutely make a search engine. I'd love for them to make one like Kagi that's excellent. The issue here isn't ability, but that they get a lot of money from Alphabet to make Google the default. $20 billion per annum, IIRC.

    Apple buying TikTok is nonsense, just like Insta, Snap, Path, imeem, Myspace, et cetera ad nauseam. For Apple to consider such a move would require a fundamental change in their business model from the top down. For sure Tim Cook and the senior management team are not the people to do this. And the current board of directors aren't applying any pressure on Apple management to move this direction.
    You say that and yet you already acknowledged that Apple bought Ping. Buying Ping didn't change their business model, and neither would TikTok if they bought it. While I agree that they won't and shouldn't, your entire premise regarding business model is wrong.
    ronnForumPostdanoxwatto_cobra
     2Likes 2Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 13 of 20
    JamesCude said:
    Tik-tok has zero inherent value. If all creators decided to leave tomorrow it would be completely worthless. It would be like buying an expensive piece of land just for a car that happened to be parked on it.
    The same could be said about a lot of things. If everybody in the world decided tomorrow that gold was worthless, then gold would be worthless. That’s a 100% true statement, but it’s very unlikely to happen (especially in the extreme short-term of “tomorrow”).

    In the case of TikTok though, it wouldn’t be completely worthless even if every creator left tomorrow. That is because the data TikTok has about its users is still worth something to somebody. Data security is one of the reasons why the U.S. government is looking to ban TikTok. TikTok has a lot of data. And there are many out there that want that data and would pay money for that data. TikTok certainly wouldn’t be worth (whatever it is worth currently) without any creators. But it wouldn’t be completely worthless.
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 14 of 20
    Xed said:
    You say that and yet you already acknowledged that Apple bought Ping. Buying Ping didn't change their business model, and neither would TikTok if they bought it. While I agree that they won't and shouldn't, your entire premise regarding business model is wrong.
    It’s been so long ago that I can’t say this with 100% confidence, but: I don’t believe Apple bought Ping. I think Ping was developed in-house by Apple under Steve Jobs’ leadership.

    Edit: I think broke your quote when I was trying to quote you. New to the AppleInsider forums. I’ll figure this out eventually, lol.
    edited January 27
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 15 of 20
    Xedxed Posts: 2,967member
    Xed said:
    You say that and yet you already acknowledged that Apple bought Ping. Buying Ping didn't change their business model, and neither would TikTok if they bought it. While I agree that they won't and shouldn't, your entire premise regarding business model is wrong.
    It’s been so long ago that I can’t say this with 100% confidence, but: I don’t believe Apple bought Ping. I think Ping was developed in-house by Apple under Steve Job’s leadership.
    I believe you are correct. What I think I'm remembering is a small company Apple bought to use with Ping, but instead just shuttered. I don't know if their IP was ever incorporated or not.

    edit:  Looking at the list of acquisitions I may be thinking of Lala.com, which looks like it became iTunes Match. Remember that?  ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 
    edited January 26
    watto_cobra
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 16 of 20
    charlesncharlesn Posts: 1,311member
    JamesCude said:
    Tik-tok has zero inherent value. 
    Wrong. The crown jewel of Tiktok is its secret and proprietary algorithm. How much is that worth? With the algorithm, TikTok's price tag has been pegged at numbers ranging from $100-200 BILLION. Minus the algorithm--and it's believed that the Chinese will refuse to give that up in a sale--the price for a U.S. buyer of Tiktok is estimated at $40-50 billion. 
    ronnwatto_cobra
     1Like 1Dislike 0Informatives
  • Reply 17 of 20
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,671member
    Apple does have a 'social' platform -- it's called iMessage (or 'Messages'). I think Apple should just continue to build on that platform, staying firmly at the pro-social end of the 'social' spectrum, while leaving manipulation and disinformation to the people who are really good at those things. 


    ronnwatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 18 of 20
    Xedxed Posts: 2,967member
    blastdoor said:
    Apple does have a 'social' platform -- it's called iMessage (or 'Messages'). I think Apple should just continue to build on that platform, staying firmly at the pro-social end of the 'social' spectrum, while leaving manipulation and disinformation to the people who are really good at those things. 


    While I agree that iMessage (and SMS) are social platforms because they connect people to each other, it's not the type being discussed here. Of the 10 types listed on Indeed's website they fail to mention to instant messaging (IMs) platforms as a type, which I think is shortsighted to not even note it at all.
    https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/career-development/types-of-social-media

    In many ways IMs are more social than others where it's much more of a one-way communication and less of a true interaction, but I'd also say that iPhones, iPads, and Apple Watch are computers that are considerably more personal than the Windows PC ever was.
    ronnwatto_cobra
     2Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 19 of 20
    mbmoore said:
    It makes sense to me.  Buying T-T will attract a whole new raft of scrutiny from Uncle Sam. Given the changes in Twitter and Facebook as they move to be more Trumpian Friendly, T-T's new owners will be expected to follow suit OR face 'the Spanish Inquisition' from Congress. The Oversight Committee could tie Apple up in lawsuits for years if they owned T-T and didn't start licking No 47's high heels.
    As if they didn't have a big enough target on their backs as it is...

    The same arguments would apply if Apple started its own search engine.  I am sure that we will soon start seeing Google change its promotion algorithms to put his latest grift subject at the top of all result sets.

    IMHO, it is far better for Apple to stay well clear of that part of the DC swamp. There be leopards ready to eat Tim Cook's face. 
    It isn’t just about being Trump-friendly. It’s about ceasing the almost outright ban on views that oppose extreme left dogma. Regardless of political persuasion, social media platforms should be neutral, allowing the free flow of information. The only rules that should exist are ones that enforce current laws regarding pornography, inciting of riots, and personal threats.
    LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL


    is Newsmax required to be neutral?

    where the hell do you get off demanding the government enforce “neutrality” upon a website YOU USE FOR FREE, KAREN!

    The First Amendment permits social media to be as biased as they wish. Don’t like it? Don’t go there boomer.
    edited January 29
    ronn
     1Like 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.