This purchase was one I've always questioned. I've never seen the slightest use for this company to Apple, as they've never shown any interest in actually using any of this technology in a real product.
The only thing I've imagined is that somehow, they've used the knowledge in developing theor Core technologies, which use GPU functionality. But, other than that, nothing has come of it.
Right now, Apple has about $15 billion in cash and investments, but they don't seem interested in using it. I can only hope that they are getting a good return without making some irrational investments.
Possibly, they are investing in some of these hi tech companies that could positively affect them.
CUPS is GPL. The front-end they extend is for OS X, but the backend guarantees that the project continues to progress and the developer gets funded.
The creator of CUPS must have felt working for Apple and still keeping CUPS in the open was too good to pass up, not to mention his expertise in Printing will help Apple produce a much improved Print System for OS X Apps.
Exactly. Apple wants very much to extend this great printing technology, and insure its continuation.
Over the years it's been shown that developers of many open source projects, and who are the leads, abandon them, with the subsequent abandonment of the projects by the users. Since Apple has based its printing technologies around CUPS, they don't want to see this happen.
There is a big advantage to Apple to see this continue as an open technology, as Apple's own technologies haven't always been well supported by the industry at large.
I believe that Apple has learned from that, by utilizing open source technologies and improving them.
This purchase was one I've always questioned. I've never seen the slightest use for this company to Apple, as they've never shown any interest in actually using any of this technology in a real product.
The only thing I've imagined is that somehow, they've used the knowledge in developing theor Core technologies, which use GPU functionality. But, other than that, nothing has come of it.
Right now, Apple has about $15 billion in cash and investments, but they don't seem interested in using it. I can only hope that they are getting a good return without making some irrational investments.
Possibly, they are investing in some of these hi tech companies that could positively affect them.
What I had heard from a former Apple employee who worked in the QuickTime division was that Apple bought Raycer for it's expertise in System-on-a-Chip design. What they wanted to do was put QuickTime on a Chip and license it to electronics manufacturers. The desire was that all AV devices would speak "QuickTime".
What I had heard from a former Apple employee who worked in the QuickTime division was that Apple bought Raycer for it's expertise in System-on-a-Chip design. What they wanted to do was put QuickTime on a Chip and license it to electronics manufacturers. The desire was that all AV devices would speak "QuickTime".
I've heard something in the same vain, but as we both know, Apple never even bothered to move anywhere on that. I think they changed direction shortly after they purchased them.
But since chip development also involves the knowledge of the micro programming required to get the chip to actually do something, that knowledge could have been helpful in developing technologies that depend on GPU usage, without actually developing such products.
The reason you don't want too much cash on the balance sheet is because you are losing money due to inflation and recently the devaluation of the dollar. They should use the money to buy back shares (reduce the float), buy companies, or invest back in the company (therefore increasing the return).
The reason you don't want too much cash on the balance sheet is because you are losing money due to inflation and recently the devaluation of the dollar. They should use the money to buy back shares (reduce the float), buy companies, or invest back in the company (therefore increasing the return).
This is really wrong.
First of all, no company carries that much money in "cash" i.e., bank accounts, or low return securities, unless there is some advantage to do so. The money is invested, insuring a good return, as long as it's done properly.
There is no evidence that buying back shares, as popular a device as it is, does anything useful. The only time it really does make sense is when shares are needed for employee compensation reserves.
Buying back shares does not increase the return of anything. It has the appearance of doing that, as the return per share is increased, but that does not translate to actual increase in profits, so it is illusory. When companies buy back shares that they then retire, it makes even less sense, as the money is essentially thrown away.
The best way to use this money is to put some of it it back into R&D, and the occasional purchase of software, and hardware to expand their product lines. Otherwise, Apple's investment arm is the best way for them to go.
It's also possible that Apple does have some large purchase in mind, and doesn't want to back into debt making it. Therefore, they may be hoping to increase their cash to cover it with enough left over, but, of course, that's just speculation.
the proper way for a company to increase return is to create additional markets for itself, as Apple has been doing. we can see the results of that. Companies that buy their own stock back may get a temporary lift in the price, but it usually drops back down. Apple doesn't need that artificial favoring.
Comments
Also:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11...to_buy_raycer/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11...keover_all_but
Whatever became of this then?
This purchase was one I've always questioned. I've never seen the slightest use for this company to Apple, as they've never shown any interest in actually using any of this technology in a real product.
The only thing I've imagined is that somehow, they've used the knowledge in developing theor Core technologies, which use GPU functionality. But, other than that, nothing has come of it.
Right now, Apple has about $15 billion in cash and investments, but they don't seem interested in using it. I can only hope that they are getting a good return without making some irrational investments.
Possibly, they are investing in some of these hi tech companies that could positively affect them.
CUPS is GPL. The front-end they extend is for OS X, but the backend guarantees that the project continues to progress and the developer gets funded.
The creator of CUPS must have felt working for Apple and still keeping CUPS in the open was too good to pass up, not to mention his expertise in Printing will help Apple produce a much improved Print System for OS X Apps.
Exactly. Apple wants very much to extend this great printing technology, and insure its continuation.
Over the years it's been shown that developers of many open source projects, and who are the leads, abandon them, with the subsequent abandonment of the projects by the users. Since Apple has based its printing technologies around CUPS, they don't want to see this happen.
There is a big advantage to Apple to see this continue as an open technology, as Apple's own technologies haven't always been well supported by the industry at large.
I believe that Apple has learned from that, by utilizing open source technologies and improving them.
And I think Soundjam was a much better program.
Skip
Soundjam was a great program for its day.
It certainly didn't do very much, and Apple has vastly expanded its range, but Soundjam was cetainly not better than iTunes is.
This purchase was one I've always questioned. I've never seen the slightest use for this company to Apple, as they've never shown any interest in actually using any of this technology in a real product.
The only thing I've imagined is that somehow, they've used the knowledge in developing theor Core technologies, which use GPU functionality. But, other than that, nothing has come of it.
Right now, Apple has about $15 billion in cash and investments, but they don't seem interested in using it. I can only hope that they are getting a good return without making some irrational investments.
Possibly, they are investing in some of these hi tech companies that could positively affect them.
What I had heard from a former Apple employee who worked in the QuickTime division was that Apple bought Raycer for it's expertise in System-on-a-Chip design. What they wanted to do was put QuickTime on a Chip and license it to electronics manufacturers. The desire was that all AV devices would speak "QuickTime".
What I had heard from a former Apple employee who worked in the QuickTime division was that Apple bought Raycer for it's expertise in System-on-a-Chip design. What they wanted to do was put QuickTime on a Chip and license it to electronics manufacturers. The desire was that all AV devices would speak "QuickTime".
I've heard something in the same vain, but as we both know, Apple never even bothered to move anywhere on that. I think they changed direction shortly after they purchased them.
But since chip development also involves the knowledge of the micro programming required to get the chip to actually do something, that knowledge could have been helpful in developing technologies that depend on GPU usage, without actually developing such products.
The reason you don't want too much cash on the balance sheet is because you are losing money due to inflation and recently the devaluation of the dollar. They should use the money to buy back shares (reduce the float), buy companies, or invest back in the company (therefore increasing the return).
This is really wrong.
First of all, no company carries that much money in "cash" i.e., bank accounts, or low return securities, unless there is some advantage to do so. The money is invested, insuring a good return, as long as it's done properly.
There is no evidence that buying back shares, as popular a device as it is, does anything useful. The only time it really does make sense is when shares are needed for employee compensation reserves.
Buying back shares does not increase the return of anything. It has the appearance of doing that, as the return per share is increased, but that does not translate to actual increase in profits, so it is illusory. When companies buy back shares that they then retire, it makes even less sense, as the money is essentially thrown away.
The best way to use this money is to put some of it it back into R&D, and the occasional purchase of software, and hardware to expand their product lines. Otherwise, Apple's investment arm is the best way for them to go.
It's also possible that Apple does have some large purchase in mind, and doesn't want to back into debt making it. Therefore, they may be hoping to increase their cash to cover it with enough left over, but, of course, that's just speculation.
the proper way for a company to increase return is to create additional markets for itself, as Apple has been doing. we can see the results of that. Companies that buy their own stock back may get a temporary lift in the price, but it usually drops back down. Apple doesn't need that artificial favoring.