Apple must have a hard time in thinking up uses for its monstrous cash pile!
This seems like a good way of ensuring the security of their license, even of partially amortizing the cost, since they will receive the benefit, as a shareholder, of the money they will put in IMG's way as a customer.
Apple has previously made very large purchases of stock in key suppliers - Samsung, if I recall, was one of them, to the tune of several hundred million dollars. This is small by comparison, but may be more political than commercial in nature, in ensuring that they have some say in the development of the tech - or rather, a vote against it moving in another direction.
My last point is to remember Raycer: that purchase touched-off a frenzy of speculation, none of which appeared to have come good.
One analyst notes that this increasing ownership by Apple and Intel can cause some concern amongst competitors who also license Imagination Technologies' hardware:
"Too high a stake by Apple or Intel could well cause some existing or potential licensees to think twice about having Imagination's technologies at the core of their roadmaps. We understand that management has already received concerned phone calls from existing licensees."
That may be exactly what Apple and Intel want to happen with minimal investment. When the stock goes down then the company is a cheaper acquisition and the competition won't be using the powerful graphices chips. Well, at least Apple would want that maybe.
Apple must have a hard time in thinking up uses for its monstrous cash pile!
This seems like a good way of ensuring the security of their license, even of partially amortizing the cost, since they will receive the benefit, as a shareholder, of the money they will put in IMG's way as a customer.
Apple has previously made very large purchases of stock in key suppliers - Samsung, if I recall, was one of them, to the tune of several hundred million dollars. This is small by comparison, but may be more political than commercial in nature, in ensuring that they have some say in the development of the tech - or rather, a vote against it moving in another direction.
My last point is to remember Raycer: that purchase touched-off a frenzy of speculation, none of which appeared to have come good.
Monopolies are *always* bad. Where they are necessary or unavoidable, nationalisation is the only intelligent response.
Wrong. Monopolies are bad because the can command higher prices from customers (Microsoft back in the day).
However, nationalization is inherently an evil response. You may think that it is better that the government own the company instead of its stockholders.
But a nationalized company will be a snare for the leaders of the government. Most politicians are already corrupt, but now being in charge of companies conducting business, their level of corruption will increase drastically. And the free market, ie. the people, will suffer more greatly.
Business and politics does not mix well, just look at third world countries. Unfortunately, this wisdom is lost in today's media and we may just look at ourself (the US government) in a few years to see another example of increased corruption when politicians get their hands on businesses.
(also, take a look at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to see that politicians should not get involved in business, lots of corruption in form of nepotism to see, and don't get me started on the Federal Reserve).
Wrong. Monopolies are bad because the can command higher prices from customers (Microsoft back in the day).
That would be an illegal monopoly, and yes those are bad, but to simply force a successful company to break apart because it has obtained a legal monopoly by being better than other competition is not fair.
Apple's dealings with suppliers is basically two-fold, from what I recall.
1. Use multiple suppliers for commodity parts, buying large stocks of parts to lock in prices and command production from those suppliers. It's an indirect way of manipulating other companies without buying them out and becoming a monopoly. Besides, gunning for a monopoly is really risky and expensive.
2. Use only one or two of the absolute best suppliers for strategic cutting edge suppliers, like for their iPhone/iPod Touch graphics chipsets.
As a corollary to both of the above, especially the second, is buy stock in the company to protect it from buyout from competitors, permit Apple influence/insight for future design roadmap, and protect exclusivity or partial exclusivity agreements.
While Apple may be buying to protect from outside buyers, I would imagine they are also protecting themselves for the future from Intel by knowing the future Intel will take being one of the few weaknesses of Intel...weaker graphics technology (unlike AMD). That way, in case Apple becomes even more proprietary in their designs, or less so, they'll have a landing place and a launching place to develop their PA Semi team.
Meanwhile, the inclusion of Intel is actually a benefit, because not that many companies can grab a large stake (as others have mentioned). Apportioning different key technologies among the different competitors so that fewer companies hold all the pieces thwarts collaboration of competitors against Apple.
Finally, this plays into their plan to establish their open graphics platform. Even if Apple uses proprietary chips, having the leading mainstream company for a niche industry helps to insure adoption...superior standard on superior mainstream hardware.
Wrong. Monopolies are bad because the can command higher prices from customers (Microsoft back in the day).
Monopoly earned because a company provides a superior product or service isn't bad, that's a free market monopoly. In that case competitors need to produce a competitive product. What MS did to gain its monopoly was not because of free market choice.
Quote:
However, nationalization is inherently an evil response. You may think that it is better that the government own the company instead of its stockholders.
But a nationalized company will be a snare for the leaders of the government. Most politicians are already corrupt, but now being in charge of companies conducting business, their level of corruption will increase drastically. And the free market, ie. the people, will suffer more greatly.
As though corporate executives aren't corrupt? They go to jail more regularly and frequently than politicians. The reason the government has had to use nationalization is because of corporate greed, shortsightedness, and mismanagement that would cause the collapse of those industries. The fear that such a collapse would be catastrophic to our already severely weakened economy.
Politicians can be impeached or voted out of office for improper conduct. Those corporate executives willing to run their companies into the ground to increase profits, putting hundreds if not thousands of people out of work. Who do they answer to?
Quote:
Business and politics does not mix well, just look at third world countries. Unfortunately, this wisdom is lost in today's media and we may just look at ourself (the US government) in a few years to see another example of increased corruption when politicians get their hands on businesses.
Government has to work to keep business honest. This relationship has been shown to work within other western democracies. The key is that business has to show some willingness to not be excessively greedy and work towards the benefit of common good. US business has proved time and again the willingness to put profit over everything.
Quote:
(also, take a look at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to see that politicians should not get involved in business, lots of corruption in form of nepotism to see, and don't get me started on the Federal Reserve).
These problems come directly from business deregulation under Ronald Reagan in the 80's, these problems did not arise directly because of government involvement in the private industry.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with major national banks giving loans to anyone with pulse and a signature.
That would be an illegal monopoly, and yes those are bad, but to simply force a successful company to break apart because it has obtained a legal monopoly by being better than other competition is not fair.
If a company develops a product that works itself into becoming a monopoly, then the government won't stop it, because it developed naturally.
But they won't allow companies buy their way into a monopoly, at least not in the States.
Comments
This seems like a good way of ensuring the security of their license, even of partially amortizing the cost, since they will receive the benefit, as a shareholder, of the money they will put in IMG's way as a customer.
Apple has previously made very large purchases of stock in key suppliers - Samsung, if I recall, was one of them, to the tune of several hundred million dollars. This is small by comparison, but may be more political than commercial in nature, in ensuring that they have some say in the development of the tech - or rather, a vote against it moving in another direction.
My last point is to remember Raycer: that purchase touched-off a frenzy of speculation, none of which appeared to have come good.
They buy them though evidently not from Imagination. It was in response to
I don't think Microsoft is attempting to forge a relationship with Imagination.
Where or what MSFT would they put those chips in ??
One analyst notes that this increasing ownership by Apple and Intel can cause some concern amongst competitors who also license Imagination Technologies' hardware:
"Too high a stake by Apple or Intel could well cause some existing or potential licensees to think twice about having Imagination's technologies at the core of their roadmaps. We understand that management has already received concerned phone calls from existing licensees."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/m.../2009/jun/26/1
That may be exactly what Apple and Intel want to happen with minimal investment. When the stock goes down then the company is a cheaper acquisition and the competition won't be using the powerful graphices chips. Well, at least Apple would want that maybe.
Apple must have a hard time in thinking up uses for its monstrous cash pile!
This seems like a good way of ensuring the security of their license, even of partially amortizing the cost, since they will receive the benefit, as a shareholder, of the money they will put in IMG's way as a customer.
Apple has previously made very large purchases of stock in key suppliers - Samsung, if I recall, was one of them, to the tune of several hundred million dollars. This is small by comparison, but may be more political than commercial in nature, in ensuring that they have some say in the development of the tech - or rather, a vote against it moving in another direction.
My last point is to remember Raycer: that purchase touched-off a frenzy of speculation, none of which appeared to have come good.
Great post
new and fresh points . What did happen Raycer?
p
Monopolies are *always* bad. Where they are necessary or unavoidable, nationalisation is the only intelligent response.
Wrong. Monopolies are bad because the can command higher prices from customers (Microsoft back in the day).
However, nationalization is inherently an evil response. You may think that it is better that the government own the company instead of its stockholders.
But a nationalized company will be a snare for the leaders of the government. Most politicians are already corrupt, but now being in charge of companies conducting business, their level of corruption will increase drastically. And the free market, ie. the people, will suffer more greatly.
Business and politics does not mix well, just look at third world countries. Unfortunately, this wisdom is lost in today's media and we may just look at ourself (the US government) in a few years to see another example of increased corruption when politicians get their hands on businesses.
(also, take a look at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to see that politicians should not get involved in business, lots of corruption in form of nepotism to see, and don't get me started on the Federal Reserve).
Microsoft appears to be aligning with Nvidia and Tegra so I doubt we see them move towards Imagination."
Of course they won't. MS has no imagination and simply buying a company with that in their name would not help.
Wrong. Monopolies are bad because the can command higher prices from customers (Microsoft back in the day).
That would be an illegal monopoly, and yes those are bad, but to simply force a successful company to break apart because it has obtained a legal monopoly by being better than other competition is not fair.
1. Use multiple suppliers for commodity parts, buying large stocks of parts to lock in prices and command production from those suppliers. It's an indirect way of manipulating other companies without buying them out and becoming a monopoly. Besides, gunning for a monopoly is really risky and expensive.
2. Use only one or two of the absolute best suppliers for strategic cutting edge suppliers, like for their iPhone/iPod Touch graphics chipsets.
As a corollary to both of the above, especially the second, is buy stock in the company to protect it from buyout from competitors, permit Apple influence/insight for future design roadmap, and protect exclusivity or partial exclusivity agreements.
While Apple may be buying to protect from outside buyers, I would imagine they are also protecting themselves for the future from Intel by knowing the future Intel will take being one of the few weaknesses of Intel...weaker graphics technology (unlike AMD). That way, in case Apple becomes even more proprietary in their designs, or less so, they'll have a landing place and a launching place to develop their PA Semi team.
Meanwhile, the inclusion of Intel is actually a benefit, because not that many companies can grab a large stake (as others have mentioned). Apportioning different key technologies among the different competitors so that fewer companies hold all the pieces thwarts collaboration of competitors against Apple.
Finally, this plays into their plan to establish their open graphics platform. Even if Apple uses proprietary chips, having the leading mainstream company for a niche industry helps to insure adoption...superior standard on superior mainstream hardware.
Wrong. Monopolies are bad because the can command higher prices from customers (Microsoft back in the day).
Monopoly earned because a company provides a superior product or service isn't bad, that's a free market monopoly. In that case competitors need to produce a competitive product. What MS did to gain its monopoly was not because of free market choice.
However, nationalization is inherently an evil response. You may think that it is better that the government own the company instead of its stockholders.
But a nationalized company will be a snare for the leaders of the government. Most politicians are already corrupt, but now being in charge of companies conducting business, their level of corruption will increase drastically. And the free market, ie. the people, will suffer more greatly.
As though corporate executives aren't corrupt? They go to jail more regularly and frequently than politicians. The reason the government has had to use nationalization is because of corporate greed, shortsightedness, and mismanagement that would cause the collapse of those industries. The fear that such a collapse would be catastrophic to our already severely weakened economy.
Politicians can be impeached or voted out of office for improper conduct. Those corporate executives willing to run their companies into the ground to increase profits, putting hundreds if not thousands of people out of work. Who do they answer to?
Business and politics does not mix well, just look at third world countries. Unfortunately, this wisdom is lost in today's media and we may just look at ourself (the US government) in a few years to see another example of increased corruption when politicians get their hands on businesses.
Government has to work to keep business honest. This relationship has been shown to work within other western democracies. The key is that business has to show some willingness to not be excessively greedy and work towards the benefit of common good. US business has proved time and again the willingness to put profit over everything.
(also, take a look at Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac to see that politicians should not get involved in business, lots of corruption in form of nepotism to see, and don't get me started on the Federal Reserve).
These problems come directly from business deregulation under Ronald Reagan in the 80's, these problems did not arise directly because of government involvement in the private industry.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac had nothing to do with major national banks giving loans to anyone with pulse and a signature.
Where or what MSFT would they put those chips in ??
Zune and Zunephone.
That would be an illegal monopoly, and yes those are bad, but to simply force a successful company to break apart because it has obtained a legal monopoly by being better than other competition is not fair.
If a company develops a product that works itself into becoming a monopoly, then the government won't stop it, because it developed naturally.
But they won't allow companies buy their way into a monopoly, at least not in the States.