I'm not sure if Apple is interested in the dozens of product lines that a company like Sony is involved in.
It's possible that if Apple's diversification succeeds over the next few years, they may see some of that need. But, right now, and for the shorter term at least, Apple seems to want to get into lines that are synergistic, that feed off one another, and built customer confidence, and satisfaction in an entire across the board experience.
In a way, all of Apple's products are closely related. Sony is a company has many lines of business that are not related at all.
Sony is also a vertically integrated company. That is, they can build a product from the ground up, only shopping with other manufacturers when it doesn't pay to make a component themselves.
Apple builds nothing themselves anymore, everything is farmed out.
Two totally different companies, with two totally different philosophies.
Hasn't Steve described Apple as a systems design company (or something close to that)? Well, they are that and one heck of a marketing and product design company as well.
Hasn't Steve described Apple as a systems design company (or something close to that)? Well, they are that and one heck of a marketing and product design company as well.
Something along those lines, though I don't remember the actual words.
Yeah, I guess your right about Bose, but it was only an example. I guess, technically, that Apple already has an audio department, Maybe they should expand there own audio product line. Its just I suggest that Sony, more then dell, is the type of company that Apple could be.
I found the whole tone of this article somewhat off base.
Both Apples appear to be winners here.
Inc. gets the big gain that no one seems to be talking about, and it has nothing to do with pictures of a fruit. In the previous settlement, Apple Core and Inc. had agreed that Inc. could not essentially be a record or music company. This was never in doubt and it prevented Inc. from issuing pre-loaded Ipods. This was a huge barrier and Inc. had to do legal, but cumbersome work-arounds, like the U2 Ipod being issued with vouchers to go online and buy the songs to download rather than just getting them pre-loaded. With the purchase of the trademark rights to everything apple, this prohibition is gone and it opens up a vast future in preloaded music sales for Inc., not just the ability to sell Beatles music, but everyone's music preloaded.
Apple Corps also gains because they are/were really a small potatos organization or company that basically served only the 4 members of the Beatles (and a few odd musical groups James Taylor, Mary Hopkin, Badfinger, were their only big sellers). However, with the stranglehold they had on Inc with the previous agreement on not selling records, Apple Corps was able to extract many millions of dollars out of Apple Inc. in order to make this thorn in the side of the bigger company go away. (And while Corps lost the lawsuit with Inc. about selling music through the I-tunes store (Inc acting as essentially a record store)- the prohibition on selling pre-loaded music (Inc acting as a record company) was never in doubt, and in fact was not litigated)
So, I don't see why this is a winners and losers issue at all.
Apple Inc. wins big time because they have a whole new avenue of marketing music now available to them as a result of now being able to sell music preloaded. They also get full control of the name Apple.
Apple Corps wins big time because they get a huge amount of money for giving up the name of Apple related to music, and the name Apple had really little to do with their fortunes. They will gain even more as a result of eventually putting all their music product on-line for download.
And I think all of us win too. We should get better product from Inc's newfound freedom to diversify in the music arena, and we will get lots of downloadable Beatles product if we want it.
Sounds like a very good business transaction all around.
Apple Inc. wins big time because they have a whole new avenue of marketing music now available to them as a result of now being able to sell music preloaded. They also get full control of the name Apple.
The interesting thing here is that Apple, Inc. is getting the trademarks for the Apple Records logos as well. These logos look nothing like the Apple, Inc. logo, so this isn't an issue of resolving confusion.
Part of me wonders if Apple, Inc. may be planning to use that logo as a part of a forthcoming effort to start an actual record label (CD sales, etc.) It is already the case that iTunes sells songs from artists without labels. It is a logical step for them to start selling CDs for those artists as well. The label for such CDs should, logically, be "Apple", and the classic "Apple Records" logo seems appropriate.
Of course, only time will tell if I'm guessing right here.
It is a definite possibility. The original news release did say that Inc. was getting ALL the rights to the name and copyrights for Apple, and would lease some of those back to Corps. for their use. But it didn't say for their exclusive use.
Amazing that this all takes so long to get resolved and for product to come out.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what actually comes out.
Comments
I'm not sure if Apple is interested in the dozens of product lines that a company like Sony is involved in.
It's possible that if Apple's diversification succeeds over the next few years, they may see some of that need. But, right now, and for the shorter term at least, Apple seems to want to get into lines that are synergistic, that feed off one another, and built customer confidence, and satisfaction in an entire across the board experience.
In a way, all of Apple's products are closely related. Sony is a company has many lines of business that are not related at all.
Sony is also a vertically integrated company. That is, they can build a product from the ground up, only shopping with other manufacturers when it doesn't pay to make a component themselves.
Apple builds nothing themselves anymore, everything is farmed out.
Two totally different companies, with two totally different philosophies.
Hasn't Steve described Apple as a systems design company (or something close to that)? Well, they are that and one heck of a marketing and product design company as well.
Hasn't Steve described Apple as a systems design company (or something close to that)? Well, they are that and one heck of a marketing and product design company as well.
Something along those lines, though I don't remember the actual words.
Yeah, I guess your right about Bose, but it was only an example. I guess, technically, that Apple already has an audio department, Maybe they should expand there own audio product line. Its just I suggest that Sony, more then dell, is the type of company that Apple could be.
How about Bang & Olufsen?
How about Bang & Olufsen?
Only if you want the products to be so expensive that only the richest 0.001% of the population can afford to buy anything.
B&O makes great stuff, but there's no way I'm paying thousands of dollars for something that sounds maybe 10% better than a $200 device.
How about Bang & Olufsen?
Nah. They look good, but sound awful.
The designs are for small European apartments. Too many compromises.
Both Apples appear to be winners here.
Inc. gets the big gain that no one seems to be talking about, and it has nothing to do with pictures of a fruit. In the previous settlement, Apple Core and Inc. had agreed that Inc. could not essentially be a record or music company. This was never in doubt and it prevented Inc. from issuing pre-loaded Ipods. This was a huge barrier and Inc. had to do legal, but cumbersome work-arounds, like the U2 Ipod being issued with vouchers to go online and buy the songs to download rather than just getting them pre-loaded. With the purchase of the trademark rights to everything apple, this prohibition is gone and it opens up a vast future in preloaded music sales for Inc., not just the ability to sell Beatles music, but everyone's music preloaded.
Apple Corps also gains because they are/were really a small potatos organization or company that basically served only the 4 members of the Beatles (and a few odd musical groups James Taylor, Mary Hopkin, Badfinger, were their only big sellers). However, with the stranglehold they had on Inc with the previous agreement on not selling records, Apple Corps was able to extract many millions of dollars out of Apple Inc. in order to make this thorn in the side of the bigger company go away. (And while Corps lost the lawsuit with Inc. about selling music through the I-tunes store (Inc acting as essentially a record store)- the prohibition on selling pre-loaded music (Inc acting as a record company) was never in doubt, and in fact was not litigated)
So, I don't see why this is a winners and losers issue at all.
Apple Inc. wins big time because they have a whole new avenue of marketing music now available to them as a result of now being able to sell music preloaded. They also get full control of the name Apple.
Apple Corps wins big time because they get a huge amount of money for giving up the name of Apple related to music, and the name Apple had really little to do with their fortunes. They will gain even more as a result of eventually putting all their music product on-line for download.
And I think all of us win too. We should get better product from Inc's newfound freedom to diversify in the music arena, and we will get lots of downloadable Beatles product if we want it.
Sounds like a very good business transaction all around.
Apple Inc. wins big time because they have a whole new avenue of marketing music now available to them as a result of now being able to sell music preloaded. They also get full control of the name Apple.
The interesting thing here is that Apple, Inc. is getting the trademarks for the Apple Records logos as well. These logos look nothing like the Apple, Inc. logo, so this isn't an issue of resolving confusion.
Part of me wonders if Apple, Inc. may be planning to use that logo as a part of a forthcoming effort to start an actual record label (CD sales, etc.) It is already the case that iTunes sells songs from artists without labels. It is a logical step for them to start selling CDs for those artists as well. The label for such CDs should, logically, be "Apple", and the classic "Apple Records" logo seems appropriate.
Of course, only time will tell if I'm guessing right here.
Amazing that this all takes so long to get resolved and for product to come out.
I guess we'll have to wait and see what actually comes out.