I can't see Square being a worthwhile investment unless they have some IP that Apple can't find an alternative for and Square wouldn't licence. Considering there are other companies doing the same thing and Square aren't suing, I'm guessing the IP is elsewhere and Square just licence it themselves.
All Apple need to do is package their version of PayPal Here, make it work nicely and they'll be away. If they could do a tie in with PayPal so you could iMoney to a PayPal account and vice versa, they'd have it all sewn up.
I wonder if we'll be saying "all Apple needs to do is..." this time next year.
I don't think so. I see Square everywhere I go. I don't see another payment system anywhere. Every vendor I talk to about it is happy with it. Having it fall into Google's hands rather than Apple's hands would be a major shift. So yes, the implications are mind boggling.
Hmmmm... now you change the use of your term "mind boggling".
yeah I don't get why people are so eager to see Google buy everything up. I figured Apple would never acquire Nest because they don't need the hardware expertise and probably weren't interested in having Tony Fadell back. But if Apple was looking at Square there's obviously something they felt was valuable. And in the current climate you're not going to get a company for cheap. So you either pay up or someone else will.
That's basically it. Apple doesn't need $200 billion, which they will have by the end of the year. I'd much rather they spend some of that on companies than throw it down the black hole of share repurchases, which is money burnt,.
Hmmmm... now you change the use of your term "mind boggling".
Makes me wonder.
I'm just giving some reasons for it. Nothing to make a big deal of on your part, really! I mean, if this is all you've got, then you're wasting it on this.
But for your sake, I'll explain it further since you didn't understand what I was saying, and why the use in both posts was about the same thing.
It's mind boggling that Apple would need to do something that has already been done, and that they could get, if they wanted to, whereas, by letting it go, Google would get it instead.
It's the entire concept that's mind boggling. It doesn't even need to be applied to this particular situation.
Apple would be crazy not to acquire Square, especially with Cook suggesting one of the reasons for Touch ID was getting into the mobile payments space.
Or Apple just does it's own payment system, or buys a company that does something similar for a fraction of the cost. Why buy a company at their highest point? 8 Billion is quite a bit.
That said- it's way more valuable than WhatsApp. Especially at 40% the price. And def. twice as good as Nest.
I doubt Apple would pay that much for a card reader company, Square is a brand and process thru others. Apple has iBeacon wireless technology without using card reader, the key is customer experience, ease of use and security for Apple products. Apple could achieve all and better than Square, Square seems like an intern solution on iPayment vision for Apple, let Google burn another shareholder's 8 billions in the name of "innovation"
I'm just giving some reasons for it. Nothing to make a big deal of on your part, really! I mean, if this is all you've got, then you're wasting it on this.
But for your sake, I'll explain it further since you didn't understand what I was saying, and why the use in both posts was about the same thing.
It's mind boggling that Apple would need to do something that has already been done, and that they could get, if they wanted to, whereas, by letting it go, Google would get it instead.
It's the entire concept that's mind boggling. It doesn't even need to be applied to this particular situation.
All I've got.
This from a guy that believes that Apple doesn't have the ability to do it's own payment system. That it's "mind boggling".
I guess Apple should have just sold the other guy's computers, used the other guy's mobile os, used the other guy's mobile phone etc. etc. etc.
Or Apple just does it's own payment system, or buys a company that does something similar for a fraction of the cost. Why buy a company at their highest point? 8 Billion is quite a bit.
That said- it's way more valuable than WhatsApp. Especially at 40% the price. And def. twice as good as Nest.
Why do it? To stop somebody else from doing it, that why.
All Apple need to do is package their version of PayPal Here, make it work nicely and they'll be away. If they could do a tie in with PayPal so you could iMoney to a PayPal account and vice versa, they'd have it all sewn up.
Ichan has been pushing for eBay to split up PayPal. Last I heard just 20% to an IPO. But I would think you get get Paypal for around $10bn. They have a $2bn Ebita. Of course- I've only looked at purchasing companies with 10-200k ebita... so this is quite a bit above my head.
Does Square own any patents or would this purchase only give them customers? If the latter, then $8B is crazy.
They've already implemented a working, elegant solution. It's easy to think a company like Apple could do the same but it all comes down to the staff they have to cover a particular area. Before they had MobileMe, it would be easy to suggest that they could do it themselves rather than buy the DropBox team but look how it turned out doing it in-house.
Look at the features of Square's POS system, how long would it take Apple to build, test and deploy all that:
"While Square usage continues to grow on smartphones, it is growing at a faster rate on iPads: iPad customers now represent nearly 50% of total payments processed by Square. The average payment volume processed by these customers is more than double the average volume processed by Square customers using smartphones."
$8b is a lot to spend because they'd only make 2.5% of the transactions as gross profit, although they could make some on the hardware too but Tim Cook blew $12b in a share buyback in 2 weeks. This certainly seems like a better way to be spending their cash as it has some growth potential. US retail alone topped $100b:
That's a good recurring revenue stream as they make money even when customers buy other products.
Touch id is just one part of the payment system and they can add support in themselves. Everywhere you see a Square stand, they'll support touch id payments.
Many stay for years. That's all Apple needs. They aren't needed forever. And once a company is established, with technology that works, it isn't the founder that's needed anyway, because Apple has a different direction for that company than the founder did as an independant factor. Sometimes, keeping the founder is a hinderance.
Many stay for years? Huh.
Agree with the basic premise of your post tho. Apple may not need (or want) most of 'em after the deal is done and the tech absorbed.
I know 4 friends with business that use Square now.
The only thing they have of worth is the customer base who already is using iPads, iPhones and iPod touches to interface with the product.
Apple's customers.
I can't imagine they have any technology Apple could not replicate. Its a credit card reader with syncing. Its piggy backs off the iPhones wireless for christ sake.
If Apple made a better product, they just might switch if the hardware costs to dont set them back.
If Apple wants a payment system, they should buy an already established one. I feel like Apple is trying to expand too far out. Instead, buy Square or something similar and just integrate it. Trying to build their own may not work out or take a while to gain traction
This from a guy that believes that Apple doesn't have the ability to do it's own payment system. That it's "mind boggling".
I guess Apple should have just sold the other guy's computers, used the other guy's mobile os, used the other guy's mobile phone etc. etc. etc.
Give me a break.
You're making up what I said. Where did I say that "Apple doesn't have the ability to do its own payment system"? I didn't say that anywhere. You're having a bad day.:\
Nope! This would transfer all of the good will Apple has received from companies and individuals using Square with Apple products to Google. Bad idea. If Google moved everything g to Android, no matter what people here think of Android, all of those companies and individuals would eventually have to move from Apple products to Google related products, which is likely one major reason why Google might buy this. It would be a seismic shift. Right now, Apple is the one moving into the payments area through Square, but that will end. And when will Apple,s own solution be ready? Who knows?
But Square's is simple, easy and elegant.
From a business owner's perspective I think it has been unwise of Square to only develop for iOS. Unless there are overriding security concerns. They should also extend their product to Android. One never knows when a bidding war might break out.
From a business owner's perspective I think it has been unwise of Square to only develop for iOS. Unless there are overriding security concerns. They should also extend their product to Android. One never knows when a bidding war might break out.
They support Android- feature sets are identical for Android and iPhone. The only thing that has more options are iOS for iPad.
You're making up what I said. Where did I say that "Apple doesn't have the ability to do its own payment system"? I didn't say that anywhere. You're having a bad day.
Comments
I don't think so. I see Square everywhere I go. I don't see another payment system anywhere. Every vendor I talk to about it is happy with it. Having it fall into Google's hands rather than Apple's hands would be a major shift. So yes, the implications are mind boggling.
Hmmmm... now you change the use of your term "mind boggling".
Makes me wonder.
That's basically it. Apple doesn't need $200 billion, which they will have by the end of the year. I'd much rather they spend some of that on companies than throw it down the black hole of share repurchases, which is money burnt,.
I'm just giving some reasons for it. Nothing to make a big deal of on your part, really! I mean, if this is all you've got, then you're wasting it on this.
But for your sake, I'll explain it further since you didn't understand what I was saying, and why the use in both posts was about the same thing.
It's mind boggling that Apple would need to do something that has already been done, and that they could get, if they wanted to, whereas, by letting it go, Google would get it instead.
It's the entire concept that's mind boggling. It doesn't even need to be applied to this particular situation.
Apple would be crazy not to acquire Square, especially with Cook suggesting one of the reasons for Touch ID was getting into the mobile payments space.
Or Apple just does it's own payment system, or buys a company that does something similar for a fraction of the cost. Why buy a company at their highest point? 8 Billion is quite a bit.
That said- it's way more valuable than WhatsApp. Especially at 40% the price. And def. twice as good as Nest.
I'm just giving some reasons for it. Nothing to make a big deal of on your part, really! I mean, if this is all you've got, then you're wasting it on this.
But for your sake, I'll explain it further since you didn't understand what I was saying, and why the use in both posts was about the same thing.
It's mind boggling that Apple would need to do something that has already been done, and that they could get, if they wanted to, whereas, by letting it go, Google would get it instead.
It's the entire concept that's mind boggling. It doesn't even need to be applied to this particular situation.
All I've got.
This from a guy that believes that Apple doesn't have the ability to do it's own payment system. That it's "mind boggling".
I guess Apple should have just sold the other guy's computers, used the other guy's mobile os, used the other guy's mobile phone etc. etc. etc.
Give me a break.
All Apple need to do is package their version of PayPal Here, make it work nicely and they'll be away. If they could do a tie in with PayPal so you could iMoney to a PayPal account and vice versa, they'd have it all sewn up.
Ichan has been pushing for eBay to split up PayPal. Last I heard just 20% to an IPO. But I would think you get get Paypal for around $10bn. They have a $2bn Ebita. Of course- I've only looked at purchasing companies with 10-200k ebita... so this is quite a bit above my head.
They've already implemented a working, elegant solution. It's easy to think a company like Apple could do the same but it all comes down to the staff they have to cover a particular area. Before they had MobileMe, it would be easy to suggest that they could do it themselves rather than buy the DropBox team but look how it turned out doing it in-house.
Look at the features of Square's POS system, how long would it take Apple to build, test and deploy all that:
https://squareup.com/features
The supplementary hardware is all designed for iPad.
They currently process $15b of transactions per year (excluding Starbucks for some reason):
https://squareup.com/news/releases/2013/square-reinvents-the-register-with-square-stand
"While Square usage continues to grow on smartphones, it is growing at a faster rate on iPads: iPad customers now represent nearly 50% of total payments processed by Square. The average payment volume processed by these customers is more than double the average volume processed by Square customers using smartphones."
$8b is a lot to spend because they'd only make 2.5% of the transactions as gross profit, although they could make some on the hardware too but Tim Cook blew $12b in a share buyback in 2 weeks. This certainly seems like a better way to be spending their cash as it has some growth potential. US retail alone topped $100b:
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/press-releases/2014/pwc-retail-consumer-ma-deal-press-release.jhtml
That's a good recurring revenue stream as they make money even when customers buy other products.
Touch id is just one part of the payment system and they can add support in themselves. Everywhere you see a Square stand, they'll support touch id payments.
Many stay for years? Huh.
Agree with the basic premise of your post tho. Apple may not need (or want) most of 'em after the deal is done and the tech absorbed.
The only thing they have of worth is the customer base who already is using iPads, iPhones and iPod touches to interface with the product.
Apple's customers.
I can't imagine they have any technology Apple could not replicate. Its a credit card reader with syncing. Its piggy backs off the iPhones wireless for christ sake.
If Apple made a better product, they just might switch if the hardware costs to dont set them back.
Thanks!
You're making up what I said. Where did I say that "Apple doesn't have the ability to do its own payment system"? I didn't say that anywhere. You're having a bad day.:\
From a business owner's perspective I think it has been unwise of Square to only develop for iOS. Unless there are overriding security concerns. They should also extend their product to Android. One never knows when a bidding war might break out.
From a business owner's perspective I think it has been unwise of Square to only develop for iOS. Unless there are overriding security concerns. They should also extend their product to Android. One never knows when a bidding war might break out.
They support Android- feature sets are identical for Android and iPhone. The only thing that has more options are iOS for iPad.
You're making up what I said. Where did I say that "Apple doesn't have the ability to do its own payment system"? I didn't say that anywhere. You're having a bad day.
I just thought I'd follow your lead.