Apple sees itself as a company on a mission to make the world better, particularly on an environmental basis but also societally better.
Developing hardware that's more compute efficient and that remains in service longer than the competition serves that goal.
All of its environmental initiatives, from reduced, recycled, environmentally-friendly-sourced packaging to judiciously not shipping charging bricks with new iPhones to powering their facilities with renewables to pushing their suppliers to do the same, all serve that goal.
Tim Cook hinting that Apple will ultimately be remembered not for the iPhone but rather for its efforts in the field of health suggests that Apple has big plans in a direction that has little to do with Disney.
I believe that Apple would admit that content creation (the functioning of film studios) and the supporting marketing and merchandising and even theme park tie-ins that together ultimately make films and series profitable, is not exactly environmentally friendly. I don't see Apple wanting to fund factories that mass-produce Mickey merch. Nope, it's no business for a company like Apple.
I believe that Apple TV+ exists because not having a streaming service leaves an obvious hole in Apple's subscription services line, which extends to its services bundles. Services help keep hardware replacement sales strong, so Apple needs the full suite of subscription services. But I believe that Apple's view, and consequent approach to streaming, is as almost a vanity project. We'll invest enough to provide a minimally acceptable mass of content, keep the subscription price digestible to our customer base who we know will be paying for other streaming services (IOW, we won't burden them too much with the price of ours) and we'll produce content we can be proud of and that will burnish the Apple reputation for quality.
Apple can then spend the majority of its treasure, both financial and intellectual, pursing its goals or reducing its carbon footprint to zero in the near term (did they say by 2030?) and offsetting their entire historical carbon footprint by 2050. To accomplish these goals they need to focus on high value (to society and customers), low impact (to the environment) products and services. An electric vehicle, or services related to efficient transportation would fit those goals. As would a Star Trek tricorder (my way of saying, advanced medical and health technology that replaces legacy technology or processes).
I don't expect to see Apple enter into acquisition talks with Disney, or any other major content creator. Licensing maybe, not acquisition.
My speculation has always been that Apple would/should buy McLaren. Their corporate philosophies are very similar. McLaren is the Apple of the auto business. Apple is the McLaren of the PC business.
And McLaren probably would cost only about $1B which is half of what Apple has already paid for a company that makes wearable speakers.
P.S. Apple copied McLaren's idea of a large circular headquarters on a green campus.
I think maybe the problem here is that people have been watching too many Hollywood franchise movies and reflexively look for oversimplified narratives of the familiar, and so they want Zak, Dhani, James and Sean/Julian to become the New Beatles or worse, Paul and Ringo to join the Rolling Stones in place of Bill Wyman and Charlie Watts, or even worse, iPad and MacBook to merge into an Apple version of the MS Surface. It's like fan-fiction fantasies that are un-imaginitavely convenient narratives, but that in reality would generate unimaginable crap.
My speculation has always been that Apple would/should buy McLaren. Their corporate philosophies are very similar. McLaren is the Apple of the auto business. Apple is the McLaren of the PC business.
And McLaren probably would cost only about $1B which is half of what Apple has already paid for a company that makes wearable speakers.
P.S. Apple copied McLaren's idea of a large circular headquarters on a green campus.
I'd prefer they buy Mazda at $5 billion. They'd get volume and design style that I think fits Apple's design philosophy. Just need to complete the, admittedly slow, transition to EV.
Personally, I think it would be supercool to have $200B in the bank.
Wall Street analysts, on the other hand, see $200B in the bank as a problem to be solved. At various times it has been declared essential that Apple buy Netflix, Disney, Peloton, Tesla, Spotify, Cracker Barrel, Dollar Tree, and a dozen other companies.
It is never about synergy or adding value to Apple. It is that analysts love to pretend-spend Apple’s cash pile.
Apple will take a chunk of that cash and buy back shares. Not $200B worth, but tens of millions of dollars worth. It will make 12 invisible purchases of smaller tech companies that we won’t even know about until someone notices the status change on the LinkedIn profile of the CEO of the company Apple purchased. It may elect to boost the spending on production of ATV+ programming in 2024 by $2B to $5B.
Having that cash set aside gives the company the luxury to develop products and buy smaller companies without causing a ripple in the marketplace. Apple is a company which operates on stealth and prizes privacy, so this is optimal for its MO. The stock buyback(s) will placate the “give the money back to the shareholders” crowd (and I am a shareholder), but having a Scrooge McDuck vault of coins is the best way for Apple to do what it does.
If Apple make any large acquisition they should buy Sony. Sony could offer so much IP, not just media, but gaming, home electronics, and a ton of other technologies including display and camera.
Yeah, I think the regulatory challenges this would create is great for the legal community, but not very good for Apple or Sony.
I don’t hate the idea of buying Mazda, it is just that Apple would be wedded to servicing ICE vehicles into the next decade—Mazda continues to build gas-powered cars, and Mazda is required to keep parts on hand for 7 years after the production stops on that model. Plus Apple would have to deal with the politics and nonsense of a dealer network.
If Apple was going to go that route—and I would bet the farm they’re not—a company like Rivian or Canoo would make more sense. No legacy products to service, just an acquihire of talented engineers and some proprietary IP to integrate into the mythical Apple Car, along with manufacturing facilities already in place, plus no dealer networks. Rivian would cost 2.5x the price of Mazda, but the company would give more to Apple.
The rumored Apple Car is supposedly Level 3 and perhaps even driverless, so Rivian would involve a vision of transportation Apple wouldn’t want. Canoo’s value would be in its skateboard and engineering.
I don’t hate the idea of buying Mazda, it is just that Apple would be wedded to servicing ICE vehicles into the next decade—Mazda continues to build gas-powered cars, and Mazda is required to keep parts on hand for 7 years after the production stops on that model. Plus Apple would have to deal with the politics and nonsense of a dealer network.
If Apple was going to go that route—and I would bet the farm they’re not—a company like Rivian or Canoo would make more sense. No legacy products to service, just an acquihire of talented engineers and some proprietary IP to integrate into the mythical Apple Car, along with manufacturing facilities already in place, plus no dealer networks. Rivian would cost 2.5x the price of Mazda, but the company would give more to Apple.
The rumored Apple Car is supposedly Level 3 and perhaps even driverless, so Rivian would involve a vision of transportation Apple wouldn’t want. Canoo’s value would be in its skateboard and engineering.
You know—in that deal they’re never going to do.
You're correct on Canoo. It would be a much better match as a acquihire for IP and personnel.
IMO, the VW ID Buzz is the EV that best embraces the "Apple Lifestyle", but that doesn't mean Apple should buy VW, which could be had for something over $70B.
If Apple make any large acquisition they should buy Sony. Sony could offer so much IP, not just media, but gaming, home electronics, and a ton of other technologies including display and camera.
It's very unlikely that Apple could or would acquire any large Japanese company, but if they were to acquire any Japanese company, the one to buy would be Nikon.
If Apple make any large acquisition they should buy Sony. Sony could offer so much IP, not just media, but gaming, home electronics, and a ton of other technologies including display and camera.
It's very unlikely that Apple could or would acquire any large Japanese company, but if they were to acquire any Japanese company, the one to buy would be Nikon.
Why, what would Nikon bring to the table? They don't design sensors, and have no experience with smartphones. AFAIK they don't even have business interests outside of standalone cameras and lenses. Anything of value they have is surpassed by Canon or Sony, both of whom have subsidiaries involved in other technologies that Apple might have use for.
But I agree with you that none of them seem like a good match for Apple, and very unlikely to be acquisition targets.
If Apple make any large acquisition they should buy Sony. Sony could offer so much IP, not just media, but gaming, home electronics, and a ton of other technologies including display and camera.
It's very unlikely that Apple could or would acquire any large Japanese company, but if they were to acquire any Japanese company, the one to buy would be Nikon.
Why, what would Nikon bring to the table? They don't design sensors, and have no experience with smartphones. AFAIK they don't even have business interests outside of standalone cameras and lenses. Anything of value they have is surpassed by Canon or Sony, both of whom have subsidiaries involved in other technologies that Apple might have use for.
But I agree with you that none of them seem like a good match for Apple, and very unlikely to be acquisition targets.
You're kidding, right? Nikon absolutely designs sensors, they just don't fab them (although, they make equipment used for fabbing sensors). And, seriously, does Apple really need to acquire "experience with smartphones?"
Most people are not as familiar with Nikon's other lines of business: https://www.nikon.com/business/ . Some of these might not be of that much interest to Apple, but some of them might be.
But just the camera and optics lines of business are something that Apple could do amazing things with, not necessarily or exactly in the computing realm (although with crossover) but in a not entirely unrelated or novel sphere. Nikon, is, BTW, ahead of Canon and Sony in these areas, and the other difference is that they are not encumbered with hundreds, if not thousands, of products and lines of business that have zero interest for Apple. Basically, of the three, Nikon would be the most attractive acquisition because it's the most focused.
It will never happen, not because Nikon has no value for Apple, but because the Japanese banks and other entities that own and control Nikon would never sell it to an American company.
Maybe not buy them, but invest like Microsoft did to save Apple. Disney is in deep financial trouble with the approaching requirement to buy Hulu. And the streaming losses.
Maybe not buy them, but invest like Microsoft did to save Apple. Disney is in deep financial trouble with the approaching requirement to buy Hulu. And the streaming losses.
Microsoft DID NOT "invest" to "save Apple". Microsoft was settling with Apple because they'd gotten caught copying QuickTime code into Video for Windoze.
Apple will only want Disney studios and their treasure trove of patents in AI and visual effects. However Disney won't not be willing to let go of that department alone.
Buying Disney is not a good idea. Apple is a tech company. Trying to be everything to everyone is a recipe for failure in the future. Just look at a company that lost its focus like General Electric under Jack Welch.... This story is not unique and yes history does seem to repeat itself.
Comments
Tim Cook hinting that Apple will ultimately be remembered not for the iPhone but rather for its efforts in the field of health suggests that Apple has big plans in a direction that has little to do with Disney.
I believe that Apple TV+ exists because not having a streaming service leaves an obvious hole in Apple's subscription services line, which extends to its services bundles. Services help keep hardware replacement sales strong, so Apple needs the full suite of subscription services. But I believe that Apple's view, and consequent approach to streaming, is as almost a vanity project. We'll invest enough to provide a minimally acceptable mass of content, keep the subscription price digestible to our customer base who we know will be paying for other streaming services (IOW, we won't burden them too much with the price of ours) and we'll produce content we can be proud of and that will burnish the Apple reputation for quality.
I don't expect to see Apple enter into acquisition talks with Disney, or any other major content creator. Licensing maybe, not acquisition.
And McLaren probably would cost only about $1B which is half of what Apple has already paid for a company that makes wearable speakers.
P.S. Apple copied McLaren's idea of a large circular headquarters on a green campus.
Wall Street analysts, on the other hand, see $200B in the bank as a problem to be solved. At various times it has been declared essential that Apple buy Netflix, Disney, Peloton, Tesla, Spotify, Cracker Barrel, Dollar Tree, and a dozen other companies.
It is never about synergy or adding value to Apple. It is that analysts love to pretend-spend Apple’s cash pile.
Apple will take a chunk of that cash and buy back shares. Not $200B worth, but tens of millions of dollars worth. It will make 12 invisible purchases of smaller tech companies that we won’t even know about until someone notices the status change on the LinkedIn profile of the CEO of the company Apple purchased. It may elect to boost the spending on production of ATV+ programming in 2024 by $2B to $5B.
Having that cash set aside gives the company the luxury to develop products and buy smaller companies without causing a ripple in the marketplace. Apple is a company which operates on stealth and prizes privacy, so this is optimal for its MO. The stock buyback(s) will placate the “give the money back to the shareholders” crowd (and I am a shareholder), but having a Scrooge McDuck vault of coins is the best way for Apple to do what it does.
If Apple was going to go that route—and I would bet the farm they’re not—a company like Rivian or Canoo would make more sense. No legacy products to service, just an acquihire of talented engineers and some proprietary IP to integrate into the mythical Apple Car, along with manufacturing facilities already in place, plus no dealer networks. Rivian would cost 2.5x the price of Mazda, but the company would give more to Apple.
The rumored Apple Car is supposedly Level 3 and perhaps even driverless, so Rivian would involve a vision of transportation Apple wouldn’t want. Canoo’s value would be in its skateboard and engineering.
You know—in that deal they’re never going to do.
IMO, the VW ID Buzz is the EV that best embraces the "Apple Lifestyle", but that doesn't mean Apple should buy VW, which could be had for something over $70B.
https://www.autoweek.com/car-life/classic-cars/g44081653/historic-vw-vans-displayed-for-vw-id-buzz-launch/
But I agree with you that none of them seem like a good match for Apple, and very unlikely to be acquisition targets.
Perhaps you're familiar with at least some of Nikon's consumer products: https://www.nikon.com/consumer/ .
Most people are not as familiar with Nikon's other lines of business: https://www.nikon.com/business/ . Some of these might not be of that much interest to Apple, but some of them might be.
But just the camera and optics lines of business are something that Apple could do amazing things with, not necessarily or exactly in the computing realm (although with crossover) but in a not entirely unrelated or novel sphere. Nikon, is, BTW, ahead of Canon and Sony in these areas, and the other difference is that they are not encumbered with hundreds, if not thousands, of products and lines of business that have zero interest for Apple. Basically, of the three, Nikon would be the most attractive acquisition because it's the most focused.
It will never happen, not because Nikon has no value for Apple, but because the Japanese banks and other entities that own and control Nikon would never sell it to an American company.