3 ms·

$150 mil is 0.25% (1/4 of 1%) of Apple's cash & cash equivalents. They have so much cash it's absurd -- sometimes I wonder why Apple doesn't just buy all the m

by rmah 15y ago

$150 mil is 0.25% (1/4 of 1%) of Apple's cash & cash equivalents. They have so much cash it's absurd -- sometimes I wonder why Apple doesn't just buy all the major music labels (they could easily do it). [Edit] This was a joke! Jeez.

MatthewPhillips 15y ago
Wouldn't pass regulation.
roc 15y ago
Apple trying to buy any large content company would kick up the vertical integration concerns from the FCC that NBC/Comcast should have. Buying multiple content companies would be right out.
- ChrisLTD 15y ago
  There is already some precedence for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment
ctdonath 15y ago
Companies fail when they deviate from their core purpose. Apple's purpose is to sell "walled garden" hardware. Taking over the music industry is too big a move to remain focused on selling their hardware.
- nahlyee 15y ago
  Isn't iTunes the largest retail music outlet (more music sales than Walmart)?
- smackfu 15y ago
  The former Apple Computer Inc. isn't really the best example of that. They make an awful lot of money selling music and apps nowadays.
  - mbreese 15y ago
    They dropped "Computer" from their name awhile ago, just for that reason.
- jessedhillon 15y ago
  If you consider that Apple's core business is to sell a belief about themselves and their users, there isn't a conflict. People don't buy Apple stuff because of what it is -- the identical hardware can be bought for sometimes 50% cheaper from other stores/manufacturers. People buy because of the perception that Apple has values which are aligned with their own. The most visible value is that Apple challenges the state of normalcy in whatever industry they enter, that they oppose the status quo. This is a perception, it doesn't necessarily align with the reality of their actions (for example, how is it opposing the status quo to pay the labels' extortion fees?) You don't have to agree with it -- that is, you don't have to believe that Apple actually challenges anything -- but you should at least understand how they sell themselves and how that drives their business. If you simply examine Apple on the basis of the products they sell, you can't develop a consistent theory that explains their success (IMHO). Look at the commercial for the Playbook, it focuses on what the actual hardware/OS can do: run multiple apps at the same time, browse with Flash, etc. At the same time, the iPad commercial focuses on how amazed you'll be, and how much potential it has to change the future. It's audacious -- could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if RIM billed the Playbook as "just getting started"? That's not RIM, they're not visionaries and they've never sold themselves as such. They sell themselves as people who sell enterprise solutions -- i.e., they identify themselves with what they make. You have to consider that Apple primarily sells a belief, and secondarily sells products which demonstrate that they implement those beliefs. I would modify your initial statement -- companies fail when they are reduced to selling commodities, instead of following their values. Dell and HP sell commodities, but Apple takes that same hardware (laptops, desktops, MP3 players, tablets) and turns it into gold, because they sell users the perception of following their values. (If you liked the foregoing analysis, it's largely influenced by the writings of Simon Sinek in Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-Everyone/dp/1591842808 http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-Everyone/dp/...)
tptacek 15y ago
One reason Apple doesn't buy all the major music labels is that they can't; the second largest label is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony. Another reason is that the largest label (UMG) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi. There may be a parallel universe where Apple could finance a takeover of Vivendi, but that would leave Apple responsible for the P&L of television networks, film studios, World Wrestling Entertainment, Activision/Blizzard, and several phone companies. A final, obvious reason why Apple doesn't buy all the major labels is that it's a dumb bet. Of all possible suitors for any major label, what company would see a music label as less valuable than Apple?

by rmah 15y ago

MatthewPhillips 15y ago

Wouldn't pass regulation.

roc 15y ago

Apple trying to buy any large content company would kick up the vertical integration concerns from the FCC that NBC/Comcast should have. Buying multiple content companies would be right out.

ChrisLTD 15y ago
There is already some precedence for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment

ctdonath 15y ago

Companies fail when they deviate from their core purpose. Apple's purpose is to sell "walled garden" hardware. Taking over the music industry is too big a move to remain focused on selling their hardware.

nahlyee 15y ago
Isn't iTunes the largest retail music outlet (more music sales than Walmart)?
smackfu 15y ago
The former Apple Computer Inc. isn't really the best example of that. They make an awful lot of money selling music and apps nowadays.
- mbreese 15y ago
  They dropped "Computer" from their name awhile ago, just for that reason.
jessedhillon 15y ago
If you consider that Apple's core business is to sell a belief about themselves and their users, there isn't a conflict. People don't buy Apple stuff because of what it is -- the identical hardware can be bought for sometimes 50% cheaper from other stores/manufacturers. People buy because of the perception that Apple has values which are aligned with their own. The most visible value is that Apple challenges the state of normalcy in whatever industry they enter, that they oppose the status quo. This is a perception, it doesn't necessarily align with the reality of their actions (for example, how is it opposing the status quo to pay the labels' extortion fees?) You don't have to agree with it -- that is, you don't have to believe that Apple actually challenges anything -- but you should at least understand how they sell themselves and how that drives their business. If you simply examine Apple on the basis of the products they sell, you can't develop a consistent theory that explains their success (IMHO). Look at the commercial for the Playbook, it focuses on what the actual hardware/OS can do: run multiple apps at the same time, browse with Flash, etc. At the same time, the iPad commercial focuses on how amazed you'll be, and how much potential it has to change the future. It's audacious -- could you imagine how ridiculous it would sound if RIM billed the Playbook as "just getting started"? That's not RIM, they're not visionaries and they've never sold themselves as such. They sell themselves as people who sell enterprise solutions -- i.e., they identify themselves with what they make. You have to consider that Apple primarily sells a belief, and secondarily sells products which demonstrate that they implement those beliefs. I would modify your initial statement -- companies fail when they are reduced to selling commodities, instead of following their values. Dell and HP sell commodities, but Apple takes that same hardware (laptops, desktops, MP3 players, tablets) and turns it into gold, because they sell users the perception of following their values. (If you liked the foregoing analysis, it's largely influenced by the writings of Simon Sinek in Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone To Take Action http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-Everyone/dp/1591842808 http://www.amazon.com/Start-Why-Leaders-Inspire-Everyone/dp/...)

tptacek 15y ago

One reason Apple doesn't buy all the major music labels is that they can't; the second largest label is a wholly owned subsidiary of Sony. Another reason is that the largest label (UMG) is a wholly owned subsidiary of Vivendi. There may be a parallel universe where Apple could finance a takeover of Vivendi, but that would leave Apple responsible for the P&L of television networks, film studios, World Wrestling Entertainment, Activision/Blizzard, and several phone companies. A final, obvious reason why Apple doesn't buy all the major labels is that it's a dumb bet. Of all possible suitors for any major label, what company would see a music label as less valuable than Apple?