4 ms·
2 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money to me. Apple could use, say, a third of its cash and own the entire music industry outright? not that the labels wo
by jfoutz 15y ago
2 billion doesn't sound like a lot of money to me.
Apple could use, say, a third of its cash and own the entire music industry outright? not that the labels would ever sell, but still. amazing how tiny that industry is given how much noise it makes.
- masklinn 15y ago> 2 billion A bit above $4bn total, according to the article: "recorded music unit" goes to Universal for $1.9bn (£1.2bn), "music publishing unit" goes to a consortium led by Sony for above $2bn. EMI had been bought by its (now insolvent) owner in 2007 for $4.2bn, although it was apparently widely overpriced. > Apple could use, say, a third of its cash and own the entire music industry outright? Maybe less than that, a third of their cash reserves would be what these days, $26bn? The regulatory agencies would also have to agree, of course.
- nknight 15y agoNo point. Apple has been contributing to the death of the big labels for years, both through iTunes, which artists big and small can use, and by putting high-quality hardware and software suitable for production into the hands of the little guy. The business models are fundamentally opposed, and Apple's is winning. Buying the big labels wouldn't change that, it'd just be throwing a bunch of money at shareholders who hung on too long.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mwsherman 15y agoI am not sure what their incentives would be. Certain, they don't want the labels as businesses, which can only shrink. Their back catalogues have value, but Apple could just license them ad hoc.