Slashdot Mirror
Apple Posts Earnings, Denies Bid for Universal
Lars T. writes "A number of things: Apple posts Q2 results, and denies it bid for Universial Music. Now a Register article quotes a Reuters article that 'Vivendi Universal director Claude Bebear didn't express his views on the merger talks between Vivendi's Universal Music Group (UMG) and Apple,' which was the claim of the Bloomberg article. Now who needs General Hospital?"
I wonder what how the stock of vivendi and apple changed after the LA times announced the alleged talks of apple's plan to purchase vivendi...Seems like a pretty big announcement to simply be a rumor.
With the Ipod and itunes and all, I thought it would only be a matter of time until Apple got involved with a record label. I'm actually a little disappointed that this was all just speculation.
The anti-salmon
Note that Jobs only denies that they made an offer, which may well mean that Apple was/still are in talks with Universal...
But my policy is to comment as egregiously as possible on rumors.
When did the future switch from being a promise to a threat? -C. Palahniuk
..can rarely be trusted.
What company every admitted to a buyout or merger before it was actually announced.
Take Bungie for instance.. The very night before their buyout by Microsoft was announced, they were denying that there was anything even on the table.
It's common in the light-speed internet news world for one news agency to use another agency's article as the source of a story (and sometimes, without doing any fact/validation checking).
It happens all the time. Journalistic practices have gone way downhill since the web. Many stories on the web are obviously not reviewed by an editor. Heck, some aren't even spell checked. We're talking about major news networks too, like CNN, Fox, etc. CNN is one of the worst. BBC appears to be one of the better ones.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
There's less software on store shelves, but 3/4 of that windows software is crappy clones of better programs, most of which either have mac counterparts, or which exist for the mac as well. There are definitely some programs (and games) for which mac versions are lacking, but most of those are special interest programs, and don't make the platform worthless.
I don't think for most people it's just some sort of compulsive urge to use the mainstream, it's just a belief that the mainstream is not the best choice available.
I don't use a Mac because I dislike windows. I dislike windows because I have used a mac.
Did you read the article??
For the quarter, the Company posted a net profit of $14 million, or $.04 per diluted share.These results compare to a net profit of $40 million, or $.11 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Revenues for the quarter were $1.475 billion
Those are not good numbers. That's a net of less than 1%. I'm not saying they're dying, but those are not good numbers. Are you willing to buy a piece of a company with numbers like this?
Apple's machines have always been better than the rest for a lot of reasons, but the number one reason is integration. That brings a seamless user experience, which in turn allows the user to operate more efficiently, which is where speed really counts.
Processor speed is secondary to user speed.
Until another company decides to build both the OS AND the hardware (don't hold your breath), the personal computer industry will continue to do what it has done since the very beginning - try to keep up with Apple.
Apple makes other products...which they definately profit from.
I dont know to what extend macs even play in their gross income
[I can picture a world without war, without hate. I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it]
I straddle both camps - I run a linux machine, and I truly enjoy the playing with settings, seeing how the OS works underneath, running it as a 24/7 workhorse. It appeals to the geek in me
:)
There's a level of something else that the iMac I own appeals to me on, as well. Perhaps it's a consistent plain style. All the apps look the same, work the same, and truly I can use the machine and turn my brain off, and still get things done. It doesn't mean it's stupid; just that it's a bit like driving an automatic car on 100% clean sealed roads with the mac, compared to rough-dirt track driving with the linux SUV. Both are pleasurable for entirely different reasons.
Windows is like driving a broken pinto.
That's an analogy that probably breaks down on several levels, but you should get the rough idea
Enron: Kenny Lay tells his employees that the company is stable and fiscially sound.
Immediately before speaking before his company he sold almost all his stock in Enron, saving his butt from the financial fallout soon to come.
2...
3....Profit!!
Well, I haven't bought one for myself yet. But I will and it's for the same reason I bought a DeWalt drill insead of the much cheaper Skil drill: the quality of construction in both design and function.
The Macs aren't so much more expensive than Wintel gear anymore that the cost can't be justified based on aesthetics or 'ease of use.' I use a Mac everyday, I'm comfortable with it. I've used Windows (various versions) and there's just something unsettling about the interface and configuring it is a nightmare (my girlfriend's XP box is nothing but frustration, I prefer Win98 to that). I use Linux at home for now. It works but it can be a pain. I find myself messing with configurations more than using it for anything.
Macs are smooth but still have the power.
Sounds like when a guy in the office told me that Windows "Has more w4r3z." The reason for more "w4r3z" on Windows is manifold: 1) Bigger market share 2) Less competent developers. There must be 15-20 shareware programs to stitch images into .AVI files, but I have to say that none of them work in a sensible manner. Then you have dozens of applications that don't even follow the windows UI spec, or [Creative Labs] apps that throw out the entire widget set and roll their own.
Keep your w4r3z. I don't want them.
Heute die Welt, morgen das Sonnensystem!
How about you stick to professing on subjects you truly have some level of expertise on and let those of us that perform these tasks every day prognisticate on which tools best perform tasks, what say? Oops, I see... You're just a petty troll. Carry on...
I hate Grammar Nazi's
I don't consider myself a "Machead" but if you really want to know why someone would purchase a Macintosh I'll give you my answer. There are really just two main reasons:
1) I've worked extensively in both Macintosh and Windows environments. My experience has been that, for me, the Mac is significantly preferable to work with.
2) The practices of Microsoft are so vile and repellent that I resist supporting them in any way. (And in my profession, the graphic arts, open source software isn't a viable alternative.)
Unix with a good stable GUI.
:)
:)
Don't get me wrong, I like GNOME a lot and use both it and KDE (also pretty good) at work all the time. However, anyone who thinks those two are even comparable to OSX (or even windows 2000 or above) in terms of ease of use, stability, etc is deluding themselves. They have a LONG way to go, however I do not doubt they will be there someday soon.
The Mac is slower, although really the difference between a 1GHz and 3GHz x86 machine means nothing to me. I have consoles for gaming, so what the heck do I need that performance for (that said, my 800Mhz imac plays q3a, civ3, and warcraft3 just fine). I'm a programmer who browses the web, does email and im, and occationally needs to use openoffice for stuff, it isn't like I'm calculating pi to a million decimal places or rendering the fightscenes for the next LOTR film
Everyone fights over the difference in speed, so let me throw my opinion in. My 800Mhz G4 iMac performs almost EXACTLY like my IBM 1.2GHz laptop (except for graphics, the iMac blows the laptop out of the water on that). Either way, I never feel like I need more speed on either. Other than bragging rights, I really wouldn't have much of a use for it.
Plus it is good to learn as many platforms as possible, are you telling me you just pick one OS and don't bother investigating and learning anything else?
So I guess to answer your question, I don't consider raw MHz to be the only benchmark with which to measure a computer's utility. I run a Mac at home because to me it is worth the tradeoff in raw speed to have a really clean, polished GUI on top of a unix box.
Finkployd
Really, there isn't. They make some great products. If they weren't so great, why does the rest of the industry copy them?
I've always bought Macs for my own use, even when I was a poor student, because they just work better. I'm not impressed by huge volumes of crappy applications. I simply want to get my work done. The Mac does that without getting in the way.
You can, and will, find people for whom the Mac gets in the way all the time. However you will also find people driving on the streets who shouldn't be allowed to even think about owning a car. That being said, I've NEVER used a version of Windows that integrated as fluidly with my work as my Macs. The OS should never get in the way of getting the work done. Windows frequently intrudes into my work space.
Why are most Mac Users insanely loyal? Because there is nothing else out there that works this well. Now that OS X has a BSD core, it's even better suited to me. In fact, I've been considering replacing my Employer provided PC with a Mac out of my own pocket, because my PC interferes with my work flow too much. Linux is almost there. I'd be using it on my work PC right now if I could get Lotus Notes to run, but Wine doesn't work for anything much beyond mail in Notes 6. However, there is a version of Notes for OS X.
You can have my Macs when you pry them from my cold dead hands.
"The avalanch has already started, it is too late for the pebbles to vote." -Kosh
Macheads with the computer world so very Windows focused why do you still buy macs?
Have you ever used a Mac? And I mean, really used one, and not just screwed around with it for 2 minutes?
If you did, you'd answer your own question.
And probably be trying to think of ways to save up to buy a new Mac.
Do you _really_ want Apple to buy a record label? Before you answer, think about Sony:
Back before the whole Betamax episode, Sony was just a tech company -- and a good one at that. But after losing to VHS, the executives thought that if they had had a media company under roof, they could have used the clout of that media library to push forward their own technology. So they bought Columbia.
Now maybe it was a smart move -- Sony Pictures made a heck of a lot of cash last year on movies like Spiderman. But have we really seen the marriage between tech and media that was promised? Moreover, Sony has often had internal turmoil due to the conflicting interests of Sony Pictures/Music and Sony Electronics. Many think it should have been Sony who came up with the iPod. I mean think about it, it's the next generation "walkman." The fact that Apple came up with it scares Sony to death. But do you think they could have produced it while holding interests in these large media corporations?
I'm not sure if the same fate would befall Apple if they took on a media company, but I would hate to see them (again) lose focus. Apple is a great tech company and Jobs seems to know what it is that Apple does best and right. Sometimes the smartest move is to keep it that way.
Who said Freedom was Fair?
I agree with the huge number of repetetive programs.
Yes, there are thousands of programs available on the PC that aren't on the Mac.
Here are a few of the reasons there are more titles available on PC:
Deer Hunter 1-5 (Note: I've played this. I have friends who hunt who've played this. It's like hunting in Oregon Trail, without the rest of the game...)
Big Game Hunter 1-4
Bird Hunter 1-3
Barbie's 43,000,000,000 pink programs.
Solitaire - not the different kinds, the 18,000 versions of Klondike.
---
Macs have never needed 18,000 versions of Klondike. I have used 2 versions of Klondike on Macs - the first was designed for the original Macintosh. It worked properly through OS 9. That's over a decade of use for a single program, across six substantial changes to the operating system, eight different processors encompassing two architectures.
I understand variety offers choice, but there is something to be said for simplicity.
That what was all this school was for... to teach us how to solve our own problems. -- janeowit
The majority of Hanes-wearers probably think: "WTF? It's a T-shirt?" and can't/won't perceive the less-obvious advantages of a 'designer' shirt.
(for the record: no, I'm not gay - My designer-clothes-wearin' girlfriend's been 'breaking my spirit' over the last 2 years
I hate Grammar Nazi's