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?"
Every quarter that Apple posts a profit is just another nail in the coffin of that dying company.
Oh wait..
Trolling is a art,
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
I glanced at the headline and thought it said "Apple Posts Earnings, Denies Bid for Universe". Then I realized I read it incorrectly, the article was about Apple, not Microsoft.
ich muß mehr Kuhglocke haben
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.
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.
Lately, how is making any profit at all bad? For a "dying company", they seem to be one of the few that aren't posting losses. As long as they're at least breaking even, I'd be happy to (and have) buy a piece of Apple.
Happiness is like peeing yourself. Everybody can see it but only you can feel its warmth.
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.
That's not what I heard at all. I have a friend who works at an Apple store. And she said they got a new shipment of boxes... Big boxes! And they don't know what's inside! Her other friend there who knnows the regional manager said it was Universal Music. So there!
Hansel USA - Chut up and read!
That said, I own 2 Macs. A G3 tower (which I popped a G4 CPU into after accidentally cooking the original), and a fairly recent (last August) iBook.
I'm not a Mac Bigot by any stretch of the imagination. I also own a Duron box which I built for Windows gaming, and two Linux servers which are cheerfully humming away in my back closet.
Why do we continue to buy Macs? Well, it's kind of like getting a better S/N ratio on a radio... I have far fewer headaches and glitches per productive activity when working on my Macs than on any other computer. My Windows box is a contant nightmare of driver, library, and registry issues, and my Linux boxen (while very robust) were a major pain in the ass to get set up with all the server apps I wanted. My iBook has taken over as my main computer for 90% of the tasks I do: programming, surfing, writing, etc. It's not even as fast as my desktop Mac, which is a smidge slower than my Duron box, but the lack of raw CPU speed is more than made up for by the fact that the "it just works" meme is not just marketing hype. I get shit done faster on the iBook, it's as simple as that. If you gave me a top-of-the-line Windows laptop for my birthday, I would probably sell it on eBay and continue to use my humble little iBook.
I've had friends insist to me that Windows stability is "not that bad," and claim that I must be doing something wrong, because their system works like a champ... but then I sit in their office for 20 minutes and watch them work, and sure enough they run into a technical glitch that I would never accept on my Mac, and shrug it off like nothing happened, because that's what working with computers is like in their world.
Then there's the tale of the two elderly female relatives. One was given a PC by my father, the other received a Mac from me. Starting out, they were both uncomfortable with technology, but the one who got the PC was generally more adept and motivated to learn. It's now a few years later, and the PC user hardly ever turns it on, and on those rare occations is still as likely to need to call me to get anything done as not. Meanwhile, the Mac user replaced the old hand-me-down Macintosh IIci that I gave her with a brand-new iMac, which she uses every day. She almost never needs my help with anything (the last problem she had was with an Epson printer about a month ago), and she's accomplishing stuff I never would have guessed she would have accomplished.
I would not reccomend Macs to every geek here on Slashdot, but based on my experiences, I would not reccomend anything else to a non-geek, ever... at least not as long as I'm the one they are going to call for help.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
In all three cases, they've actually rewritten their stories to reflect my bitching, at least in some minor ways. Amazing, huh? They responded, and actually rewrote copy, within a few hours.
On the one hand, how responsive they really are -- very cool, better than traditional papers by far and faster than, oh, a certain source of News for Nerds I can think of... ever try to get a headline changed?
But was there adequate editorial oversight, if one reader is capable of influencing them this much? These weren't even rush stories; they were more like the sort of thing where the "reporting" was largely transcribing chunks of a press release. They're rushing the stories up, even at the BBC.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Heck, I got nothin better to do for the next few minutes, so I'll bite...
:p) and run an upgrade.
:p).
They cost more.
You also get more. Firewire, DVD-R, gigabit ethernet. ON A 15" LAPTOP. THAT WEIGHS LESS THAN 6 LBS, INCLUDING BATTERY.
Audis cost more than Fords.
They are generally slower (I know this is getting better everytime they make the consumer cough up money for a new version Mac OS X).
Apple has been using the same 3D chipsets as PCs for a few years now (ATI, nVidia), and was in fact first with the GeForce 3. Apple doesn't have the benefits (and drawbacks) of the PC parts bin, though in the last few years they've improved this somewhat, by incorporating the aforementioned 3D components, as well as PC-standard RAM, PCI, etc. Therefore, games such as Quake, Warcraft III, et al. run pretty nicely.
The only performance gripes I have relate to DVD ripping. For my needs, anything over 400MHz with a decent 3D accelerator is perfectly adequate.
Oh, and Apple don't play dat DRM garbage (yet), so in theory you could grab an ISO file from a friend who works in a Mac shop, download it over the complimentary ethernet provided by your Vancouver hotel room, burn it on your laptop (after paying the Canadian CD tax
In theory.
There is less software available in the retail markets.
There's more 'shrinkwrap'ware for OSX than there is for Linux. Not that I particularly care, but it's nice to see that games are available within a reasonable timeframe for OSX these days. Linux doesn't have nearly as much in the way of native apps, and you have to hope and pray that the games work with WineX (lessn you have the spare time to hack WineX, which in this economy you may have
BTW, which Linux app did you use to do and file your taxes this year? I used TaxCut for Mac, and it couldn't have been easier. Saved me HOURS. I would have gotten TurboTax, but Intuit's DRM junk turned me off.
I am actually curious.
Hey, I'm curious about this: Why, if the PC world is so 'innovative', do they steal so much from Apple? People building systems these days don't bother with a floppy: Apple took that chance in 1998. Remember when USB was suffering from the 'chicken and egg' problem Bluetooth is now? Apple solved that problem by ditching ADB and serial ports outright (and in the process pissing off LOTS of the faithful, but it was the technically correct thing to do), with PCs eventually catching up. Bluetooth: bastard stepchild of wireless, but I would bet it grows now that Apple has started installing it standard across the line in new systems. GL-rendered, accelerated GUI? Maybe in the next M$OS, maybe someday down the line in XFree (or implemented kludgily per app), included NOW for Jaguar. Rendezvous == Zeroconf, and now that Apple's in the game, look for Linux to start incorporating interesting zeroconf stuff, followed by Microsoft (lessn they try to do their own NetBEUI-equivalent garbage).
Apple innovates in both hardware and software. Microsoft doesn't. Linux to some extent does, but not in any coherent fashion, at least as far as desktops go.
Macheads with the computer world so very Windows focused why do you still buy macs?
Because my time is worth more? Because standard PeeCee junk is an affront to any decent aesthetic? Because I don't want to have to futz with DLLs or LD_LIBRARY_PATHs, macro viruses, flaky windowing systems or schizophrenic hardware driver situations?
I can build a really slick linux box out of odd parts and get it working smoothly. I did so for my most recent job: Mandrake on an NForce1 micro-ATX box. I tilted my lance at NVidia's proprietary X and kernel drivers (to get the ethernet, sound and IDE working properly). I spent several hours on this, but I was paid to do it and the result is a blazingly-fast AMD Linux box.
For my personal life, where I'm not getting PAID for th
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
It honestly defies all conventional wisdom that a company set beside a large monopoly can still survive with a profit and imbue such incredible loyalty from its consumer base. If there were a couple of big players and Apple was a niche player in left field it would be different. But still..
.......the damn thing just works. I can't explain it entirely, but the user experience is beautiful and everything I have tried to do........just seems to work."
Most likely because they truly have driven innovation in the personal computer market. We could go on and on, but Apple created the portable format that we now use (keyboard in back, wristpads in front), were the first company to: ship CD-ROM drives in computers (remember installing Office on floppies)? They were the first company to ship USB standard, they created and shipped Firewire, they were the first company to ship with plug and play interface card slots (NUBUS), were the first company to ship their computers with built in networking (presaging the internet future by years), they were the first company to ship a GUI, the first company to ship WYSIWYG printing, the first company to ship a laser printer, etc...etc...etc... We could go on and on all day here, but you get my point.
They cost more.
Actually, I just priced out a couple of machines to replace imaging workstations here in the lab with a preference for the Mac, but a limited budget. To my surprise, the Macs were less expensive than Dell, HP or even our local grey box builder.
hey are generally slower (I know this is getting better everytime they make the consumer cough up money for a new version Mac OS X).
I cannot argue here. I have a new P4 and a new dual G4 sitting in my lab and the P4 is generally faster at most tasks than the G4. However, for code that is Altivec optimized, there is no comparison. The G4 sweeps the floor with the P4 with bioinformatics programs and others that are Altivec optimized. Additionally, I should say that OS X does make for a more efficient workflow and I am much more productive on it than in other environments.
I am actually curious. Macheads with the computer world so very Windows focused why do you still buy macs?
I suppose that someone could write a dissertation on the differences and the ideological approaches to solving the same problems that Apple and Microsoft have taken, but Apple computers simply work and tend to be much more flexible and provide a better return on investment.
I have used a variety of computer platforms in my life including Solaris, IRIX, Windows and the MacOS, and I always seem to come back to the Macintosh. It's just better here. Especially with OS X. I can have cli living right along with the GUI and x-windows allowing me to run all of my code on one machine. When I got the G4, I replaced a Wintel box, an SGI and an older Mac with one elegant box with the most beautiful flat panel display I have ever seen and I've not looked back.
To give you an idea of anothers experience, let me relate a story of my neighbor accross the street. This guy is a VP at a local bioinformatics company here and just purchased a 17in iMac for his home after using Wintel PC's for years. I asked him the other day how things were going and he replied ".......Well,
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Actually it was Apple Records (of Beatles fame). They settled out of court.
As many people pointed out IF (big, big if) Apple bought Universal, the music would be kept under the brand name Universal. Apple wouldn't be competing with Apple Records - it's wholy owned subsidiary Univesal would. That gets around any trademark infringement because no one's going to mistake up Universal for Apple Records.
My father has been a Mac fan my entire life, and he was disappointed to find that I was a DOS and later Windows user. But it was to be expected; I wanted to play games and I wanted the BBS software of the time.
Once I got into college and started studying computer science, my respect for unix grew. I played with an ancient laptop installed with Linux over the summer and really learned a lot about this exciting area. But due to (in my opinion) poor applications, it would not be a desktop OS to me. All it really took to switch me to the Mac was a few evenings on my dad's Powerbook playing with OS X.
The interface was intuitive and clever. The whole thing looked professional and yet beautiful at the same time, not much like the previous Mac OS I'd remembered. The apps worked together, had really cool features, and were generally more pleasant to use and look at than on Windows; plus, most of them actually came with the machine as standard. Mail's junk mail filtering and simple interface had me entranced. The way iTunes automatically sorted and managed all of your mp3s based on their id3, while providing ripping and burning support, amazed me (I can stick an audio CD in my computer, it'll rip it in iTunes, add it to the library appropriately, and eject it automatically). For some reason, even Microsoft apps such as Office and IE look and feel much nicer, and even have added functionality! And, of course, I could access a unix terminal at any time.
On the unix side, there's plenty to be done. You can load an entire KDE installation and run it on top of Aqua. While in Cocoa-based apps such as Safari -- where I type this -- I can use emacs-style keys like ctrl-a, ctrl-e, ctrl-k, ctrl-y in this comment field. And I was finally free of the registry.
And it's all packaged. It's all so easy. It removes a huge portion of the headaches, the real currency of computers. There are a huge number of "little things" I could say I prefer about the Mac that add up to a really pleasant overall experience. If I was a gamer or multimedia expert I might be disappointed with the recent hardware speed issues, but don't be mistaken. The 1 Ghz G4 is fast as hell, and I can play Warcraft III (and many other mainstream games) or use Photoshop very smoothly.
I don't think it's perfect. I've had crashes and have been frustrated by a lack of some Windows app I wanted. But I will say I do think it is better. At this point, I'm fairly certain my next machine will be a Mac. Ideologically, it appeals to me more than Microsoft. I genuinely feel that Apple is out to make good stuff and change things for the better, while Microsoft seems more purely capitalist.
OK, this has way too long, but it's helped me put off studying for a test ;)
why do you still buy macs?
It's all a matter of work focus. Although many people enjoy being
computer hobbyists, spending time tweezing, installing, configuring,
upgrading, administering, and adjusting things, Macs are designed to
let you spend that seat time in front of the computer doing your
work, instead of completing the work that should have been already done
by the OS/hardware vendor.
Granted, playing with a computer's internals is educational and enjoyable
for many, the Mac is designed from the user on down, instead of the
hardware on up. After 20 years of computing, I've spent enough time tuning
Unix or of spending the time from 1995 to 2000 trying to get Windows to
actually work as well, and transparently as Microsoft has continually promised.
Current Macs might not be the fastest, or cheapest, or totally bug free,
(although from a hardware quality point of view there's nothing better)
but it's liberating to get "real" work done on a computer instead of being
interrupted or distracted from work flow just to be my own mechanic and
sysadmin. I use an older dual 500Mhz G4 as my main work machine
every day and I never find myself thinking it's too slow.
I don't understand why Mhz of PPC vs. Intel gets so much attention.
Again, I think it's that tweezer, shade-tree-mechanic mentallity.
I'm happy that I get an OS X terminal window that's fast and doesn't
screw up the text when you resize the window. I didn't have to research
and buy a better terminal app or download and build 4 or 5 packages just to
find one that doesn't mess up on remote telnet sessions and runs fast.
Most of what's expected in a modern computer comes standard with OS X,
out of the box. This is especially true of the excellent development tools that
come free with OS X. And if you don't like the full blown IDE, you can pop open
a terminal window and get all of the gcc, vi, and make you need. Same thing
with all of the usual low level networking tools. There's also the icing on the
cake with the best of breed "iApps" that are included.
With OS X, you now get the ease of use that older Macs had, plus you get
all of the Unix goodness underneath that's easily accessible. Even if an
Mac costs more, what's your time worth over the time you own the box?
Now now, let's be fair. There are plenty of incompetent developers in the Mac world, too.
For example, a company in Redmond, Washington released an office application suite for the Mac which is absolute horse shit.
On the bright side, since OS X groks BSD so well, it opens a whole world of Open Source software, good and bad, which are quickly getting ported over (such as GIMP and vlc), as well as others which we can compile ourselves and run via X11.
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
The Mac Observer has been keeping count...
There is no simple answer to your question(s). What you stated is basically true.
No doubt about that. Sure--you can compare some high end Dell machine with a high end PowerMac and come up with roughly the same amount, but in general Apple computers are more expensive. Maybe upgrade cycles are longer, maybe the resale value is higher. Up-front they cost a lot more.Once again you are correct. That doesn't mean that there are things that you can't do on a Mac, just that in some areas there is less choice. Most people encode their MP3s with iTunes and that's it. Would it be better if I had the choice between dozens of programs to do the same thing? Maybe, but it is not vital. All the content creation tools I can think of are there. Gaming is bad. There are quite a few games available but there seriously is no competition to other platforms. In numbers definitely. Basically speed is a perception issue, though. That is not necessarily an argument in favour of the MacOS, but for me a computer is fast enough as long as I can get my work done and earn my living with it. My computer is getting old but when I will eventually get a new Mac this machine will seem plenty fast to me. After all I can only compare the performance to what I have now, not some assumption about other machines. From my point of view I am pretty sure that one of those new 1.42GHz dual machines would blow me away performance wise. And as any Mac-faithful will tell you: 'It's getting better really really soon now, like tomorrow'.No matter what I say, your points stay valid. But at the end of the day the most important argument for the Mac platform is that it just works. It even worked in the pre-OS X days. Working is enjoyable. Everything is designed to make my life easier. The UI is pretty and functional. Windows might have caught up since the days of 95. But I left that platform behind then and I am never going back. Image is a factor as well. Not being part of the Windows centred world just feels right. Maybe I habitually pick losers, maybe I just have a sweet spot for the underdogs. I had a Dreamcast, a GamCube and a Mac. Maybe I'm weird, but I never regretted not going with Sony or Microsoft.
Hank! White!
so why did they register AppleUniversal.com a few days ago?
Domain Name: APPLEUNIVERSAL.COM
Registrar: BULKREGISTER.COM, INC.
Whois Server: whois.bulkregister.com
Referral URL: http://www.bulkregister.com
Name Server: NSERVER2.APPLE.COM
Name Server: NSERVER.APPLE.COM
Status: ACTIVE
Updated Date: 11-apr-2003
Creation Date: 11-apr-2003
Expiration Date: 11-apr-2004
NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.
You're missing the way the financial world works. A company is not required to post record-breaking profits each quarter in order to be a fiscally "successful" company (though they will certainly be successful if they can pull this off!). The most important thing is that a company meets its projections. A company that gives low projections but meets them is much better off than a company that gives high projections but misses them even if the latter company still rakes in more profit that the former. Why? Because the former company has a business plan it's sticking to and the latter is just out of control.
Now I ask you to recall Jobs's last keynote when he said Apple expected to be hit hard by the downturn in the economy, but felt they had enough in the bank to weather the storm and they planned to invest in evolving the company's technology so that they could hit the ground running when the market came back.
IIRC, Apple posted three quarters of successively lesser losses mostly due to "internal investment" and "one-time restructuring" costs. And now they've started turning profit in this, the year of the notebook, which was another thing Jobs forecasted as being a major direction he wanted to take the company in. They met that goal too, having shipped more laptops this quarter than in any other quarter of the company's history.
Apple definitely seems to be a company with a plan -- and more importantly a company that sticks to its plan. Unless you honestly believe that plan is "to burn Apple to the ground and salt the earth," any report which shows Apple sticking to the plan is a good report.
--
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?
It's not so much how much profit they're making, it's where that profit is coming from that's a concern.
Everyone makes a big deal out of Apple's cash horde ($4b? $5b?), and about how the "market" isn't valuing Apple at much more than its cash value per share. I haven't looked at the numbers in a long time, but we can safley assume that Apple isn't keeping its $4b in cash under the mattress. That means that they put it somewhere where they expect it to make some return, even if they only put it into the equivalent of your savings account.
How much money do you think Apple is making on their cash horde in interest alone? Again, I don't have those numbers, but I suspect that they made more in interest than the $14m they reported in profit. That means that they are actually losing money from operations, and using their interest income to make up the difference.
Apple IMHO has been using that cash wisely, without that interest income they would be posting losses every quarter and really in danger of dying. That cash is keeping the company afloat. Now they're thinking of spending it all (and then some). All I have to say is that, as a shareholder, the return they get on that investment needs to be better than their current interest income, or else I'm bailing out.
It is true that the Universal music label is a profitable concern (bringing in >$200m per year IIRC), but everyone predicts that the entire music industry is going down the toilet. If Jobs can figure out a way to keep the music label profitable in the long term, then this purchase makes sense.
We'll have to see what Apple's much-hyped music service is all about. If it convinces me to buy music again, than I will assume it will convince others too, and then maybe the unit will be profitable long-term and this deal will make sense...
As is pointed out in other reports their margins are up because they're selling less machines but with greater profit margins on each one. I want to point out that apple is doing quite well for being in the middle of a recession /and/ selling machines based on a chip that, according to rumors, is nearing the end of its life. We're probably seeing less sales because professionals are holding off buying until they see what's on the horizon. I think if the rumors of the IBM 970 chip turn out to be true, you'll see the number of units sold skyrocket
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
Nothing. Apple adds value to its products by developing integrated software and hardware solutions for information technology and entertainment purposes. Venturing into the source of entertainment itself could only potentially distance Apple from the very media sources it should be trying to court in promotion of its core businesses (i.e., why would Warner, Sony, etc do business w/ Apple if they owned Universal?). Purchasing Universal, or any other media company, would not add value to Apple's product lines. If merging with media companies were such a priority for Apple, wouldn't it then make more sense to merge Apple with Pixar? Wouldn't that logically happen before any merger of Apple and Universal?
.Mac service (which includes various things, not all of which I'm familiar w/, tho I do know that a few of them, such as email & web page building, can be had for free elsewhere), what would be the likelyhood of Apple allowing free distribution of Apple-owned music? Slim to none. If Apple will charge clients $99/yr for email/webpages, there is no reason to believe that they would allow free distribution of music.
The only 'good' that could come out of an Apple/Universal merger would be the launching of a royalty-free music sharing service, in which Apple would permit clients to freely distribute Universal-produced music. But, seeing as Apple charges $99/yr for its
The music world is better off w/o Apple purchasing Universal; the 'Apple' world is better off guarding the sanctity of Apple's core product lines w/o the confusion that would ensue if Apple tried to manage both Universal and its computer business. The merger won't happen, because it shouldn't happen.
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?
For $1000 you can buy 0.000021% of the AAPL ($1000 / current AAPL Market Cap). 0.000021% of AAPL's current net tangible assets is about $835. In other words, you only need to have enough confidence in Apple to have a net growth of 20% over the period of your investment.
To make a totally invalid comparison, that same $1000 could buy you 0.00000037% of MSFT. Which only gets you about $195 of MSFT's net tangible assets. You have to have enough confidence in Microsoft for them to grow 413% over the period of that investment.
This completely ignores how profitable either company is per quarter or per year (P/E ratio, which is a totally valid benchmark), but any long-term estimate of that is much more speculative than the numbers I list above. Conclusion: AAPL is insanely cheap. If the stock market was rational, it would be priced much higher, and at this price you SHOULD be willing to buy a piece of a company with numbers like this.
I'm not a smorgasbord.
Take a look in whois for appleuniversal.com, and find This
Hahahah!!! Tricked You!!!
April Fools
Tricked You!, HA HA HA HAHAHA
US
Domain Name: APPLEUNIVERSAL.COM
Has on-one else noticed this?
Until this very minute, I had no idea that Carpentry Geeks existed.
I'm still not over emacs vs. vi, I don't think I can handle DeWalt vs. Makita right now.