Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cringely Posits Adobe's Purchase by Apple

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the now-what-is-he-talking-about dept.

An anonymous reader writes to mention another Robert Cringely piece discussing Apple's future. In his latest article, he lays out some goals for Apple on its quest to desktop dominance. An important link in this chain is Apple's purchase of Adobe Systems. From the article: "Adobe has already made one feint away from Mac development that required personal pressure from Steve Jobs on John Warnock to reverse. If Apple kinda-sorta embraces Windows enough for Adobe to question whether continued development for the native OS X platform is still warranted, well, then Apple WILL just become another Dell, which isn't what Steve Jobs wants. Steve wants Windows applications to run like crazy on his hybrid platform but to look like crap. In his heart of hearts, he'd still like to beat Microsoft on the merits, not just by leveraging some clever loophole. So he needs the top ISVs who are currently writing for OS X to continue writing for OS X, and that especially means Adobe."

4 of 245 comments (clear)

  1. Re:PLEASE GIVE US A CRINGELY SECTION by jamie · · Score: 3, Informative
    "it's no longer reasonable to ask us to just scroll past them"

    Yeah, it actually is :)

  2. Re:Cringely: The thinking man's Dvorak NO COST by William_Lee · · Score: 3, Informative
    If Adobe stock were converted to new Apple shares that properly reflect the increased value of Apple + Adobe, it would cost them the amount of printing the new certificates and mailing them, which is essentially nothing. That assumes a friendly takeover/merger.

    This isn't how transactions work in public financial markets. It would cost Apple BILLIONS of dollars in stock and cash and/or debt in some combination to acquire Adobe friendly takeover or not. Adobe is a publicly traded company beholden to its shareholders. The board has a LEGAL obligation to the shareholders. They can't just hand over the company to Apple and print new certificates even if for some INSANE reason they wanted to in the interest of a "friendly" merger.

    The only way shareholders would approve a buyout is if it was at a significantly higher price than where Adobe currently trades (which as mentioned is $23.65 billion). Unless the fortunes of the overall stock market, or Adobe change dramatically, it will cost Apple a hell of a lot to acquire Adobe, friendly takeover or not.

    Even in an all stock transaction, existing Apple shareholders would pay for the transaction, as the value of their shares would be heavily diluted (new shares would be issued, making each existing share worth less).

  3. From Adobe CEO Bruce Chizen own mouth... by joeblarnystone · · Score: 5, Informative

    He also said the recently announced Boot Camp software, which allows Intel-based Mac computers to run the Windows operating system, won't have a big impact on Adobe's Mac software lineup.

    "For the majority of our products, writing directly to the Macintosh operating system is an advantage to the customers, and you will see us continue to do so and not work through Boot Camp or the Windows emulator because we think that will not be good for the majority of our customers," he said.

    Soure: Computer World Article
  4. OT: Troll, Stupid, and Evil Tags are Trolls by HighOrbit · · Score: 5, Informative
    It seems like a good portion of the articles are getting tagged "Troll" or "Stupid" or "Evil".

    First of all, how does this help classify and search the articles? It doesn't, if every third article is "evil" and "troll".

    Secondly, please refresh your memory of what a "troll" is. Here is the official Slashdot definition.
    Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time.
    Just because you think an article or comment is wrong and stupid does not make it a "troll". A "troll" is purposeful malicious misdirection intended to lead the discussion astray. Just because you disagree with Cringely, Dvorak, et al (and think they are totally off the wall), it does not mean they are trolls. They may indeed be stupid, but they are not trolls. Any opinion presented constructively is not a troll, even if it is wrong.

    As far as I am concerned, the "tagging beta" should filter out all the "troll", "stupid", "evil", "FUD", and other non-helpful tags, because they are not objective descriptions to classify the article, but only negative opinion (and I think we can all read and form our own opinions).