PDA

View Full Version : Microsoft Buyout of Apple?




Shaker
Apr 4, 2006, 07:54 PM
What if Microsoft Bought Apple?
http://www.technewsworld.com/story/49678.html

Should Microsoft Buy Apple?
http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/001778.html



Peyton
Apr 4, 2006, 07:55 PM
Um, I don't think that Jobs would let this happen in his lifetime.

And no, I don't think it should happen :eek:

Shaker
Apr 4, 2006, 08:06 PM
I didn't mean to imply it should happen either. Just a couple of real wacky articles.

dmw007
Apr 4, 2006, 08:12 PM
Um, I don't think that Jobs would let this happen in his lifetime.

And no, I don't think it should happen :eek:

I have to agree with Peyton on both accounts.

dmw007
Apr 4, 2006, 08:14 PM
I didn't mean to imply it should happen either. Just a couple of real wacky articles.

Wacky articles indeed. ;) :)

jamesmcd
Apr 4, 2006, 08:26 PM
I didn't have time to read the articles, but I can say that such a buyout would be illegal. At least in this country anyway.

calebjohnston
Apr 4, 2006, 08:39 PM
If Apple gets eaten by Microsoft, I'll remove and eat my spleen. How's that.

dmw007
Apr 4, 2006, 09:03 PM
If Apple gets eaten by Microsoft, I'll remove and eat my spleen. How's that.

A bit rash...well no, its not that rash...heck, it might even be sensible. ;) :D

rdowns
Apr 4, 2006, 09:06 PM
If Apple gets eaten by Microsoft, I'll remove and eat my spleen. How's that.

Pics?

zap2
Apr 4, 2006, 09:08 PM
i know steve would not allow a sell out because Steve really does not need the $$$ as he has plenty of it.

Os Xp
Apr 4, 2006, 09:15 PM
Jamescd had it right. If Microsoft did happen to buyout Apple (which, in my opinion, will never happen) they would have that monopoly crisis bite them in the butt again.

eva01
Apr 4, 2006, 09:15 PM
If Apple gets eaten by Microsoft, I'll remove and eat my spleen. How's that.

i will one up you, i will eat my liver :P.

dmw007
Apr 4, 2006, 09:31 PM
Pics?

Normally I am all in favor of Pics, but in this case I do not think pics would be appropriate (might be a little bit too disturbing). ;) :)

dmw007
Apr 4, 2006, 09:41 PM
i will one up you, i will eat my liver :P.

In general, the eating of ones organs is frowned upon.

According to the Surgeon General of the U.S.-



***Eating of ones organs can have hazardous consequences; Please refrain from doing so***



There you have it, eating your organs is probably not a good idea. ;) :)

AnthonyKinyon
Apr 4, 2006, 11:14 PM
I doubt MS can ever get away with buying Apple. The antitrust implications would be extremely huge and MS wants to avoid that at all costs now. And Microsoft would take huge flack for it from users also. For one, I think most MS software sucks although they have a few nice programs (Flight Simulator, Xbox games, Age of Empires series of games, and Microsoft Messenger are not too bad for the most part). But they also have some buggy/bloatware that's insecure, unstable and outdated - Windows XP (and all other versions of Windows since at least 3.1 or so). :)

Not saying I'm a MS hater, I rushed right out and bought an Xbox 360 and an Xbox before that - and several software apps in years past. But after switching to MacOS X 10.4.x - I have to say - Windows is the past and Mac is the future - IMO. I know Windows won't "go away" anytime soon but given a preference, I'd easily prefer the Mac. And I even run a DOS computer at home for old games mostly and apps. I've run several Linux flavors and all Windows versions since 3.0, DOS 2.x to 6.22 (MS version) and a bunch of other OSes. MacOS X is my favorite and the easiest to use/smartest and most secure I've found so far. It isn't perfect but it's better than what MS is offering. It's a pity Apple has allowed HyperCard and AppleWorks to grow old and not kept them updated/slim and productive. But the iPod is awesome and the latest Macs are just so cool (the past year or so I'd say). I never owned a Mac before 2004 (and then only a G3 iMac for testing and exploring). But when I got my "real" Mac last year I fell in love and I just bought another Mac last month also. Now the wife and I are both on Macs and love them. It's not fun to go to work and be forced to run Windows XP.

calebjohnston
Apr 4, 2006, 11:19 PM
Pics?

You have asked, and therefore shall receive.

Pics are coming post-company selling...action..day.

calebjohnston
Apr 4, 2006, 11:20 PM
i will one up you, i will eat my liver :P.


(: Let's just work together instead and both eat both organs. Seems like it would make a much greater display.

portent
Apr 4, 2006, 11:53 PM
First, At $51 billion, Apple's not exactly an easy acquisition. It would be cheaper to buy Sony, actually ($47B) and get a movie studio, music label, consumer electronics business, and a PC maker all at once.

Second, It's not as if Microsoft "needs" Apple. Microsoft isn't going anywhere anytime soon. It's got hordes of money, and a huge customer base that is largely locked-in.

By the same token, Apple's pulling in billions from the iPod, and the Mac market is stable and growing slightly. Office is guaranteed for the next few years: Microsoft itself said so. And the Intel partnership gives them access to whatever technology they can't build themselves.

iPhil
Apr 4, 2006, 11:58 PM
The Fcc won't allow that to happen .. then if it did happen then no competition for Billy boy aka Gates :eek: :eek: :o

dejo
Apr 5, 2006, 12:03 AM
The Fcc won't allow that to happen ..

The FCC? The Federal Communications Commission? What would their jurisdiction be?

MagnaPalam
Apr 5, 2006, 12:10 AM
more like the SEC - Securities and Exchange Commission

steelfist
Apr 5, 2006, 04:41 AM
what happens if apple bought microsoft?

dmw007
Apr 5, 2006, 06:11 AM
what happens if apple bought microsoft?


Windows will finally meet its demise. :) ;)

iPhil
Apr 5, 2006, 08:59 AM
The FCC? The Federal Communications Commission? What would their jurisdiction be?


The response i posted on the fcc . I was wrong and i was tired from work so i a bit - on auto response when i typed that answer .. :o :(

glorfindeal
Apr 5, 2006, 09:04 AM
what happens if apple bought microsoft?


Well, considering Microsoft's war chest is about 10 times greater than what apple is worth (even with their 4+ billion cash on hand), I very seriously doubt we will have to worry about that occurring.


Glor

Le Big Mac
Apr 5, 2006, 09:59 AM
more like the SEC - Securities and Exchange Commission


More like the department of justice or the federal trade commission.

it won't happen because of antitrust, and it won't happen because it makes no sense for microsoft to do it, other than to kill apple, which is why it goes back to the antitrust problem. Why would microsoft want to become a PC maker?

IJ Reilly
Apr 5, 2006, 10:29 AM
The obvious word here is "Office," but recall that Microsoft provided Apple with critical funding (US$150 million) when it was about to go under so that the firm could come out with new hardware and finish its new operating system. In addition, Microsoft, in continuing to support Apple with Microsoft Office, allows Apple to sell in a lot of places it otherwise would be locked out of.

Enderle is nuts, and what's more, he doesn't know his history.

For one, Apple was never "about to go under," and they had over $1 billion in cash at the time Microsoft provided them "with critical funding." Second, the money was for the settlement of patent disputes, not so they could "come out with new hardware and finish its new operating system," which in the latter case, hadn't even been started yet. Third, Microsoft continues to develop Office for the Mac not out of good will, but out of a desire to make money.

Enderle should stick to writing about what he knows, whatever that is.

pyrophite
Apr 5, 2006, 11:12 AM
Hmm, this certainly has a bit of misinformation here. First of all, the FTC can only step in if there is an emerging monopoly. Unfortunately OSX isnt the ONLY other operating system. Even though all the different linux solutions, and small OS's dont seem like a competitor, they technically keep microsoft from being considered a monopoly, even in the abscence of OSX. The same goes for intel, if AMD went out of business, there are still companies such as motorola and transmetta that would keep them from violating anti-trust laws. The original anti-trust suits from microsoft didnt even have anything to do with windows, it had to do with the way internet explorer was integrated into the OS.

Also, on the issue of Jobs keeping microsoft from purchasing Apple? If i have my information straight, i dont believe Jobs has a controlling interest in Apple, he may have a large portion of stock, but i dont think he has enough to keep a takeover from happening. A CEO has little to no say if a company can be purchased if the stock is publicly traded. The honest truth is that since apple is a strong company, and microsoft is a behemoth, chances are that M$ would have to pay such a premium for apple as a company, shareholders would be more than happy to sell their stock for such a great price.

Will it happen? Probably not likely, the cost would be so high (probably close to $75-100 billion, that they'd have to give up too much cash and cut funding to their own projects. But all things considered it isnt out of the question, look at AOL and Time Warner, or Cingular and AT&T.

Le Big Mac
Apr 5, 2006, 11:25 AM
Hmm, this certainly has a bit of misinformation here. First of all, the FTC can only step in if there is an emerging monopoly. Unfortunately OSX isnt the ONLY other operating system. Even though all the different linux solutions, and small OS's dont seem like a competitor, they technically keep microsoft from being considered a monopoly, even in the abscence of OSX.

The FTC can block an acquisition even if it would not create a pure monopoly (i.e., only one firm). They have blocked numerous mergers where the combination would result in 2 or 3 remaining firms. So they certainly could.

Now, would they? That depends on the facts. It certainly might be possible to show that OS X does not constrain microsoft in any way. That is, the price of windows is not kept low because of OS X. Rather, it's kept low because of linux. Or it's kept where it is because it's already a monopoly, and faces no constraints.

That said, I think that Microsoft would have a very difficult time justifying the acquisition of the only alternative consumer operating system (I don't think Linux is used by a lot of basic computer folks--it's a bit more advanced, requiring more knowledge of computers).

pyrophite
Apr 5, 2006, 11:31 AM
The FTC can block an acquisition even if it would not create a pure monopoly (i.e., only one firm). They have blocked numerous mergers where the combination would result in 2 or 3 remaining firms. So they certainly could.

Now, would they? That depends on the facts. It certainly might be possible to show that OS X does not constrain microsoft in any way. That is, the price of windows is not kept low because of OS X. Rather, it's kept low because of linux. Or it's kept where it is because it's already a monopoly, and faces no constraints.

That said, I think that Microsoft would have a very difficult time justifying the acquisition of the only alternative consumer operating system (I don't think Linux is used by a lot of basic computer folks--it's a bit more advanced, requiring more knowledge of computers).

I suppose if the FTC blocked the sale by considering OSX and windows as the only real "consumer" os's i could see your point. There still has to be an implied monopoly. An oligopoly has no room for the legality to block a sale. Most of the cases where you'd see such a block is when there's an implied monopoly, or the high liklihood of an implicit collusion of the remaining firms (think oil companies).

IJ Reilly
Apr 5, 2006, 11:41 AM
FWIW, monopolies are not illegal under U.S. antitrust laws. What is illegal is abusing market power to restrain competition. Ironically, abusing market power is possible with far less than an absolute monopoly, a condition that rarely exists in markets anyway.

And another thing, hostile takeovers are rare nowadays because most publicly-held corporations have taken to building "poison pills" into their bylaws, making hostile takeovers difficult if not impossible to accomplish. I am virtually certain that Apple has one, as I recall this coming up years ago, when Apple was beaten down and often discussed as a takeover target.

Finally, it's the SEC that rules on competitive issues in mergers and acquisitions. Complaints about anticompetitive behavior can be brought to the FTC or the Department of Justice Antitrust Division. Not than any of these agencies much care about antitrust issues anymore. They're all geared up to allowing corporations to do more or less as they wish.

pyrophite
Apr 5, 2006, 12:12 PM
The Clayton act states that it "prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition. Under this Act, the government challenges those mergers that careful economic analysis shows are likely to increase prices to consumers."

and a monopoly is defined as: "A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition - which often results in high prices and inferior products."

In my opinion, that is what i am refering to as an "implied monopoly"

sam10685
Apr 5, 2006, 12:45 PM
they could call it "Microapple." ******* WORST idea i've ever heard in my life.

IJ Reilly
Apr 5, 2006, 12:58 PM
The Clayton act states that it "prohibits mergers or acquisitions that are likely to lessen competition. Under this Act, the government challenges those mergers that careful economic analysis shows are likely to increase prices to consumers."

and a monopoly is defined as: "A situation in which a single company or group owns all or nearly all of the market for a given type of product or service. By definition, monopoly is characterized by an absence of competition - which often results in high prices and inferior products."

In my opinion, that is what i am refering to as an "implied monopoly"

Also, the Sherman Act. The dictionary or even the economics text definition of monopoly does not really apply to discussions of U.S. antitrust laws. These laws are concerned with restraints on competition, a condition which can exist without the existence of a technical monopoly, implied or otherwise.

pyrophite
Apr 5, 2006, 01:37 PM
Also, the Sherman Act. The dictionary or even the economics text definition of monopoly does not really apply to discussions of U.S. antitrust laws. These laws are concerned with restraints on competition, a condition which can exist without the existence of a technical monopoly, implied or otherwise.


I think we pretty much have the same view on this, only using different semantics.

IJ Reilly
Apr 5, 2006, 01:46 PM
I think we pretty much have the same view on this, only using different semantics.

Could be. I spent a lot of time in the trenches debating the Microsoft situation during the antitrust trials, so I tend towards a knee-jerk reaction when this topic is brought up. I got really weary of hearing people argue that Microsoft should not have been subjected to prosecution under the Sherman Act because Apple exists so therefore they could have no monopoly. It was never really about monopoly, which becomes shorthand for other things, and thus confuses matters.

direzz
Apr 5, 2006, 03:32 PM
i think it would be beneficial to both companies

pyrophite
Apr 5, 2006, 03:45 PM
Could be. I spent a lot of time in the trenches debating the Microsoft situation during the antitrust trials, so I tend towards a knee-jerk reaction when this topic is brought up. I got really weary of hearing people argue that Microsoft should not have been subjected to prosecution under the Sherman Act because Apple exists so therefore they could have no monopoly. It was never really about monopoly, which becomes shorthand for other things, and thus confuses matters.


Heh, yeah i was studying it in my business law classes when it was going on. There's a lot of nuances that a lot of general public doesnt hear about on both sides. I never really took a side either way, i was just hoping that in the end, the lawsuits wouldnt end up causing microsoft to pass on the costs of litigaion to the customers. I'm a consumer capitalist at heart.