Apple 'Not Interested' in Outbidding AT&T to Acquire Time Warner

[MacRumors]

Apple is "not interested" in buying media company Time Warner currently, according to "people familiar with the thinking at the company" who spoke today with CNBC. Two weeks ago, AT&T announced its interest to purchase Time Warner for $85.4 billion, but as noted today, the regulatory process taken in such acquisitions "could last for months," and at any time another company could swoop in with a better offer. As of now, that won't be Apple.

The news comes from David Faber on CNBC's market coverage business show "Squawk on the Street:"

The question of course that has come back to focus on Apple. In fact Bewkes asked on the call were there any companies this year that showed interest in acquiring Time Warner. Mr. Bewkes' answer was let's focus on AT&T. What I can tell you about Apple guys, is right now, according to people familiar with its thinking, it's not interested. Apple is not interested in buying Time Warner at present. Now, these things go on for months and months, this regulatory review's going to take at least a year. The deal will not close. Certainly if you're in Apple, things could change. You watch the stock price as you see how things progress.

But anybody expecting an overbid from Apple at this point, certainly, it is not coming. Again, they are sort of not interested at this time. And it doesn't appear that there would be any other potential interest. Google certainly had been mentioned at one point or another. But right now, it's AT&T's, it will be AT&T's, and the question is do they get it through, what conditions do they agree to in order to get it through the regulators.

On the same day of AT&T's deal, it was reported that Apple was closely "monitoring" the workings between AT&T and Time Warner, especially due to its potential impact in regards to television deals that Apple could make with both companies. Back in January, an initial rumor suggested Apple was looking to buy Time Warner itself, most likely to bolster its rumored cord-cutting streaming TV service, but negotiations eventually stalled and the two companies ceased discussing a potential partnership.

Following the news coming out of AT&T's offer, last week investment banking firm Goldman Sachs reportedly began pushing Apple to put in a rival bid to beat AT&T's and acquire Time Warner for itself. Goldman Sachs was "left on the sidelines" as an advisor in AT&T's bid, but it's still unclear why the firm would heavily encourage Apple to enter an acquisition offer of its own.

Sources were reported as saying that Goldman Sachs was "freaking out trying to convince Apple to come in." A connection between the banking firm and Apple lies in the latter company's 2009 hiring of Goldman Sachs banker Adrian Perica, who now heads up Apple's mergers and acquisitions practices.

Networks like CNN, HBO, TBS, TNT, NBA TV, Cartoon Network, and Warner Bros. are all under Time Warner's umbrella, making it an enticing acquisition for multiple companies looking to bolster an existing, or upcoming, streaming package. Although AT&T appears to be the frontrunner, The Wall Street Journal originally reported that "a host of other contenders" were interested in Time Warner, including Google at one point.

Article Link: Apple 'Not Interested' in Outbidding AT&T to Acquire Time Warner

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

So they could save us from AT&T, and pass? Thanks Tim...

 

[Kaibelf]

So they could save us from AT&T, and pass? Thanks Tim...

Why should Apple spend something like $90 BILLION just because you have an issue with a phone company?

 

[iamgalt]

One of the smartest decisions Tim has made since he took over.

 

[shk718]

Why is TW up for sale, if they're such a great company?

 

[mattopotamus]

Cable is not going anywhere anytime soon. There are still plenty of people who watch more than a few channels, and it is far more expensive to build your own package.

Oddly enough, my xfinity box/remote is better than my ATV/siri remote.

 

[2457282]

I don't see Apple getting into the telco, cable company, or even a content provider. However, Apple could buy these guys to force some changes and then sell them off again. Or maybe invest enough to get on the board and force the change that way. Just don't put Eddy on any board. We don't need rodney dangerfield resurrected.

 

[usersince86]

In related news, Apple is not interested in buying Tesla...

 

[pike908]

Tech companies would have to be silly (or desperate) to buy media companies. And the three biggest tech companies -- Google, Apple, and Microsoft -- all have unbelievable cash flow. Which is also why none of them want to buy Tesla or other cash burning companies. Because the cash burners are valued by Wall Street differently.

 

[CausticSoda]

That's probably because they can't sell dongles to get an increased return on that particular investment.

 

[mattan_lines]

Oh look, something Apple DOESN'T want to buy... But in my opinion, it's a good decision.

 

[Zwhaler]

Good. If Apple bought time Warner before releasing new Mac Pros I would be sorry disappointed.

 

[dan110]

Foolish mistake. The money spent on the now defunct Apple Car could've went to this with money to spare. They should take their cash hoard and buy AT&T and be a parent owner. Then they can have all the access to programming on AppleTV etc without having to pay for annoying deals.

 

[Macsterguy]

I have TW internet with 405 Mbps download and 21Mbps up... I don't want AT&T to screw that up!

 

[jmgregory1]

If Apple were to cross the line and take ownership of a telco / cable / internet provider, it would change everything about their business, likely negatively effecting their relationship with competitive providers. And I would bet the legal team recognizes that this could be a nightmare for Apple to even pull off in the first place, as it could appear like they would have the unfair ability to price products and services, compared to competitors in both the hardware and delivery sectors.

 

[Krevnik]

I'm still trying to figure out Wall Street's fascination with getting tech companies into the media creation game. Apple and others seem happy to try to provide a platform of technology to let media companies move into the future without getting into content themselves. But the other side doesn't seem to like that approach, and want control of the whole stack. About the only reason for these companies to buy a media company is to use them as a guinea pig for how future media distribution should work.

It's a similar issue with carriers. Carriers want control over the devices on their network, but at least seem to get that people want a variety of devices to promote evolution and keep various parts of the market happy. Why can't media happen in a similar model? Media companies providing the media, and various devices/platforms providing evolution in the market, allowing users to find the approach that they like?

 

[dominiongamma]

Apple has no right to complain how TV works if they aren't willing to spend money for TV.

 

[Carlanga]

Why is TW up for sale, if they're such a great company?

Anything is for sale at the right price.
[doublepost=1478098978][/doublepost]

Apple has no right to complain how TV works if they aren't willing to spend money for TV.

The amount might be too high. Apple likes to have money in the bank. AT&T doesn't care.

 

[BornAgainMac]

Technically, Apple can just not buy anything and relax for a few decades until that money dries up.

 

[Carlanga]

I have TW internet with 405 Mbps download and 21Mbps up... I don't want AT&T to screw that up!

Don't worry, they will.
[doublepost=1478099090][/doublepost]

Technically, Apple can just not buy anything and relax for a few decades until that money dries up.

More than decades w the money in the bank if they decide to 100% relax.
[doublepost=1478099285][/doublepost]

I'm still trying to figure out Wall Street's fascination with getting tech companies into the media creation game. Apple and others seem happy to try to provide a platform of technology to let media companies move into the future without getting into content themselves. But the other side doesn't seem to like that approach, and want control of the whole stack. About the only reason for these companies to buy a media company is to use them as a guinea pig for how future media distribution should work.

It's a similar issue with carriers. Carriers want control over the devices on their network, but at least seem to get that people want a variety of devices to promote evolution and keep various parts of the market happy. Why can't media happen in a similar model? Media companies providing the media, and various devices/platforms providing evolution in the market, allowing users to find the approach that they like?

The answer is simple. All these media companies that you refer to are the middle men. There aren't that many big middle men like before. Everything had middle men. Nowadays you can buy straight from the manufacturer. Apple and other streamers deal w the manufacturer directly. If streaming takes over regular tv then that means the middle man can't get their middle man money and will only be stuck w Internet and phone which requieres much more money than being the middle men for tv.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Why is TW up for sale, if they're such a great company?

So is Apple. Google APPL.

 

[newyorkone]

They should buy it for the access and control, but then spin it off as a separate media company along with Beats, Apple Music, iTunes. All the stuff that is making Apple lose focus in the hardware and software front, and failing to innovate should become a separate media focused company.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

I have TW internet with 405 Mbps download and 21Mbps up... I don't want AT&T to screw that up!

Time Warner != Time Warner Cable.

 

[maflynn]

I think that makes sense, its a good move to pass, imo

 

[TurboPGT!]

Cable is not going anywhere anytime soon. There are still plenty of people who watch more than a few channels, and it is far more expensive to build your own package.

Oddly enough, my xfinity box/remote is better than my ATV/siri remote.

No, it isn't.

And ditching cable is not just about saving money. It is about paying for what you want, and getting value for your dollar. There is no value for me in renting a cable box for an extortionist price, and paying for a laundry list of channels I never have any desire to watch.

What I pay per month is also under my control. If I decide Netflix, or Hulu, or HBO, or _insert_ is no longer worth the $x.xx/mon...Its gone within 1 billing cycle.

I did a trial of Sling TV just for a taste of what another $20/mon could get me in terms of additional content through AppleTV. You know what it got me? Commercials. Lots and lots of commercials. No thanks. My house takes in a very minimal amount of commercials, since all of our TV consumption is through Apps where that is kept to a minimum, or non-existent. Not exposing my children to the hours upon hours of commercials that play in most houses has had a wonderful effect on their personalities. They actually have original thoughts! Unlike most other children (and adults) that are told what to think and how to feel every single day.

And, LOL, please...your xfinity box that you rent and the 19th century remote it ships with? My 3 and 5 year old can both use the Siri remote. And my wife and I carry versions of it in the AppleTV iPhone App everywhere we go. And my AppleTV has no issues integrating with CEC functions and passing through 5.1 sound. It is tops.