They can't buy something that's not being offered for sale.
It's a recurring theme here... the entitlement of some of the members (many actually) is disgustingly insulting to everyone.
How about Apple innovates instead of just throwing money at a solution and swallowing all the competition? That's not progress.
1) they have the money to
2) the USA a free country where free commerce is allowed (you live in china or something?)
3) everything is for sale if the price is right - that's just the facts of life buddy
4) its not "steamrolling" if its a mutual agreement
5) I want to know why you are so hostile to the idea of apple buying other companies???
Generelly it is. But as long as Apple is completely ruling out the supplier with the best chipsets, there isn’t much pressure for the rest of the competitors to catch up.Not long term. Competition is good in the long run.
Because Apple already is a monopoly, it doesn't need to be even more so.
Yep, same old stuff and the court date couldn't come quick enough and I doubt there will be settlement before then. When the dust settles, we'll know more details.
It's a recurring theme here... the entitlement of some of the members (many actually) is disgustingly insulting to everyone.
How about Apple innovates instead of just throwing money at a solution and swallowing all the competition? That's not progress.
I *love* that game.If your understanding of monopoly is "get $200 when you pass Go", I can see how you'd come to that conclusion.
1. Yes
2. ...and?
3. No
4. No
5. No
I correct answer would be:
Because Apple has the capital and Qualcomm is a publicly traded company. Apple can just buy enough shares to control Qualcomm and hence "take over" management. This is called a hostile take over which can be countered at an even greater expense for Qualcomm.
No, I want to know why YOU think they can just steamroll through the tech industry and buy everyone out.
It’s up to the courts to decide this, not the posters in MacRumors. (Which is a good thing)Qualcomm's technology is a national security interest and is more American than Apple. Apple should just pay up fairly like everyone else and shouldn't be entitled to a free handout.
User who has written exclusively negative posts for the last 3 and a half years judges other users' posts.
"How about Apple innovates instead of..." - the eye-rolling comment which doesn't really mean anything.
Add in "Steve Jobs would never..." and I think we'll have a full house from you today. I'll give you this: you may not be the most objective poster, but you sure as heck make a good drinking game.
I *love* that game.
That was already decided when the Broadcom bid was refused by the Treasury Dept. (CFIUS) and Trump. (This is in reference to the Nat Sec claim, not the payment by Apple)It’s up to the courts to decide this, not the posters in MacRumors. (Which is a good thing)
Exactly what “suggestions” have you made that “benefit the consumer” that aren’t either hyperbolic in nature or go against generally accepted business practices?I would expect this kind of response in an Apple echo chamber when the status quo is challenged. What's astonishing though is that whenever I do say anything that would benefit the consumer (you), THIS is the kind of hostility that always springs up. Just shut your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears and scream 'NO! I don't want a better tech experience because I believe everything Apple tells me!'
Fair point. I doubt the Qualcomm shareholders would agree to an acquisition by Apple in this instance.
The pressure comes from the threat. "Hit these performance and power benchmarks or we'll move back to qualcomm."Generelly it is. But as long as Apple is completely ruling out the supplier with the best chipsets, there isn’t much pressure for the rest of the competitors to catch up.
The post I was replying to seemed to imply that because Apple has so much cash, they should just purchase Qualcomm. I was simply stating that having a huge pile of cash does not mean Apple can simply buy another company. I stand by my statement that Apple cannot buy something that's not for sale. If Qualcomm doesn't accept Apple's theoretical offer, it means the company is not for sale (to Apple). Although, as someone else pointed out subsequently, there is also the option of a hostile takeover; but I doubt the shareholders of Qualcomm would agree to that.
How does this hurt consumers (EU's interpretation of monopoly) and how does it hurt competition (US's interpretation of monopoly)? One could easily argue that no matter how you interpret monopolies, Apple is the safest for consumers and best for competition compared to Google and Microsoft.Microsoft does not have a monopoly on stores that sell Windows apps. Samsung doesn't have a monopoly on stores that sell android apps.
Everything is for sale. It just takes the right price.They can't buy something that's not being offered for sale.
Exactly what “suggestions” have you made that “benefit the consumer” that aren’t either hyperbolic in nature or go against generally accepted business practices?
Monopoly is a game.That’s sad to hear. =(
That is one of the worst board games in existence.
Try something like Settlers of Catan & I think your whole mind might be blown!!!
In a nutshell- Monopoly is zero sum. One winner gets EVERYTHING, everyone else gets NOTHING. You can’t “almost win” at Monopoly. You either won everything & feel great, or lost everything & feel like garbage.
What a weird goal for a game! To have the majority of the participants feel terrible after playing.
Settlers of Catan was brilliantly balanced so that even the most seasoned of players have but a slim advantage... it’s such a clever blend of luck, strategy, & skill!
Almost every game comes VERY close & anyone can win!
OK, the headphone jack isn’t coming back. Everybody makes “suggestions” on these forums with very few actually implemented.Put back in the headphone jack and user installable RAM / SSDs (data is important).
Stop disrespecting consumers by not allowing 3rd party repairs, parts, high fees, etc.
Implement the cmd+x and cmd+v to move files in finder (a standard in every OS and application except Apple?)
Add option for green button to maximize windows in OS X to fill screen without hiding dock and file menu.
Release a headless iMac that isn't gimped like the Mac Mini.
Release a Mac Pro that isn't gimped, outdated and overpriced.
I could go on but I've made my point.
That's not true Apple will hand over whatever data they have tied to you if subpoenaed by a judge. Now people get confused and go "ha ha, it's encrypted and Apple can't decrypt it" but that doesn't matter; they will still hand over your data in an encrypted format. Can law enforcement decrypt it today? I don't know, what about next month? next year? They'll get there eventually.I guess you don't realize that when you buy apple hardware with their software, what you are paying for is the most secure, hacker resistant ecosystem on the planet. They even deny governments' ability to access your devices. But hey, you may not care about those things so you should probably switch to windows and android.