Apple May Spend Several Billion Dollars to Obtain 'Substantial Stake' in Toshiba's Memory Chip Business

[Rainshadow]

LEGO, LEGO, LEGO! It's already a plural, there is no need to add S to the end of Lego.

If grammer brothers u that much. Y r u spending you're time readin' forums on the internet.!

 

[dannys1]

If you want to go all Lego-grammar on me, it's technically, "bricks"

Lego has become synonymous with an interlocking brick system, just as 'Band-Aid' is common use for an adhesive bandage, and 'Kleenex' is for 'disposable tissue.'

You don't need to say "Lego bricks" though - you can just say "we have lot's of Lego", "there is lot's of Lego" "Look at all this Lego" there's never really any reason to say "All these Lego bricks" as it works already.

Same with vinyl and software. Though "Legos" sounds like something a toddler would say to me.

I would disagree that you call any interlocking bricks "Lego" though - i'd only call Lego, Lego - like i'd only call a Mac a Mac. So no, I don't think it's become synonymous with all those kind of toys. Nor for me has Kleenex. Tannoy for announcement system has and "Google it" for all search engines. Lego doesn't fit into this though.

 

[JeffyTheQuik]

You don't need to say "Lego bricks" though - you can just say "we have lot's of Lego", "there is lot's of Lego" "Look at all this Lego" there's never really any reason to say "All these Lego bricks" as it works already.

Same with vinyl and software. Though "Legos" sounds like something a toddler would say to me.

I would disagree that you call any interlocking bricks "Lego" though - i'd only call Lego, Lego - like i'd only call a Mac a Mac. So no, I don't think it's become synonymous with all those kind of toys. Nor for me has Kleenex. Tannoy for announcement system has and "Google it" for all search engines. Lego doesn't fit into this though.

After going to the Lego website, and having 7 kids, you're right on the toddlers. I learned from them. Pretty much any of the different Lego knockoffs were called "Legos"

Then again, this may be just one of those "Two countries separated by a common language." thing. Like when my girlfriend, Lory, drove her truck, while wearing her fanny pack to an an elevator that lifted her.

 

[MH01]

Yours is a common misconception. Aside from the talent, culture capital, and streaming service that everyone focused on, the Beats acquisition turned out to be an ingeniously profitable hardware acquisition. Apple has grown it and Apple is now the largest seller of wireless headphones IN THE WORLD, and they have 60% of the entire premium headphone market IN THE WORLD. These headphones have a huge markup, and with wireless by now the largest, and growing exponentially, share of the revenue in headphones, Tim Cook has aptly demonstrated his business acumen.

I see .... when it comes to iPhone , market share is not important, when it comes to beats , suddenly markert share in wireless is important. Geez I love the hypocrisy on this site . Where you went wrong is believing that expansive wireless headphones are a growing market , given the crap SQ. apple could infact capture the highend audio market if they invested, instead they sell mid level SQ wireless headphones at highend prices.

 

[truthertech]

I see .... when it comes to iPhone , market share is not important, when it comes to beats , suddenly markert share in wireless is important. Geez I love the hypocrisy on this site . Where you went wrong is believing that expansive wireless headphones are a growing market , given the crap SQ. apple could infact capture the highend audio market if they invested, instead they sell mid level SQ wireless headphones at highend prices.

Market share isn't important in if itself, but it can be an important indicator of success in the market. Indeed, The iPhone owns the high end market share, which is the only place Apple wants to compete because that's where the profits are and that's where they can make the type of device they are interested in making. I'm not sure where you misunderstanding about wireless market share comes from, but it's now by far the largest by revenue and growing exponentially--proving Apple's prescient thinking in acquiring Beats

 

[MH01]

Market share isn't important in if itself, but it can be an important indicator of success in the market. Indeed, The iPhone owns the high end market share, which is the only place Apple wants to compete because that's where the profits are and that's where they can make the type of device they are interested in making. I'm not sure where you misunderstanding about wireless market share comes from, but it's now by far the largest by revenue and growing exponentially--proving Apple's prescient thinking in acquiring Beats

Can I ask, if the overall wireless market , what percentage is Beats ? My opinion is that apple did not buy beats for the hardware, but the brand , industry contacts and Beays boys, the hardware was thrown in for free.

 

[truthertech]

Last retail survey I saw showed Beats holding at about 50% of the revenue for the entire wireless market and over 25 % of unit sales. 25% is dang impressive, but it is deceptively low since that compares Beats to the cheap, low end sales, and when you look at a more realistic group of competitors, they are over 60%. My point is that the analysts all focused, understandably, on the tremendous Brand value, streaming service, and talent that Apple was getting, but they missed out on what Tim Cook realized--the wireless market was about to take off and Beats, with a huge mark up, was well positioned to be a cash cow. Wireless headsets took over the majority of the market a year ago, by revenue, and it continues to grow exponentially. Having half of the revenue in an exploding market is a pattern that Apple knows well. Kudos to Cook.