Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

What I don't get: Why doesn't apple acquire companies like corning?

B

brinycbri

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Mar 13, 2007
514
0
I mean they can edge the competition out if they just acquire corning, gorilla glass, that new thing that makes the iphone waterproof, and other pivotal companies that everyone uses.

Any idea why they just don't do that?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Corning is huge. It wouldn't be a little purchase.

Consumer electronics glass is only a part of their business. They are also the leading manufacturer of fiber optic glass in the world.
 
Because then Apple would be in the dinner plate business. Not exactly a strategic move that would sit well with the share holders.
 
Man, if we each had a nickel for every time someone wanted Apple to buy up a company... we could've bought Apple! :)

Not long ago, Apple paid an unspecified amount for a perpetual license to use Liquid Metal (tm) in consumer electronics devices.

So Samsung, who had been using it for years for phone hinges and trim, stopped using it. No big loss for them. In turn, Apple has never used it except for their SIM ejection tool.

Pretty much a waste of money all around so far. Didn't hurt Samsung. Hasn't helped Apple. And probably wasn't a good idea longterm for the inventors.

If Apple bought rights to Gorilla Glass, it would probably be a loss for Corning, and it wouldn't prevent similar glass from being invented or used.

Not to mention that the last thing you want to do, is force your competitors to come up with something else just as good or better. At that moment your attempt at locking down the older method becomes moot.
 
If they did, I would hope that they allowed them to still sell to other companies, my Sony Bravia uses Gorilla glass too!
 
funny how some of you get so pissy about reading this thread, just don't read it lol...

i mean i feel that they would get a better return on investment than repurchasing shares, it's not like they need additional rewards to shareholders for a higher total return

you're right, corning doesn't make sense because it's so huge at like 20b market cap..

but like liquid metal they could...and a jv is different
 
This reminds me of the whole "Apple is going to buy Sony" rumors. Never going to happen.
 
I think they just don't want to create the glass for their iPhone in house. It's probably better for them to purchase it from a 3rd party (Corning). And if something comes out that is better than Corning Gorilla glass Apple can go to that other company and purchase there glass or whatever from them.

You have to understand that just about every end product that Apple makes (laptops, desktops, phones, music players etc), all the individual parts that goes into making that end product are from at least hundreds of other companies.
 
Given that Apple seems to have some expertise with construction glass (see the Apple Stores) it would make a certain amount of sense. However, look at Corning's whole profile. Ceramic Substrates, Diesel Particulate Filters, Fiber Optics, Fluoride Crystals, Custom Materials. If you are good at consumer electronics, why in the world would you want to dive into material science and chemistry?

In fact, look at the food processing industry. It seems someone is always buying one product line or another, mining the profit out of it, mismanaging it, then selling it to someone else. It's not that they have a speciality or interest in, oh say peanuts or ice cream. It's the fact that brand is making money.

Personally, I think Apple has been very wise with their acquisitions. Over-reach is the one thing you want to avoid.
 
Gorilla glass is like a must have feature in any high end device though. Would be messed up if only Apple could use it. There might be monopoly issues perhaps.
 
If anything Apple could offer to make an exclusive license of Gorilla Glass or some special variant, but Corning does far more than just consumer products. Most of their business does not fit within Apple's core competencies or products.
 
You heard it here first. The all new iStore

istore.png
 
ejb190 said:
Given that Apple seems to have some expertise with construction glass (see the Apple Stores) it would make a certain amount of sense. However, look at Corning's whole profile. Ceramic Substrates, Diesel Particulate Filters, Fiber Optics, Fluoride Crystals, Custom Materials. If you are good at consumer electronics, why in the world would you want to dive into material science and chemistry?

In fact, look at the food processing industry. It seems someone is always buying one product line or another, mining the profit out of it, mismanaging it, then selling it to someone else. It's not that they have a speciality or interest in, oh say peanuts or ice cream. It's the fact that brand is making money.

Personally, I think Apple has been very wise with their acquisitions. Over-reach is the one thing you want to avoid.
Click to expand...

Umm just because Apple stores use glass does not mean they have any experience in building with it. The architecture company might and the gc who built but more it would really be the sub who put it together and did a bulk of the design work to meet the requirements.

Sorry but the share amount of stuff wrong in this post is beyond sad.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
Umm just because Apple stores use glass does not mean they have any experience in building with it. The architecture company might and the gc who built but more it would really be the sub who put it together and did a bulk of the design work to meet the requirements.

Sorry but the share amount of stuff wrong in this post is beyond sad.
Click to expand...

What was actually wrong in the post? Other than your assumption that Apple has no expertise with construction glass despite Steve Jobs clearly implying that they did?
 
BaldiMac said:
What was actually wrong in the post? Other than your assumption that Apple has no expertise with construction glass despite Steve Jobs clearly implying that they did?
Click to expand...

It was saying they have all this experience with it. Yeah a lot of stories have it and they know what looks pretty.

As someone who has worked in commercial construction it had problems left and right.

Also what Steve Jobs imply means very little. Apple would of given it to a general contractor who would of given that part of the job to a sub.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
It was saying they have all this experience with it. Yeah a lot of stories have it and they know what looks pretty.

As someone who has worked in commercial construction it had problems left and right.

Also what Steve Jobs imply means very little. Apple would of given it to a general contractor who would of given that part of the job to a sub.
Click to expand...

What you would assume Apple would have done means even less that what Steve Jobs implied. The claim isn't wrong because you assume it is. Apple even applied for a patent for the glass design of the Shanghai store. I think it's reasonable to assume that Apple has had significant involvement in the design of the glass features in many of their flagship stores and their new headquarters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back