Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

imgtec.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 201 posts

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#51

Post by _anything_ »

boogersandstuff wrote: post #27
trendnet wrote: post #3

Judging by the tone used in that press release, they are in deep trouble. It does not even matter that £60.7 million is a small portion of their business. It could be the opposite of what happened to ARM when Apple decided to put their chips into Newton.

Their 2016 annual report notes £120.0m revenue (90 from IP/royalties) and £136.5m in operating expenses with an operating loss of £87.0m. Their new CEO mentions refocusing the company on IP and royalty income. Now Apple, which pays 60% of that income, is ducking out. Ouch. In the same report, they mention "There are no parties with whom the Group has contractual or other arrangements which are essential to the busine…

>> What's funny is in their financial risk assessment they focus on bullshit like investment shifts and outside IP threats, but gloss over the whole "what if that huge contract our company depends on happens to fall apart?"

Perhaps thats why they've refocused on IP, projects that are actually profitable.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#52

Post by eps »

trendnet wrote: post #3

Judging by the tone used in that press release, they are in deep trouble. It does not even matter that £60.7 million is a small portion of their business. It could be the opposite of what happened to ARM when Apple decided to put their chips into Newton.

Apple accounts for one half of their revenue.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-imagntn-tchnlgs-apple-idUS...

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#54

Post by esun »

rfrey wrote: post #40
dba7dba wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So Apple's not even bothering with buying the company for the talent? Apple is just straight up poach talent, and cutting out the company?

The people don't belong to the company, why should the company get "a cut"?

The people are free to go, but getting the same people to develop the same product again without infringing patents is a challenge.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#55

Post by indy »

nl wrote: post #53

This is worded like this because ImgTech had a duty to disclose the notice they received from Apple. Check out what the share price did: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=LSE%3A+IMG (down 60% - looks even more dramatic in the 5-day view)

Does the decrease in share price make them a more attractive acquisition target for Apple?

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#56

Post by _anything_ »

nl wrote: post #53

This is worded like this because ImgTech had a duty to disclose the notice they received from Apple. Check out what the share price did: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=LSE%3A+IMG (down 60% - looks even more dramatic in the 5-day view)

There is definitely a lot of money to be made here, can't see it staying so low.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#57

Post by pavlov »

nl wrote: post #53

This is worded like this because ImgTech had a duty to disclose the notice they received from Apple. Check out what the share price did: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=LSE%3A+IMG (down 60% - looks even more dramatic in the 5-day view)

The last time their stock was this low was eight years ago...!

This could make the company a pretty attractive acquisition target for a competitor?

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#58

Post by winterismute »

exabrial wrote: post #45
boogersandstuff wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their 2016 annual report notes £120.0m revenue (90 from IP/royalties) and £136.5m in operating expenses with an operating loss of £87.0m. Their new CEO mentions refocusing the company on IP and royalty income. Now Apple, which pays 60% of that income, is ducking out. Ouch. In the same report, they mention "There are no parties with whom the Group has contractual or other arrangements which are essential to the busine…

> The discussion between Apple and these guys must've really gone south for a nasty and desperate press release like this That's what I found most intriguing. Why go public with this? (Especially with ongoing litigation)

UK regulations on stock markets are quite tough, publicly listed companies must share information that could impact the company as soon as they can. Public opinion is pretty susceptible to this too due to events in recent years.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#59

Post by _anything_ »

indy wrote: post #55
nl wrote: post #53

This is worded like this because ImgTech had a duty to disclose the notice they received from Apple. Check out what the share price did: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=LSE%3A+IMG (down 60% - looks even more dramatic in the 5-day view)

Does the decrease in share price make them a more attractive acquisition target for Apple?

I wouldn't put this past them as an acquisition tactic, Imagination drops MIPS, Ensigma and suddenly they look very attractive just for the patents alone.

Re: Discussions with Apple regarding license agreement

#60

Post by mirimir »

indy wrote: post #55
nl wrote: post #53

This is worded like this because ImgTech had a duty to disclose the notice they received from Apple. Check out what the share price did: https://www.google.com.au/search?q=LSE%3A+IMG (down 60% - looks even more dramatic in the 5-day view)

Does the decrease in share price make them a more attractive acquisition target for Apple?

Wouldn't that be considered manipulation? Or at least, using inside information.
Post reply on HN