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

Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 156 posts

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#71

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

I think one one interesting thing is that megacorps that seem to integrate big acquisitions (Amazon -> Whole Foods, Microsoft -> Github & LinkedIn, Facebook -> WhatsApp), all seem to be megacorps that don’t mind doing shit in a messy, scrappy way.

Whereas companies with a strong fixation on design & aesthetic seem to have a harder time. To fit into Apple, everything must look and feel like Apple. There could never be a new “Whole Foods” tab where things look and feel like Whole Foods. So Apple melts it down and recasts what it can into Apple - a lot like the Borg.

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#72

Post by PierceJoy »

root_axis wrote: post #66
ralfd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of this: > Measured by value, Apple’s acquisitions are actually far more restrained than those of many of its tech rivals. Microsoft paid $26bn for LinkedIn, Amazon paid $13.7bn for Whole Foods and Facebook paid $19bn for WhatsApp. Apple’s ten largest purchases put together would still be worth far less than any of those deals. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if ALL of Apples acquisitions were less than $13…

I don't see why the price Apple paid matters at all. What Apple does with the acquisitions I think is far more relevant. LinkedIn, Whole Foods, and WhatsApp have continued to thrive after acquisition, all of Apple's acquisitions are gutted and scavenged for parts to incorporate into their locked-down walled garden. Don't get me wrong, it's a great business strategy and the reason that Apple products are typically sup…

Is this a distinction without a difference? LinkedIn's tech is wholly owned and funded by Microsoft. If you are competing with LinkedIn, you are competing with Microsoft regardless of the name on the website. Since more diverse competition is the goal, I don't believe these situations are actually different.

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#74

Post by root_axis »

PierceJoy wrote: post #72
root_axis wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why the price Apple paid matters at all. What Apple does with the acquisitions I think is far more relevant. LinkedIn, Whole Foods, and WhatsApp have continued to thrive after acquisition, all of Apple's acquisitions are gutted and scavenged for parts to incorporate into their locked-down walled garden. Don't get me wrong, it's a great business strategy and the reason that Apple products are typically sup…

Is this a distinction without a difference? LinkedIn's tech is wholly owned and funded by Microsoft. If you are competing with LinkedIn, you are competing with Microsoft regardless of the name on the website. Since more diverse competition is the goal, I don't believe these situations are actually different.

The distinction is that the other examples listed continue to exist in their original form with their original vision and use-case intact, without disrupting the user experience by being shutdown and reconstituted as part of an Apple exclusive product or service.

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#75

Post by PierceJoy »

jackconsidine wrote: post #69
root_axis wrote: post #58

The HN commentary on this article is amusing to me. Every story about a big tech company on this forum is a lecture on our degenerate age of failed antitrust law, but when it comes to Apple we're treated to a litany of "so what?". Honestly, I don't mind Apple's acquisitions (though I do wish I was living in a world where I could buy an M1 the same way I can buy an i7), but I just felt compelled to drop this little nu…

Well said. The HN crowd- normally critical and hyper-rational- is incredibly loyal to Apple, interestingly.

Maybe years ago, but I feel like this is the opposite of reality today. I've seen far more hypocritical criticism of Apple on HN than baseless support for a number of years now.

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#76

Post by cmdli »

root_axis wrote: post #66
ralfd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of this: > Measured by value, Apple’s acquisitions are actually far more restrained than those of many of its tech rivals. Microsoft paid $26bn for LinkedIn, Amazon paid $13.7bn for Whole Foods and Facebook paid $19bn for WhatsApp. Apple’s ten largest purchases put together would still be worth far less than any of those deals. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if ALL of Apples acquisitions were less than $13…

I don't see why the price Apple paid matters at all. What Apple does with the acquisitions I think is far more relevant. LinkedIn, Whole Foods, and WhatsApp have continued to thrive after acquisition, all of Apple's acquisitions are gutted and scavenged for parts to incorporate into their locked-down walled garden. Don't get me wrong, it's a great business strategy and the reason that Apple products are typically sup…

It's not the price that necessarily matters but the market share, which is often represented in the price. A company like Facebook (a large social media corporation) buying WhatsApp (a large messaging app) creates an even bigger company in terms of influence on the market. Apple might be buying companies for their tech, but their acquisitions don't just automatically increase their influence or market share through consolidation.

For example, I would be a lot less worried about Exxon buying small petroleum tech startups that don't own any oil fields than I would be about Exxon buying Shell, a major competitor in terms of market share.

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#77

Post by TimTheTinker »

wlll wrote: post #41
texasbigdata wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So...26 a year? That's in the same range.

Everyone I know goes once a week. once every two weeks and you'd start to run out of fresh produce in week 2.

In Europe, people generally have much smaller larders and refrigerators. There are more markets, they’re smaller, and people visit them more often — ideally almost every day for the freshest produce.

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#78

Post by coldtea »

root_axis wrote: post #66
ralfd wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because of this: > Measured by value, Apple’s acquisitions are actually far more restrained than those of many of its tech rivals. Microsoft paid $26bn for LinkedIn, Amazon paid $13.7bn for Whole Foods and Facebook paid $19bn for WhatsApp. Apple’s ten largest purchases put together would still be worth far less than any of those deals. Actually I wouldn't be surprised if ALL of Apples acquisitions were less than $13…

I don't see why the price Apple paid matters at all. What Apple does with the acquisitions I think is far more relevant. LinkedIn, Whole Foods, and WhatsApp have continued to thrive after acquisition, all of Apple's acquisitions are gutted and scavenged for parts to incorporate into their locked-down walled garden. Don't get me wrong, it's a great business strategy and the reason that Apple products are typically sup…

>I don't see why the price Apple paid matters at all.

Because it's a signal of how strong the acquisitions are.

Tech/talent acquisitions, like these, are far more benign than buying and killing strong rising competitors in your domain and consolidating power (e.g. Facebook and Instagram).

>all of Apple's acquisitions are gutted and scavenged for parts to incorporate into their locked-down walled garden

That's because they usually amounted to nothing end-user wise to begin with. They where just smaller specific technologies that, e.g. went to be incorporated into the OS or similar...

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#79

Post by PierceJoy »

root_axis wrote: post #74
PierceJoy wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a distinction without a difference? LinkedIn's tech is wholly owned and funded by Microsoft. If you are competing with LinkedIn, you are competing with Microsoft regardless of the name on the website. Since more diverse competition is the goal, I don't believe these situations are actually different.

The distinction is that the other examples listed continue to exist in their original form with their original vision and use-case intact, without disrupting the user experience by being shutdown and reconstituted as part of an Apple exclusive product or service.

That's a fair point, but I think you've cherry picked a few very notable examples and made an apples to oranges comparison. The other tech companies acquire hundreds of small companies and shut them down. Google is notorious for this. The examples you used were big companies with massive user bases before the acquisition. I suspect Apple's most notable acquisition to date is Beats, and it continues to operate under it's own brand today.

Re: Apple buys a company every three to four weeks

#80

Post by lostgame »

internet2000 wrote: post #63
qbasic_forever wrote: post #9

So ~15 companies a year? That doesn't sound outrageous for a company with billions and billions of dollars in the bank, and billions more coming in every quarter. edit: If anything there's probably immense pressure on Cook to buy buy buy more stuff. I don't think anyone inside Apple wants to have a repeat of stuff like old Apple maps or other products that just languished and died internally while external companies…

Maps hasn’t languished at all.

Just going to also assert that Apple Maps has significantly improved head over heels over the years here in Canada.

YMMV.

Post reply on HN