Tiassa
04-12-03, 03:04 PM
The day is coming ... the day is coming. We celebrated last night prematurely, but the word coming in through MacNN (http://www.macnn.com) via the Los Angeles Times is that Apple (http://www.apple.com) is in talks to acquire Universal Music (http://www.umusic.com/static/index.html) for up to $6 billion.
Apple Reportedly in Talks to Buy Universal Music (LA Times - registration required):In a pairing that would alter the architecture of the music business, Apple Computer Inc. is in talks with Vivendi Universal to buy Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, for as much as $6 billion, sources said.
Such a seemingly unlikely combination would instantly make technology guru Steve Jobs, Apple's co-founder and chief executive, the most powerful player in the record industry.
_
Universal, which reaps about $6 billion in sales annually from artists such as 50 Cent, Shania Twain, U2 and Luciano Pavarotti, would be controlled by a maverick who revolutionized the computer market and coined the mantra "rip, mix, burn," which many in the music business read as an invitation to electronic piracy. But, of course, as a url=http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/04/11/appleshares/]Macworld (http://www.umusic.com/static/index.html) article notes, the analysts are missing the point:"While it can be argued that Apple could make some incremental revenue from the online sale of music, the company would not need to own a music company in order to do so," Merrill Lynch analyst Michael Hillmeyer wrote in a note to clients. "In fact, there do not appear to be any synergies between a music company and a PC company, even one as innovative as Apple."I must admit, the final effect of that quote is that I will never trust Merrill Lynch with my money. The synergies are simply not easily marked in a ledger, so of course a financial analyst won't see them. Besides, this isn't necessarily about online music sales. Apple has been pulling some guerilla tactics during the OSX run, and we've all wondered what the hell Steve was up to; we've also learned that when we wonder what the hell Steve is up to, we're usually shocked and awed when we find out.
MacObserver (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/04/11.11.shtml) carries a story that has since disappeared from CBS Marketwatch, including some commentary and spin:
We'll throw yet another twist on this idea by saying that the original story could also have been leaked by someone else in the industry, like a Vivendi competitor, who was interested in derailing the entire process. We find it hard to believe that Apple would have wanted this information known, especially considering that any purchase of this nature is going to require some significant, and well-crafted outside financing. Muddying the waters with interest from elsewhere will not help the company achieve that. Certainly Mr. Davis is not going to want to play negotiating and bidding games either.Everyone seems to be overlooking the reason Apple did not get into the music industry this way earlier. What seems significant to at least one musician I know is that this story suggests that Jobs and Paul McCartney have resolved outstanding issues related to a company called "Apple" owning a record label. We know that one of the major problems with OSX right now has to do with iTunes, as Apple apparently gets ready for a music trading service (http://www.audiobuyersguide.com/software/audio/apple_music_service.html) to apparently be integrated with the mp3 player.
One of the benefits of being ignored and reviled as Apple is by the general market is that nobody pays attention when the Apple faithful start dropping rhetorical MOAB's on tech support whenever Apple's OS starts to falter; many people have learned that it usually means there's a surprise coming--we think a bunch of system-level updates during the OS9/OSX transition were actually hidden in massive Carbon Library updates and huge and seemingly ineffectual authoring support updates (why authoring support on a dying platform?) And yet again, we get our answer: the day is coming ... the day is coming.
For those who use QuickTime (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/) the potential Universal acquisition seems to promise that music will be treated in the same way as movies; what will be most impressive is the potential for independent musicians, as Apple has always been happy to point out independent film coded to QT.
Music distribution in general, will change drastically if Apple succeeds in acquiring Universal Music; doubters note--your consumer experience with online music will only get better because of this.
And to look back to the idiot from Merrill Lynch: this isn't about music-download revenues. This is a long-term strategy intended to put Apple computer on the line in order to secure its future position in a massive technology war. As one associate has noted: If you had what could kill Microsoft Windows, wouldn't you stake all to protect it until you can use it?
There are at least two people left at Apple who are willing to work out of a garage: Steve himself, and perhaps Jonathan Ives, who designed the iMac. Of course, we also joke that the Woz might come home at that point, and wonder about the defection of large numbers of Microsoft millionaires no longer working for MS; remember, a lot of early Microsoft, including Bill Gates, spent time in Cupertino.
From "Think Different" to "Think" ... there is another thought revolution taking place at Apple.
And this one will spill over into the streets. The people will rejoice.
:m:,
Tiassa :cool:
Apple Reportedly in Talks to Buy Universal Music (LA Times - registration required):In a pairing that would alter the architecture of the music business, Apple Computer Inc. is in talks with Vivendi Universal to buy Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, for as much as $6 billion, sources said.
Such a seemingly unlikely combination would instantly make technology guru Steve Jobs, Apple's co-founder and chief executive, the most powerful player in the record industry.
_
Universal, which reaps about $6 billion in sales annually from artists such as 50 Cent, Shania Twain, U2 and Luciano Pavarotti, would be controlled by a maverick who revolutionized the computer market and coined the mantra "rip, mix, burn," which many in the music business read as an invitation to electronic piracy. But, of course, as a url=http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/04/11/appleshares/]Macworld (http://www.umusic.com/static/index.html) article notes, the analysts are missing the point:"While it can be argued that Apple could make some incremental revenue from the online sale of music, the company would not need to own a music company in order to do so," Merrill Lynch analyst Michael Hillmeyer wrote in a note to clients. "In fact, there do not appear to be any synergies between a music company and a PC company, even one as innovative as Apple."I must admit, the final effect of that quote is that I will never trust Merrill Lynch with my money. The synergies are simply not easily marked in a ledger, so of course a financial analyst won't see them. Besides, this isn't necessarily about online music sales. Apple has been pulling some guerilla tactics during the OSX run, and we've all wondered what the hell Steve was up to; we've also learned that when we wonder what the hell Steve is up to, we're usually shocked and awed when we find out.
MacObserver (http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/04/11.11.shtml) carries a story that has since disappeared from CBS Marketwatch, including some commentary and spin:
We'll throw yet another twist on this idea by saying that the original story could also have been leaked by someone else in the industry, like a Vivendi competitor, who was interested in derailing the entire process. We find it hard to believe that Apple would have wanted this information known, especially considering that any purchase of this nature is going to require some significant, and well-crafted outside financing. Muddying the waters with interest from elsewhere will not help the company achieve that. Certainly Mr. Davis is not going to want to play negotiating and bidding games either.Everyone seems to be overlooking the reason Apple did not get into the music industry this way earlier. What seems significant to at least one musician I know is that this story suggests that Jobs and Paul McCartney have resolved outstanding issues related to a company called "Apple" owning a record label. We know that one of the major problems with OSX right now has to do with iTunes, as Apple apparently gets ready for a music trading service (http://www.audiobuyersguide.com/software/audio/apple_music_service.html) to apparently be integrated with the mp3 player.
One of the benefits of being ignored and reviled as Apple is by the general market is that nobody pays attention when the Apple faithful start dropping rhetorical MOAB's on tech support whenever Apple's OS starts to falter; many people have learned that it usually means there's a surprise coming--we think a bunch of system-level updates during the OS9/OSX transition were actually hidden in massive Carbon Library updates and huge and seemingly ineffectual authoring support updates (why authoring support on a dying platform?) And yet again, we get our answer: the day is coming ... the day is coming.
For those who use QuickTime (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/) the potential Universal acquisition seems to promise that music will be treated in the same way as movies; what will be most impressive is the potential for independent musicians, as Apple has always been happy to point out independent film coded to QT.
Music distribution in general, will change drastically if Apple succeeds in acquiring Universal Music; doubters note--your consumer experience with online music will only get better because of this.
And to look back to the idiot from Merrill Lynch: this isn't about music-download revenues. This is a long-term strategy intended to put Apple computer on the line in order to secure its future position in a massive technology war. As one associate has noted: If you had what could kill Microsoft Windows, wouldn't you stake all to protect it until you can use it?
There are at least two people left at Apple who are willing to work out of a garage: Steve himself, and perhaps Jonathan Ives, who designed the iMac. Of course, we also joke that the Woz might come home at that point, and wonder about the defection of large numbers of Microsoft millionaires no longer working for MS; remember, a lot of early Microsoft, including Bill Gates, spent time in Cupertino.
From "Think Different" to "Think" ... there is another thought revolution taking place at Apple.
And this one will spill over into the streets. The people will rejoice.
:m:,
Tiassa :cool: