Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Apple Businesses

Apple Posts Earnings, Denies Bid for Universal 233

Lars T. writes "A number of things: Apple posts Q2 results, and denies it bid for Universial Music. Now a Register article quotes a Reuters article that 'Vivendi Universal director Claude Bebear didn't express his views on the merger talks between Vivendi's Universal Music Group (UMG) and Apple,' which was the claim of the Bloomberg article. Now who needs General Hospital?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Posts Earnings, Denies Bid for Universal

Comments Filter:
  • Profit! (Score:5, Funny)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:17AM (#5750601) Homepage Journal

    Every quarter that Apple posts a profit is just another nail in the coffin of that dying company.

    Oh wait..
  • in other news (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fjordboy ( 169716 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:18AM (#5750606) Homepage
    I wonder what how the stock of vivendi and apple changed after the LA times announced the alleged talks of apple's plan to purchase vivendi...Seems like a pretty big announcement to simply be a rumor.

    With the Ipod and itunes and all, I thought it would only be a matter of time until Apple got involved with a record label. I'm actually a little disappointed that this was all just speculation.
    • Re:in other news (Score:3, Interesting)

      by fjordboy ( 169716 )
      Hmm, it actually looks like vivendi [cnet.com] had a significant boost last week...and dropped yesterday after the announcement.
    • Why wonder? (Score:3, Informative)

      by ianscot ( 591483 )
      You wonder? No need, when you can look it up.

      Apple stock drops on Universal music speculation [digitmag.co.uk].

      Apple shares fell more than eight per cent on Friday after investors learned of talks the company could be in to acquire Universal Music Group from Vivendi Universal. Apple's stock closed at $13.20, down $1.17, or 8.14 per cent.

      Comparing the deal to the AOL Time Warner merger, investors are concerned that an Apple/Universal deal would deplete Apple's healthy cash reserve, estimated at over $4 billion.

      To "

    • by thatguywhoiam ( 524290 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @09:12AM (#5750972)
      I wonder what how the stock of vivendi and apple changed after the LA times announced the alleged talks of apple's plan to purchase vivendi...Seems like a pretty big announcement to simply be a rumor.

      Well, the stock took a big dip when the LA Times article broke, and now that it has been debunked by Jobs... they took another hit.

      Thus proving that Apple really is the bastard child of stocks, as one poster pointed out in the original thread. Also, on a more personal note, it asserts my long-running suspicion that the stock market is... i had a technical term for this, what was it... oh, yes. Fucked in the head.

    • by jaaron ( 551839 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @09:52AM (#5751343) Homepage
      Do you _really_ want Apple to buy a record label? Before you answer, think about Sony:

      Back before the whole Betamax episode, Sony was just a tech company -- and a good one at that. But after losing to VHS, the executives thought that if they had had a media company under roof, they could have used the clout of that media library to push forward their own technology. So they bought Columbia.

      Now maybe it was a smart move -- Sony Pictures made a heck of a lot of cash last year on movies like Spiderman. But have we really seen the marriage between tech and media that was promised? Moreover, Sony has often had internal turmoil due to the conflicting interests of Sony Pictures/Music and Sony Electronics. Many think it should have been Sony who came up with the iPod. I mean think about it, it's the next generation "walkman." The fact that Apple came up with it scares Sony to death. But do you think they could have produced it while holding interests in these large media corporations?

      I'm not sure if the same fate would befall Apple if they took on a media company, but I would hate to see them (again) lose focus. Apple is a great tech company and Jobs seems to know what it is that Apple does best and right. Sometimes the smartest move is to keep it that way.
  • by tholomyes ( 610627 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:20AM (#5750618) Homepage

    Note that Jobs only denies that they made an offer, which may well mean that Apple was/still are in talks with Universal...

    But my policy is to comment as egregiously as possible on rumors.

  • One wonders (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Snowspinner ( 627098 )
    Someone really ought to take all the times businseses explicitly say "We are not doing X", and gather data on how often they are in fact doing X. Classify by type of X - corporate mergers, new products, swindling customers, etc.

    I mean, I'm really curious exactly how much stock to put in Apple's denial here...

    Anyone have any ideas?
    • Someone else pointed out in the above posts that Jobs denied that they made an "offer" but didn't necessarily deny that they were talking about the deal w/ Vivendi...I think taking on a record company would be a wise move for Apple, now they could have royalty free music for their "switch" commercials. :-)
    • Re:One wonders (Score:2, Insightful)

      Enron: Kenny Lay tells his employees that the company is stable and fiscially sound.
      Immediately before speaking before his company he sold almost all his stock in Enron, saving his butt from the financial fallout soon to come.

      2...
      3....Profit!!
    • That's why Warren Buffett says he and his company won't comment on *any* rumors concerning them. If you deny the false ones consistently, the minute you say "no comment", you've effectively said yes.
  • A source tells me that there is the rumor about a quote (which was later denied) which when taken out of context can be construed to indicate that apple may be making a bid for Microsoft.

    Dont ask dont tell!

  • by Dutchmaan ( 442553 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:25AM (#5750646) Homepage
    ..can rarely be trusted.

    What company every admitted to a buyout or merger before it was actually announced.

    Take Bungie for instance.. The very night before their buyout by Microsoft was announced, they were denying that there was anything even on the table.
    • Part of the reason for this is regulatory, the other part is semantic. To some extent you are complaining about the fact that they didn't announce the merger until they announce it. But for there to be a state of the world where they had announced the merger, there must have been a state of the world when they did not announce it. You can't complain about the non-announced state of the world, because it only comes into being as a result of the announced state of the world. Enough semantics/quasi-logic - the
      • yes... I realize all that, my basic point being that a company telling you that a deal is not in the works is not a reliable statement... for the very reasons you sited.

        They would be better off to keep quiet about *all* questions regarding mergers and acquisitions (as a corporate policy regarding public relations) rather than issuing a public falsehood.

        i.e. when a question about a potential merger is put to them all they have to do is reply.. "It is our company policy not to discuss potential mergers and
  • My mistake (Score:5, Funny)

    by Carbonite ( 183181 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:25AM (#5750647)
    I glanced at the headline and thought it said "Apple Posts Earnings, Denies Bid for Universe". Then I realized I read it incorrectly, the article was about Apple, not Microsoft.
  • by blunte ( 183182 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:30AM (#5750681)
    It's common in the light-speed internet news world for one news agency to use another agency's article as the source of a story (and sometimes, without doing any fact/validation checking).

    It happens all the time. Journalistic practices have gone way downhill since the web. Many stories on the web are obviously not reviewed by an editor. Heck, some aren't even spell checked. We're talking about major news networks too, like CNN, Fox, etc. CNN is one of the worst. BBC appears to be one of the better ones.
    • by ianscot ( 591483 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:55AM (#5750830)
      A few different times now, I've sent something to the BBC's Web editors -- a little comment, a suggestion, a minor complaint about phrasing. (Once they'd put up an article about the ten-year anniversary of Prozac, IIRC, and their article basically treated Prozac as if it was the only SSRI or antidepressant around. I pointed them to some stuff about health plans in the US that had Zoloft on the formulary but wouldn't add Prozac any more, and suggested a less adulatory tone.)

      In all three cases, they've actually rewritten their stories to reflect my bitching, at least in some minor ways. Amazing, huh? They responded, and actually rewrote copy, within a few hours.

      On the one hand, how responsive they really are -- very cool, better than traditional papers by far and faster than, oh, a certain source of News for Nerds I can think of... ever try to get a headline changed?

      But was there adequate editorial oversight, if one reader is capable of influencing them this much? These weren't even rush stories; they were more like the sort of thing where the "reporting" was largely transcribing chunks of a press release. They're rushing the stories up, even at the BBC.

  • by jkabbe ( 631234 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:34AM (#5750701)
    Ahh, the beauty of the statement that while *technically* true is actually quite misleading. They denied that they had *made* a bid. They did not deny that they were investigating it and might make an offer later.

    I just hope they don't make such an offer. If they bought UMG they would be in the position of running a music service that relies on cooperation with the other music giants at the same time they are competing with the other music giants. That could be ugly and as a shareholder I don't want any part of that.
    • > If they bought UMG they would be in the position of running a music service that relies on cooperation with the other music giants at the same time they are competing with the other music giants. That could be ugly and as a shareholder I don't want any part of that.

      Many companies do this same sort of thing. For instance, IBM's single largest customer is Sun Microsystems, yet they are also a competitor. I, as a shareholder, approve of IBM's ability to focus on profits and not have to worry about the
  • by lowmagnet ( 646428 ) <eli.sarver@nOSPam.gmail.com> on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:38AM (#5750723) Homepage
    Apple Stock Drops 50% on Good News; Analyists too Embarassed to Admit Positive Outlook
  • I was really hoping Apple would buy Universal and use them as an example to the RIAA industry of how to do online business properly. Guess it sounded too good to be true.
    • I was really hoping Apple would buy Universal and use them as an example to the RIAA industry of how to do online business properly. Guess it sounded too good to be true.

      There's no reason to lose hope now. All that happened was a denial. It's standard business practice to deny everything until you publicly announce it.
  • Just for context... (Score:3, Informative)

    by AugstWest ( 79042 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:43AM (#5750757)
    The Carlyle Group [hereinreality.com] made a recent bid for control of Vivendi [cnn.com].

    Controlling governments, oil, weapons and media. This doesn't bode well.
  • Apple dead again (Score:5, Insightful)

    by panurge ( 573432 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @08:47AM (#5750780)
    If dying means being profitable and having 4.5billion in the bank, what does that say about all the high-tech companies that are currently (a) indebted and (b)losing money?
    Of course, the whole "Apple is dead" thing has been long term Microsoft et al FUD, but it makes a serious point.
    To succeed as a niche player in the market Apple actually has to be very efficient and well run. It has to be very focussed on efficient warehousing, distribution, all those old fashioned values. Getting the inventory planning wrong can wipe out that small profit very quickly.

    And my point? How can a company like that hope to take over a recording company? Potential for huge disaster.

    Years ago I used to work occasionally with a guy who had worked for Thorn in the Far East. (Thorn is a dead UK TV set manufacturer.) Thorn was in effect an Apple of its day. And they bought EMI, a recording company. My colleague went from planning the purchase of TV tubes in Hong Kong to authorising marketoids to stuff brown envelopes with cash and cocaine for record launch parties. He also was sent to get one Mick Jagger out of a Japanese drugs bust. He freely admitted that there was no way he could properly oversee such an unfamiliar world (how much is the right bribe for a DJ? How much cocaine is right for an NME journo? Now do you know why the RIAA is so worried? Every MP3 is a bit off the Columbian economy). So please, Apple, don't do it. I don't care if you only have 1% of the market so long as the Mac users I support continue to have user-friendly hardware and software.

  • When Apple filed their trademark claim it was initially denied because of Apple Records - the record company of the beatles. Apple Records eventually allowed Apple to use the name with one caveat - they could NEVER produce albums, which seemed like a ludicrous idea at the time. In our current multimedia society that isn't so weird anymore, but what is the deal with Universal - isn't this still illegal?

    • Apple didn't object to the trademark, because they can't. trademarks are particular to a domain, you can start a record company and call it Chrysler.

      Apple Record didn't sue until Apple Computer got into the multimedia business. Apparently, a settlement was reached so that Apple Computer should be in the clear now.

  • What baffles me most about this whole story is that Apple released a comment on the alleged talks with Universal. It is their policy, as it is with most enterprises, not to discuss rumors, future products, future mergers, etc.

    Why have a policy that you selectively break when its ?really not true?? Does this breach of policy allow rumors to be quasi-substantiated?

    ?Do or do not, there is no try? ? Old little green man-thing
  • This sounds like an elaborate April Fools joke that got a little out of hand to me. After all, it's still only April 17th, and the first story surfaced not long ago.
  • Then explain, Mr Jobs, why Apple owns the domain appleuniversal.com [networksolutions.com]?
  • From the Crazy Apple Rumors Site [crazyapplerumors.com], another press release:

    Apple Computers is pleased to announce the acquisition of a tuna fish sandwich on wheat toast with lettuce and mayonnaise.

    CEO Steve Jobs said "Apple has a long history of eating sandwiches, and this one will be no exception. I won't be eating it personally, since I don't eat fish or mayonnaise, but this sandwich will help us better achieve increased market share by providing much-needed nourishment."

    Apple ignited the personal computer revolution

  • by job0 ( 134689 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @09:29AM (#5751136)
    so why did they register AppleUniversal.com a few days ago?

    Domain Name: APPLEUNIVERSAL.COM
    Registrar: BULKREGISTER.COM, INC.
    Whois Server: whois.bulkregister.com
    Referral URL: http://www.bulkregister.com
    Name Server: NSERVER2.APPLE.COM
    Name Server: NSERVER.APPLE.COM
    Status: ACTIVE
    Updated Date: 11-apr-2003
    Creation Date: 11-apr-2003
    Expiration Date: 11-apr-2004
    NOTICE: The expiration date displayed in this record is the date the
    registrar's sponsorship of the domain name registration in the registry is
    currently set to expire. This date does not necessarily reflect the expiration
    date of the domain name registrant's agreement with the sponsoring
    registrar. Users may consult the sponsoring registrar's Whois database to
    view the registrar's reported date of expiration for this registration.
    • As has been covered on several sites by now:

      % whois -h whois.geektools.com appleuniversal.com
      GeekTools Whois Proxy v5.0 Ready.
      Checking server [whois.crsnic.net]
      Checking server [whois.bulkregister.com] Results:
      The data in Bulkregister.com's WHOIS database is provided
      [snip]
      Hahahah!!! Tricked You!!!
      April Fools
      Tricked You!, HA HA HA HAHAHA
      US
      Domain Name: APPLEUNIVERSAL.COM
      Administrative Contact:
      NOC Apple Apple-NOC@APPLE.COM
      [snip]

  • Over at MacSlash [macslash.org] we've got coverage of the conference call between analysts and Apple's CFO, Fred Anderson. It's fun to listen in on the conference calls, although there's not a whole lot of new information from this one. One of the most interesting things I heard was that the education market has fallen off so significantly for Apple. It'll be interesting to see how this picks up in the June quarter, when schools traditionally do a lot of buying for next year.
  • About General Hospital - is it a joke or an idiom or what? Or Stev Jobs is a patient of General Hospital? Or Apple buys General Hospital? Or General Hospital is the last client of Apple?

    Please, explain.

  • Note that Jobs hasn't denied considering a bid for Universal, preparing a bid, or even making one in the very near future. Just that he's made one already, which we all knew he hadn't.

    Of course, it's worth taking rumours like this with a large pack of salt, but so far none of the `denials' have amounted to much either.

  • by drgroove ( 631550 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @10:29AM (#5751661)
    Nothing. Apple adds value to its products by developing integrated software and hardware solutions for information technology and entertainment purposes. Venturing into the source of entertainment itself could only potentially distance Apple from the very media sources it should be trying to court in promotion of its core businesses (i.e., why would Warner, Sony, etc do business w/ Apple if they owned Universal?). Purchasing Universal, or any other media company, would not add value to Apple's product lines. If merging with media companies were such a priority for Apple, wouldn't it then make more sense to merge Apple with Pixar? Wouldn't that logically happen before any merger of Apple and Universal?

    The only 'good' that could come out of an Apple/Universal merger would be the launching of a royalty-free music sharing service, in which Apple would permit clients to freely distribute Universal-produced music. But, seeing as Apple charges $99/yr for its .Mac service (which includes various things, not all of which I'm familiar w/, tho I do know that a few of them, such as email & web page building, can be had for free elsewhere), what would be the likelyhood of Apple allowing free distribution of Apple-owned music? Slim to none. If Apple will charge clients $99/yr for email/webpages, there is no reason to believe that they would allow free distribution of music.

    The music world is better off w/o Apple purchasing Universal; the 'Apple' world is better off guarding the sanctity of Apple's core product lines w/o the confusion that would ensue if Apple tried to manage both Universal and its computer business. The merger won't happen, because it shouldn't happen.
  • by RussHart ( 70708 ) on Thursday April 17, 2003 @11:58AM (#5752394) Homepage
    Take a look in whois for appleuniversal.com, and find This [networksolutions.com]

    Hahahah!!! Tricked You!!!
    April Fools
    Tricked You!, HA HA HA HAHAHA
    US
    Domain Name: APPLEUNIVERSAL.COM


    Has on-one else noticed this?

Heard that the next Space Shuttle is supposed to carry several Guernsey cows? It's gonna be the herd shot 'round the world.

Working...