What Apple has bought, and what it hasn't

Apple acquired Fingerworks, too, in early 2005, according to Wikipedia and other sources I've read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fingerworks

though this may not have made the list since it may not have been a true corporate acquisition (e.g. they acquired the assets, but did not absorb the entity).

The best purchase that Apple could make would be a company that has interesting battery technology. That's a major constraint across about 75% of their revenue line.

Such a company would probably not be large or well known either.

interesting to see two in both lists that were also co-founded by Steve Jobs, NeXT had Jobs at the cradle, Pixar was a pet project/hobby of Jobs, quite funny to see them both end up on both ends, but I agree that they are where they are supposed to be.

and buying twitter does not make sense.

Sourcing wikipedia? Brilliant research there!

ex ped: Did you look at where Wikipedia got that list, Jay? It's very well sourced. We found errors in McCracken's list, but not in Wikipedia's.

Good posting, Philip. Your piece clearly shows that Apple has a history of making infrequent, relatively small acquisitions that have often yielded excellent returns. The acquisition of NeXT is an excellent example. For just $404 million – a pittance these days – Apple has made a small fortune as a result.

My hunch is that these rumors often come from Wall Street in an attempt to loosen Apple's pockets and separate the company from its cash. My hunch is even this man-made economic disaster that Wall Street created will teach them nothing of their unquenched greed.

If I see the word "synergy" used one more time in a rumor article about a big Apple acquisition, I will become violently ill. We are in a terrible recession. And a company like Apple, once left for dead has held onto its cash to weather the worst of storms. That money can be put to use in R&D to innovate. As it is, big mergers often work as well as most Hollywood marriages. AOL-Time Warner, anyone?

Kudos, Philip!

what's with your comment like "mexican flu", is FORTUNE getting now into the xenophobic arena as well????

ex ped: No offense intended. Remember the Hong Kong flu? A report today says this particular virus has been knocking around Mexico for eight months. If a similar microbe originated in New York and made its way to Mexico, I wouldn't blame you for calling it the Yankee flu.

Apple needs to acquire some company that can compete with RIM's BES Remote Management System to remotely manage iPhones or it's going to take Apple a couple of more years to get into the banking or law corporations if that's what they're after. It doesn't matter how many workers want iPhones if IT doesn't think iPhones are easy enough to manage in quantity or secure enough to not to be breached.

Wall Street continues to believe Apple is merely a high-tech toymaker which is really insulting to a company that builds relatively secure operating systems.

Apple is all about having unique DNA. They wouldn't want that to dilute that by buying some large company.

and for twitter, how do you make money from twitter?

I will say this though, that cash pile has a guy like Carl Icahn drooling. If he hadn't foolishly blown billions on Yahoo! I could see him buying a big stake and demanding a dividend.

Murphy Mac writes, "Maybe they keep all that cash around to discourage anyone from attempting a hostile takeover? Wouldn't that make sense?"

Right now, AAPL has a market cap of roughly $117 Billion. And that's not counting a takeover premium. No one's got that kind of cash. Apple is safe.

Apple's cash pile is not only a cushion against economic or other contingencies (e.g. a problem in its supply chain), but a piggy bank to make strategic investments.

Twitter is nothing but a fad, with virtually no room or plan for expansion, and will probably be irrelevant two years from now. Apple would be better off taking the money they'd use to buy Twitter and flushing it down the toilet.

Agreed, this whole idea of Apple buying Twitter or EA is just nonsense.

Twitter loses money and EA's revenue stream is based almost 100% on M$ (Windows and xBox) and could bring anti-trust issues if EA games could only be played on a mac.

Apple will also buy Orange Telecom and Banana Republic. The synergies are endless. Beer Nuts Inc too.

Again, Apple will never Twitter.

For all the dramers out there: Twitter, just like Facebook is losing money. Eventually the hype will wear out too. Ask any member of Twitter or Facebook to pay dues and he/she will already be looking for the next free site before you finish the question. These models have failed. What's so great about having a zillion members, half of whom are'nt real or at least their profiles aren't, if you can't monetize this "huge" audience.

Get real. The free model will never work and any advertiser with half a brain wanting online visibility goes to Google.

"Apple's business philosophy is to acquire small companies that can be easily integrated into existing company projects". << I hate to point this out, but Twitter is a small company, and who's to say whether it could be easily integrated into existing company projects, or not?

Apple isn't going to buy twitter. Knowing Apple, they are meeting with founders of the company to ask if they can use "non public" APIs.

Apple Twitter – No

But how about an Apple Fritter…

The only reason I would ever see Apple buying Twitter, is to implant some type of native SMS service.

Think of something similar to Sprint's push to talk, but over text.

Not a solid theory and 99.99% sure it's not going to happen, it's the only thing I can think that would make sense.

Very interesting post PED. When you see how little Apple has been willing to spend on acquisitions it really makes you wonder what Apple has planned for the $30B.

Something I've never read: Maybe they keep all that cash around to discourage anyone from attempting a hostile takeover? Wouldn't that make sense?

This is exactly the kind of list I'd been hoping someone would draw up. The whole Twitter thing, while it may make for great copy, just doesn't make much sense from a company like Apple that likes to stay focused and is very much profit-oriented. The story sounds appealing, but really does not make sense to anyone who's watched Apple and how they conduct their business.

Sometimes the most powerful reality distortion field surrounding Apple isn't generated by Jobs, but by overly optimistic pundits and prognosticators in the Apple reporting community.

Apple will never buy Twitter.

Great pair of lists, but it's fun to think about the possibilities (both good and bad) about some of those Big Name mergers.

The one that intrigues me the most is Sun. That acquisition might have actually made some sense in terms of complementary business lines, but the egos of the respective management teams, and the corporate clash of cultures, would have probably caused that merger to fail. Based on my observations from mergers/consolidations in the defense industry, instead of 'synergy' what you usually end up with is a merged company that gets the -worst characteristics- of both predecessors….. sigh…

I quite agree. Apple will benefit from the success of Twitter, simply by virtue of having a decent phone from which to Tweet.

I do see Apple continuing to acquire chip design expertise as it moves to differentiate its hardware from everyone else. They were forced to embrace Intel in the PC space, that won't be true in the phone, iPod space.