Who should Apple acquire?

[Bobjob]

Long time ago Apple said they were coming out with a TV. Ever since I heard that - I thought they should acquire Sony. Music, movies, a gaming system, and a quality made TV. They can sell off the parts they don't care about.

Yahoo? Make it a home page for people to get news and apple news?

Blackberry? I don't know how Blackberry is keeping their heads above water.

[turboguy]

Sony would make sense but Sony seems to be struggling a bit as a company so it would likely reduce margins and that could be a negative.

There are a couple of companies interested in Yahoo but Apple doesn't seem to have much if any interest. I think it would be a good purchase for them actually. Microsoft had some interest but seems to have dropped out.

I am not sure why anyone would want to buy Blackberry. People tend to think Apple has a good hold on their business but before the iPhone they would have said the same thing about Blackberry. They were king of the hill and had as much loyalty as Apple does now. I have to wonder a little if Apple will stay on top over the next half decade or could follow Blackberry into the used to be king of the hill category.

So, who should Apple buy out. How about Tesla?

[Harold Mansfield]

Apple already has Apple TV. Wouldn't make sense at this stage of the game to start making actual TV's. Tech is moving faster and faster and prices are coming down more and more. Apple doesn't have any new display technology, they just wanted a way to incorporate the App store and sell set top boxes. If they want to be in the device game they can just make a deal like Roku where the tech is already in the TV.

Acquiring Sony would make sense only of they wanted to be in the Entertainment business, but I don't see that being the direction they want to go. That would be like buying a fleet of semi trucks just to get a couple CB radios. Sony is HUGE.

I don't see Yahoo having any benefit to them at all. Again, the beast that comes with Yahoo is Ali Baba but they aren't selling that part. Also they can't convert Yahoo email customers over to any kind of Apple mail, nor any other products and Yahoo doesn't exactly have top of the line Maps or search anymore so even that wouldn't help Safari or mobile. And then there's Tumblr. I mean who really wants to drag around a free blogging platform at this stage of the game? But who knows?

Blackberry's problem was too top heavy, lots of competition, and they didn't innovate their own OS or keep up with new device design. They were on top of the world before Android. Android put a lot of people against the ropes. Open source, and letting device makers across the world use it? That was a company killer for people like Blackberry and Palm who kept everything proprietary, and in house.

Now they've embraced Android, but it may be too late. The Priv actually has some sales, and from what I hear a pretty nice phone. And they're still considered the best secure, business messaging platform and they aren't bound by any possible upcoming U.S. (or EU) laws or court orders.

Tesla would never sell to Apple and there's no reason too. He's doing something that has nothing to do with what they're doing. He's making cars, batteries for solar energy, and going to space. That's out of Apple's league at the moment. Not that they don't have the money to get into it, but it would be a huge drain on them to take on that kind of company with no history of knowing anything about manufacturing cars and launching rockets.

Their in with Tesla would be Apple car play, which I think they already do. Actually I think Tesla's do Apple Car Play and Android Auto.

If they, and everyone else was smart they'd be leveraging the open source battery technology that he's put out there. But I'd put money on the fact that Elon Musk won't be selling to anyone, ever. He's trying to go to Mars. No tech company is in even close to being in that league.

The question that makes sense is who should buy Yahoo? I can't see where Apple has much of a need to buy anything right now. Especially after earnings reports say they need to grow market share of one of their existing products.

Yahoo is valuable if you part it out, but that just seems like a lot of work. Especially without AliBaba. What was their core business, search and email isn't really worth much and they haven't really innovated anywhere in anything lately.

[vangogh]

Apple said they were coming out with a TV

Apple has never said they were coming out with TV. Tech bloggers who are more interested in page views than journalism said it. Apple has the Apple TV. I wouldn't wait on them making an actual television set, since it's a low margin product that people don't regularly update.

As far as Apple buying large companies, you shouldn't hold your breath waiting for that either. Their history suggests it won't happen. Apple will buy small companies at times, but to date the only "large" company they bought was Next (if you want to consider them as a large company at the time) and that was probably as much to do with getting Steve Jobs back into the company than anything else.

[Harold Mansfield]

If Apple buys anything it'll be a VR or AR company or technology. That's if they're really serious about getting in the game on this. So far it doesn't seem like they are and it seems like if they were interested in getting in, they would have by now. There was nothing stopping them.

But then again, they've always been good at keeping a secret and then just launching something huge with no warning.

[vangogh]

Apple prefers to do things on their own and they do things behind the scenes. They buy smaller teams all the time and integrate them into the rest of the company. The probably are working on VR and AR and all the same things every other tech company is working on. In fact their last acquisition was an AR company. They don't talk about it though and they don't like to release products until they know there's a market ready to buy.

Their history is that they work on a lot of things and let other companies put out the early products. When the market grows large enough they come in and do the product their own way. Other companies prefer to put out earlier versions of products, sell them to early adaptors and then iterate the product based on feedback. Both approaches have been shown to work. They're just different.

Bu again, as far as Apple buying some of the companies mentioned, it's unlikely as least based on what they've done in the past. Here's a list of companies Apple has acquired (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple). Run down the list and ask yourself how many of those companies you've ever heard of. Probably not more than a few. My NeXT comment above was incorrect. I forgot about Beats which they bought a couple of years ago. That's the biggest company they've purchased by a large margin. $3 billion compared to NeXT's $400 million price tag, which is the second largest company they've ever acquired.

They're just not a company that looks to acquire big name companies. For good or bad, they prefer to do things their way. They'll buy small companies for the tech or the team and integrate them into whatever they're already working on.

[Bobjob]

All of our suggestions are better than Beats.

I think Musk likes his Tesla too much to let it go.

I saw where Cook said they were eyeing a larger acquisition. Maybe that was his answer to their earnings report yesterday.

[Harold Mansfield]

I don't know. I think Beats was a good move. Certainly a good move for Dre'. If you had told me headphones where making a comeback I'd have laughed at you. But Beats was also a music streaming and internet radio service and started making a lot of deals with labels, and ad companies. They were a force that was making all of the right moves.

I don't think you can look at the Beats acquisition alone and segment out direct returns. Overall it was a good move to compliment both Apple's technology as a music player and purchase portal, and grab a crap load of market share and existing infrastructure for streaming.
Plus the headphones are still selling like hotcakes and are ridiculously over priced.

Apple says they have 13 million premium subscribers. That's pretty good for just launching last year.
Spotify is at about 30 million.
Tidal is at about 3 million.

I still think Google will crush them all if they put their mind to it. Adding podcasts to Play Music was pretty huge (and about time) and it's hard to deny that getting You Tube Red, and You Tube Music ( ad free) along with it sweetens the pot.

The only reason Amazon has subscribers is because it comes with Prime. No way I'd care about Amazon Music if I weren't a Prime customer with an Echo. However since I am and do, I upgraded to full Prime Music so that I can mirror all of my music. (bastards. That's how they get you.)

It's going to be interesting. Margins are really small on streaming. I can't see how it alone is sustainable. Seems like it's more a complimenting service, not the entire business model.

[vangogh]

I saw where Cook said they were eyeing a larger acquisition.

That's interesting. I hadn't heard that. However, I would caution that larger doesn't necessarily mean large. It would certainly be talked about online if they do buy a large company.


I think Beats was a good move.

I do too. Whatever Apple music becomes, it's evolving out of Beats. It's probably going to be the choice of most Apple users regardless of which service is "best." It'll simply be easier for Apple users, particularly those with multiple products. The headphones are popular, again regardless of which is actually "best." Watch ESPN and look at all the athletes wearing Beats headphones. They may cost more, but that fits with Apple's brand.

[Fulcrum]

Blackberry? I don't know how Blackberry is keeping their heads above water.

Under founder Jim Balsillie, Blackberry had no (or minimal) debt. Right before he was ousted (not a clean split) was when the stock price/profits started to show weakness. Personally, I think it was a hostile takeover gone bad.

Once the company appeared to be floundering, Balsillie stepped down and a new CEO was appointed. This new CEO has sold off real estate holdings to maintain liquidity. He also walked away from an investment company that was looking to purchase a controlling interest.

As to security with the Blackberry, the current CEO has publicly stated that Apple should have cooperated with the police (without the police getting a court order). This tells me what he would do if Blackberry gets placed into the same position.

For full disclosure, Blackberry head offices are 45 minutes east of where I'm sitting currently. I hear a lot of what goes on.

[Harold Mansfield]

As to security with the Blackberry, the current CEO has publicly stated that Apple should have cooperated with the police (without the police getting a court order). This tells me what he would do if Blackberry gets placed into the same position.

For full disclosure, Blackberry head offices are 45 minutes east of where I'm sitting currently. I hear a lot of what goes on.

Then you know that Blackberry doesn't have to worry about having to cooperate with the FBI. The FBI nor any U.S. entity, law enforcement agency or court has any leverage with a Canadian company. So easy for them to say.

What has been happening with the Canadian government? Has anything like Apple/FBI ever happened there and what was the outcome?

[Fulcrum]

To the best of my knowledge there hasn't been any instances similar to what happened between the FBI and Apple. We did, however, have a preventative arrest about a month ago (no warrant and no illegal activity had been committed) under Bill C-51 (Canada's version of the Patriot Act).

My understanding of the comment was that if the FBI makes a request to either the RCMP (mounties) or CSIS (Canada's CIA) and the Canadian agency agrees to forward the request, than he has already committed to giving the information. Whether he follows through or was just blowing smoke will be determined if/when a request comes.

Coming back on topic, I'd sell out to Apple if they made the right offer. I don't think I have anything they need or want but I can dream.

[Bobjob]

Van, I tried to locate the article I read covering Apple purchasing smaller companies (1-3 Billion) and that they were looking into a larger purchase 10+ billion. I believe I read it on a website called market watch. I'm new to that website and they just did a website facelift, so I have a difficult time doing anything on that website.

If I were Cook I would have really questioned my team on purchasing Beats. Just seems like that money could have acquired better technology and patents if they spent it somewhere else. I see the beats headphones as fashion, here today gone tomorrow.

I listed some my ideas for acquisition. I kinda started the thread so others would give there ideas for acquisition and maybe reasons for it. We added Tesla, anybody else?

[Harold Mansfield]

If I were Cook I would have really questioned my team on purchasing Beats. Just seems like that money could have acquired better technology and patents if they spent it somewhere else. I see the beats headphones as fashion, here today gone tomorrow.

Yeah, but you're ignoring the underlying streaming and music service infrastructure that ended up being an integral part of Apple Music. Of course they could have made headphones, but Beats was already a household name, were a huge hit in the sports and entertainment industries with a ton of high profile endorsements, and they got the really important stuff that they didn't have to build from the ground up. And it came with existing streaming deals already in place with some major artists including exclusives. There was also patents for it's audio software.

It was far more than just headphones and speakers. They could have gotten that anywhere.

[vangogh]

Van, I tried to locate the article I read covering Apple purchasing smaller companies (1-3 Billion) and that they were looking into a larger purchase 10+ billion.

I think I know the site you mentioned and I'll see if I can find the article. I'm usually hesitant to trust tech sites when it comes to Apple though, since most will say anything just for page views. However Apple has so much money in the bank, it wouldn't be a stretch for them to spend some on a larger acquisition.


If I were Cook I would have really questioned my team on purchasing Beats.

I agree with Harold. I think Beats also fits Apple in a number of ways, mainly the brand. I thought it was a good fit. I think they also wanted Jimmy Iovine in the company because he's so connected and respected in the music industry.


As to security with the Blackberry

I'm pretty sure there are articles out there that talk about how Blackberry created a masked key into all their phones and handed it to the Canadian government.

Yep, just searched. They've been giving the Canadian government a master key since 2010 (https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-canada-police-obtained-blackberrys-global-decryption-key-how).

[Fulcrum]

I'm pretty sure there are articles out there that talk about how Blackberry created a masked key into all their phones and handed it to the Canadian government.

Yep, just searched. They've been giving the Canadian government a master key since 2010 (https://news.vice.com/article/exclusive-canada-police-obtained-blackberrys-global-decryption-key-how).

I didn't know they did this back in 2010. Reading the article though, it appears that the police went through the proper channels to get the key for that case. From what I've heard, I don't think the FBI did that with Apple and the single phone.

[Harold Mansfield]

I didn't know they did this back in 2010. Reading the article though, it appears that the police went through the proper channels to get the key for that case. From what I've heard, I don't think the FBI did that with Apple and the single phone.
The FBI thought they could get public pressure on Apple by using "terrorism" and it backfired. They also tried evoking a 200 year old law written in colonial days.
They and various local law enforcement have hundreds of phones they want to "hack" into, however almost none have anything to do with terrorism or child pornography as they keep using to scare people with. Almost all are low level drug offenses. The American public is not having it though.

I'm also confident that Apple will come out with an encryption update that even they can't crack and put this to rest once and for all.
And of course Americans can also buy all kinds of encryption apps from various developers around the world. Then what? The U.S. Government is fighting a losing battle trying to legislate the world wide web and encryption in the name of "terrorism", (the catch all word now to trick people into giving up their rights and privacy). It's also a day late and dollar short. Now criminals know to use other methods cause we telegraph everything.
</apple.fbi.rant>

But back to the issue at hand. VR and AR is what's hot. However Apple (and most others) doesn't make computers powerful enough to run any of the current platforms, so they'll either have to buy or develop a new platform. Also the entry level usages have been mostly for gaming, which Apple doesn't really do. So with that I agree with VG that Apple will probably wait and let the market/industry sort it out before jumping in with both feet.

I see them maybe investing in something in the VR or AR area, and probably driver-less cars, but not outright purchasing anything and running with it.

I think their next move will be hardware/device related. That's what got them where they are today and what people want from them. I think they need to stop resisting touch screen laptops. JMO of course.

New Apple watch will be announced soon...which totally looks like a disappointing space in general on all platforms.

[Bobjob]

Seeing those ear pods makes the Beats acquisition logical. :)

[Harold Mansfield]

Seeing those ear pods makes the Beats acquisition logical. :)
Yet they didn't even mention any compatible Beats headphones at all yesterday. I thought that was strange.

[vangogh]

Yet they didn't even mention any compatible Beats headphones at all yesterday. I thought that was strange.

There's only so much they can mention in a keynote and they typically don't talk about all the accessories that will be available, particularly non Apple branded ones. I realize Apple owns Beats, but it's still a different brand. The majority of people who buy an iPhone 7 won't even care about the new airbuds. They'll use the lighting connector headphones included in the box or use the adaptor in the box to continue using whatever wired headphones they currently use.

Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure they did mention Beats headphones in the keynote. I thought they showed a slide of the BeatsX and also the Solo wireless as both will have the new W1 chip.

Yep. I just looked it up. I didn't find the slide, but I found a few articles that mentioned Phil Schiller talking about several Beats headphones including the new W1 chip. From The Verge


During today's Apple keynote, Phil Schiller announced that Beats will be releasing new Solo 3 Wireless headphones, Powerbeats 3 sport earbuds, and a new set of neckbuds known as Beats X.

[Harold Mansfield]

True, Apple people are going to buy Apple stuff because they like the brand and it's products. It's just it always feels like Apple is only talking to people who already have their stuff.

[vangogh]

I suspect it's more that it doesn't appeal to you personally. I don't think it's that they only talk to people who already own Apple stuff. I'm pretty sure they want as many people as possible to buy their products and services. Naturally they'll appeal more to people who already own their stuff because those people have preferences that favor the way Apple does things. There are absolutely people who just buy Apple because Apple, but that's not everyone who buys Apple products.

I'll use myself as an example. Granted I'm one person and I don't represent how all Apple customers feel. I think the devices from most companies and the operating systems that run on them are all really good. Obviously some cost more to make and those devices are generally better in specs and materials, etc. When comparing devices in similar parts of the market they all do the basic things we want them to do and regardless of device we can usually figure out how to add the things we need and want from games to tools we use for doing paid work.

The different hardware and software companies make different design decisions, which lead to different devices and operating systems. Most of the time the different decisions aren't better or worse than each other. They're just different and appeal to different people. For example Apple often brings a new technology to the iPhone after the technology has been introduced on Android phones. It's different priorities. Usually the first iteration or two of everything isn't great. Not necessarily bad, but not great. It takes a little time to get to great. You put things out early to get feedback that helps you improve the product and continue to improve based on feedback. Some people really enjoy having the new technology even if it isn't yet great. They don't mind finding workarounds to some things. They probably like being part of the feedback loop and helping shape future development. Other people do mind the workarounds and aren't interested in being part of the early feedback loop. Two different directions for companies to go and two different sets of people they'll appeal to. Neither is better or worse than the other.

You like new technology. I think that's safe to say. It makes sense you would prefer a device and OS from a company that releases things sooner. You like the pros and don't mind the cons. I used to feel the same way. I enjoyed technology for technology's sake. I still do, but not in the same way. Now I'm more into technology for what it enables me to do than the tech itself. I actually want the technology to stay out of the way. When I switched from a Windows machine to a Mac it was in large part because I'd grown tired of managing Windows, which I did enjoy for a time. I understood switching to a Mac meant I was going to give up a little control and have to do some things the way Apple decided I was going to do them. To me the trade off was fine at that time. It wouldn't always have been, but at a certain point that became my preference.

That said I don't plan on getting a new iPhone. I wasn't that impressed watching the keynote. I reserve the right to change my mind, but I didn't see a compelling reason to get a new one and there was one compelling reason not to get one.

[Harold Mansfield]

The reason I say that is because every time they do a keynote or product launch it's only view-able on the recent version of Safari, which isn't available for Windows, or via iOS devices like Apple TV. If that's not speaking ONLY to people who already have Apple products, what is?

I have other reasons for saying that too.

You can't publish a book to iTunes unless you have a Mac. Or else you have to pay a 3rd party upwards of $300.
You can't develop or publish an iOS app unless you have a Mac. It's not enough to own an iPhone you have to also buy a computer.
You can't post a podcast to iTunes without a Mac or a 3rd party.

As opposed to Android, Windows and pretty much every other development platform which makes those things accessible to everyone and all developers.

[Punkit753]

I think @turboguy is right about Tesla...:P

[vangogh]

The reason I say that is because every time they do a keynote or product launch it's only view-able on the recent version of Safari, which isn't available for Windows, or via iOS devices like Apple TV.

I don't know how they set things up for the live stream, but I just tested the complete video of the keynote in both Firefox and Chrome and it plays fine. I am looking on a Mac. I also had a friend check in Chrome on Windows and it plays there too. You don't need Safari to watch. Here's the link to the keynote (http://www.apple.com/apple-events/september-2016/).



You can't publish a book to iTunes unless you have a Mac. Or else you have to pay a 3rd party upwards of $300.
You can't develop or publish an iOS app unless you have a Mac. It's not enough to own an iPhone you have to also buy a computer.
You can't post a podcast to iTunes without a Mac or a 3rd party.

None of these have anything to do with the keynote. I agree that Apple should make it easier to do these things, however what you've said isn't exactly true about all three items. You do need a Mac to publish a book to iTunes, but you don't have to pay a 3rd party $300. Apple provides a list of 3rd parties and with a few clicks I found a service for $150. Seems like a reasonable business expense to me.

It is true you need a Mac to publish an iOS app. It's because they publish through Xcode, which is currently only available on a Mac. I think it's coming to iOS, but it's not there at the moment. I doubt it's coming to the phone, but it will probably come to one of the iPad pro models. I think a few years ago this wasn't an issue, because it was unlikely iOS developers didn't also own a Mac, but now there are people who will work exclusively on iOS and I think Apple should definitely let them submit apps without the need for a Mac.

You can publish a podcast to iTunes without a Mac. You can use iTunes or you can submit it through the web (https://itunesconnect.apple.com/itc/static/login?appIdKey=e0b80c3bf78523bfe80974d320935bfa30a dd02e1bff88ec2166c6bd5a706c42&view=5&path=%2FWebObjects%2FiTunesConnect.woa%3F).

I'm not trying to suggest Apple is perfect or better or anything like that. I just don't get why people get angry at technology companies. Why is it that when someone buys a product from company X, it has to mean that company Y and company Z must now be evil companies with stupid customers? I think too many people decide they either like or dislike a company and then spend a lot of time rationalizing why every decision the companies make is right or wrong. I see lots of comments criticizing Apple, Google, Microsoft, whoever based on incorrect "facts" about the companies. Let me emphasize this happens with "fans" of every company. I'm just as tired of Apple "fans" who make misleading claims about Android or Windows as I am the reverse.

I think all these companies have done good things that contribute to some great technology that improves all our lives. I think all these companies have made bad decisions that weren't in the best interest of their customers. I also think whatever product you buy or service you join, good for you. If you like it, keep using it. If you don't, buy something else next time.

I realize some of this is just human nature. We rationalize our purchases. We become tribal. It's who we are. It seems to me it's more frequent where technology is concerned than it is with other types of products, though. I have a can of Campbell's soup in my cabinet, but I don't think that makes Progresso an evil company. I have a can of their soup in my cabinet too.

[Harold Mansfield]

I'm not by any means angry. I like Apple. They just don't make it easy to do business with them or use their services. I wasn't able to see the keynote directly, I watched it on TWIT.

Your example of $150 to publish a book if you don't have a Mac..sure, not a completely terrible "business" expense, but compared to free on every other digital content seller like Amazon and Google Books (which is currently down) it makes Apple seem a little tone deaf.

Microsoft used to be the same way. However, I think the device wars are over and most companies have realized that most people aren't going to choose based on proprietary services because not many services are the only game in town anymore and pretty much all are cross compatible.

So it seems a little weird to have this major company still keep things like Apple Music and iTunes limited. Had there been an iTunes app for Android I'd still be using it. I'd used it for years and used to spend $100's a year on music there. Probably would have even tried Apple Music. But other services just become a lot more convent for me to use everywhere, across all of my devices, regardless of what OS they were on.

Yes, there is an Apple Music App for Android now, but unfortunately they had already lost me from iTunes. And why is it still so cumbersome to import my music? When I installed Google Music, it immediately grabbed my iTunes music. I didn't have to jump through hoops, install another program, or drag and drop anything. It just worked.

Kind of like when you walk into a restaurant. They could have the best food in town, but if your first impression is dirty tables and slow service, now you look at everything else with extra scrutiny.

They had the entire music market.Seems like they play hard ball. I mean iTunes was good, but it wasn't great. It was just first and I was used to it. Everybody who has been purchasing digital music for at least the last 7 years at one point was an iTunes user. It's where it all began. So why did they lose them? Why were competitors so attractive to others? What made people leave?

Apple didn't market iTunes as an Apple only exclusive. They marketed as a music solution for everyone. I think they should have actually made it that.

I'm just questioning why they seem to telegraph that unless you're all in on everything that they don't want to make it easy for you to use anything. As a consumer, that's how it feels. I guess I just question how long that exclusivity to non proprietary products only working on Apple devices will last.

We discuss business issues like this here all of the time at the small business level..making it easy for people to do business with you, so I think it's a valid point. I'm not Apple bashing just because they are Apple. Android isn't perfect. MS pisses me off sometimes too. And I hate music streaming services just on GP. Just contemplating some of their decisions to stay closed off.

[vangogh]

I didn't mean to imply you were angry. Sorry if I did. It was more of a general comment than one directed specifically at you.

I don't think Apple's goal is to keep things limited. Their view is that if they control the entire stack, hardware and software, they can make better products and they believe if they make better products they'll sell more of them. Given how much money they make, it's hard to argue they've made the wrong business choices. I'll also say as someone who owns multiple apple products, they do generally play nice together.

You mentioned iTunes. Apple didn't immediately launch iTunes on Windows when they launched it. It was a couple of years before iTunes originally came to Windows. Then Apple needed to do that. Today it doesn't. That's the big difference.

Sire, we talk about making it easier for people to do business with you, but it's a completely different context. We talk about it for a small business looking to grow and not one of the largest companies on earth. I wouldn't expect Apple to follow the advice we give a startup anymore than I would expect a startup to think they could copy how Apple does things. Different business, different strategies.


I guess I just question how long that exclusivity to non proprietary products only working on Apple devices will last.

The answer is as long as people keep buying Apple products and services. They don't need to make their stuff work everywhere. Again, they believe that their proprietary way makes for better products and services. We can disagree with them, but the proof is on their side at the moment. If people stop buying their stuff, they'll have to change and one of those changes will likely be opening up more. Right now they don't have to. What they're doing is clearly working.


most people aren't going to choose based on proprietary services because not many services are the only game in town anymore and pretty much all are cross compatible.

Most people are never going to even consider whether something is proprietary or not. I can guarantee the word proprietary has never entered into the thought process when my family has been making decisions about what phone or computer to buy. Those of us who are more tech savvy and follow tech sites read about this stuff and talk about it all the time. It's easy for us to forget that most people don't care. Some do, but the vast majority don't.

Take the whole thing about Apple removing the headphone jack. If you read tech sites you'd think the world was going to come to an end. I'd be willing to bet that very few people will actually care in practice. Most will just plug the headphones that come with the phone into the lightning connector. Those who have specific headphones they like will use the included lightning to to audio jack converter. And then there will be some people who complain for the next 10 years about it because Apple.

[Harold Mansfield]

Ha!. I'm going to resist the removal of the headphone jack about as long as I resisted going from CD's to digital downloads, but I'll get over it.

Apple actually wasn't the first. The Motorola Moto Z doesn't have a jack, and you're right..not as much (if any) backlash about it, and then Apple did it and it's been news for weeks. As my Mom says, "It costs to be the boss". Apple has made a persona for themselves as the innovation company, so naturally people are going to pick apart anything they do that's new. Which I'm sure they actually want.

Kind of unfortunate that he called removing the headphone jack "brave", but it made for some good joke memes.

I was listening to a tech pundit yesterday talk about how big the module is for the headphone jack and that's what prevents phones from becoming any thinner, adding image stabilizers on the cameras, having larger batteries and so many other things that device makers would like to ad, but are limited on space. It could makes sense, but I've opened a tablet up for repair ( I know it's a larger device) and there is a lot of room in there. The weight of the thing is mostly the glass and the battery. Not the other components.

If removing it gets us close to those thin, transparent, hologram phones like you see in sci fi movies I'm all for it.

And you're definitely right about one thing, hard to question anyone's business decisions when they're still making gobs and gobs of money.

[vangogh]

The word was actually "courage" and it wasn't said well. It was referring back to something Steve Jobs said at a conference a few years back. He used the word courage, but there was a broader context around it. I forget what Jobs was specifically talking about so I'll use the headphone jack as an example. The basic idea being that the future is wireless and not the headphone jack. At some point it's going to be removed. Apple doesn't mind taking the heat for removing it (or the floppy drive or optical media). Jobs' line was something about having the courage to make decisions you know will be unpopular because you believe it's the right decision. Phil Schiller didn't do as good a job explaining it.

I haven't plugged anything into the headphone jack of an iPhone since maybe 2010. The very first iPhone I owned developed a problem with the external speaker a couple months before I was going to get a new one. It's the only time I used the headphone jack. I've been using wireless headphones for years. When I first heard they were removing the jack I thought something along the lines of it's about time. Then I noticed lots of people getting upset.

If you use the jack, you might as well hang on to it for as long as you need it, though it's probably time to look for other options.


If removing it gets us close to those thin, transparent, hologram phones like you see in sci fi movies I'm all for it.

Me too. There was one I see in a presentation from Microsoft a few years ago. It was a 5-10 minute video of what they predicted about the future. The phone looked like a piece of plexiglass about the size of a phone. One of these companies will have to figure out how to build the chips directly into a piece of glass or plastic, but I can't wait.

[Bobjob]

I read the other day Apple is getting into making their own movies and tv shows. Which, if I were at their helm, we would have begun doing back in 2010/2011 when we acquired Sony. :)
I hope they are successful with their attempt.