What Company Should Apple Buy Now?

Poll: What Company Should Apple Buy Now?
Total Votes: 6
Adobe Systems
Avid Technology
Silicon Graphics
  • Posted: 17 August 2002 02:43 PM

    Lately, Apple Computer has buying small technology companies to expand its product offerings and provide potential customers with more complete technology solutions. Apple’s recent buying spree began with the purchase of PowerSchool in April 2001 and has continued through the acquisitions of Zayante, compositing products from Silicon Grail and includes the recent acquisitions of Zayante and eMagic.

    If Apple were to set its sights on the purchase of a more widely known company, which one should it be?

  • Avatar

    Posted: 17 August 2002 04:48 PM #1

    Of the companies listed I think Macromedia would be the best choice. They make awsome products and already have Mac in the name wink


    - Gavin (DrShakagee)

  • Avatar

    Posted: 18 August 2002 11:24 AM #2

    I said Avid, but only because SGI has sold all of their outstanding patents to Microsoft.  Well, not all of them, but a lot of them.

    Avid would be handy because Apple could use some hardware boards for the film editing business.  Then again, Apple may be trying very hard to get offer value by exactly not needing just that.

    Make sense?  grin


    Editor - The Mac Observer

    Favorite (but less relevant than it used to be) Quote: Microsoft’s tyranny lies not in its success, but in the way it achieved and maintains that success.

  • Posted: 18 August 2002 11:51 PM #3

    I think that they should buy Corel. It will give PC users a bit of a shock.


  • Posted: 19 August 2002 09:42 AM #4

    Microsoft !  of course !

    Microsoft would love to be like Apple…. why else would they steal so many of Apples ideas and technology?  Microsoft practically IS Apple right now !  So why not just buy them out, fire Gates and that fat bald guy.  What a bunch of rich geeks !  Makes me sick !  LOL

  • Posted: 27 September 2002 01:38 PM #5

    So why not just buy them out, fire Gates and that fat bald guy. What a bunch of rich geeks ! Makes me sick !

    I think that would be a great idea, except for one thing…Apple would never be able to come up with the money to buy a hige company like MS! rolleyes Oh well, it would be a neet thing to see happen though.

  • Posted: 15 October 2002 07:09 AM #6


    Apple should buy Macromedia. Their present product line does little to conflict with Apple’s software offerings and, in fact, does much to strengthen Apple’s bottom line.

    Apple can continue to be a hardware company that makes specific specialized software that is exclusive to their computers, but in order to truly grow revenues in a significant fashion they need to become a cross-platform software company as well.

    Selling Apple’s w/ OS X and the iApps (and hopefully a powerhouse AppleOffice coming soon) will grow market share and revenues, but lets face it; with Apple’s current 3-5% share how much is that really going to fill the coffers? Apple needs to cross the front line and make hoards of cash on the backs of the other 95%.

    Apple becoming less dependent on hardware also might mean the return of the clones (based stringently on the Apple Reference Platform [Macintosh specs]). So buying Macromedia could be the first shot in a new war with Dwintel (Dell/Windows/Intel). Then a monster cross-platform AppleOffice XML that runs on everything on earth and moves files seemlessly across computers.

    Sound crazy? Keep in mind that NeXt started as a hardware company too.  grin


  • Avatar

    Posted: 16 October 2002 07:15 PM #7

    Hey Archangel.

    What about the threat that would be to 2nd biggest Mac developer Adobe?  If Apple was too successful with Macromedia’s product line, that *could* push Adobe into pulling out of the Mac market.  Silly?  Keep in mind that any huge push from Apple’s Macromedia products would *have* to come at the expense of Adobe’s market share.  Do that enough, and it becomes more profitable for Adobe to focus on one platform.

    For that matter, I would rather see Apple buy Adobe and cancel all Windows development.  :eg:  Not that Macromedia would like that…


    Editor - The Mac Observer

    Favorite (but less relevant than it used to be) Quote: Microsoft’s tyranny lies not in its success, but in the way it achieved and maintains that success.

  • Posted: 22 October 2002 01:55 PM #8

    Re: Macromedia

    Bryan, Apple has already shown that to grow market share they will step on Adobe’s rather large toes with Final Cut Pro, and to a much lesser extent iPhoto.

    I have to believe that Apple could work to position a replacement for any app Adobe could use to threaten them with. While this sounds funny—and I know that everyone is thinking specifically about Photoshop—remember that at one time the thought of someone challenging QuarkXpress was foolish too. Now, Adobe is on the “verge” of more than just challenging Quark.

    Apple has to worry about Apple and not about Microsoft, or Avid, or Adobe. Don’t want to compete for a piece of the pie? Adios. Who cares as long as the same Apple-produced apps that dominate on Windows is also available on Macs. (assuming that Apple can expand an “AppleMedia” division to not only encompass web platform development—Macromedia’s area, but also to extend to print and imaging—Adobe’s area.)

    The sad truth that no one talks about is that Apple doesn’t even have the manufacturing capacity to be the number 1 PC retailer in the nation. Literally. My goodness, their market forecasting isn’t good enough to keep them their if they were to reach that goal. Look at the demand for the 17” FlatMac, and the eMac for instance.

    If Apple grows revenues in a significant fashion it has to come from Software and Services. And the most growth is to be had through cross-platform sales. Let Apple pick and choose what consumer versions come out *free* for the Mac and which come out cross-platform. Then maybe we can see a return of the clones. grin

    Your thoughts?


  • Posted: 22 October 2002 09:25 PM #9

    I see Apple as a more hardware centric company than in the past. The recent acquisitions are intended to provide all-in-one solutions in targeted markets.

    I think Apple became furstrated with Adobe and its lack of attention to the Mac platform and the slow rate of product development. FCP fits extraordinarily well in to Apple’s hardware product plans and the company’s focus on the content creation market.

    I don’t see Apple looking to pick fights with Adobe, Macromedia or Quark, but the company will step in if developers fail to “pick up the ball” and meet the needs of Apple’s customers.

    Apple will be releasing software products developed specifically for the pro video market. If this in any way offends Adobe, they need to first look at their own decisions not to cater to the unique needs of Mac users.

    Quark IMHO is basically handing Adobe page layout market share. Why an OS X version of Xpress is not available is the question of the day. Most printers and service bureaus favor Xpress over Indesign if only for reasons of familiarity. However, this is beginning to change.

    IMHO Apple doesn’t need additional headaches from software development outside of what they have already - Powerschool, FCP, the iApps, the pro digital tools currently under development, FMP, etc.

    However, Apple does need developers committed to OS X products. The lesson here is that if developers do not make plans to exploit Apple’s OS advantages Apple, will, if even reluctanctly, pursue the development of its own products.

    In the case of FCP, I believe Apple’s plans for the product and other pro-level digital video products go far beyond what Adobe plans to deliver in Premiere and After Effects. Apple had no choice but to enter that software market.


  • Posted: 26 October 2002 04:08 PM #10


    Macromedia is a good company. I don’t know how folks would react to Apple either (a) discontinuing Macromedia Windows products or (b) making the Mac versions half price or the Windows versions double price, but it might work.

    I’d vote for SGI. Apple’s market and SGI’s markets are similar. SGI owns Alias|Wavefront (the makers of Maya) I believe—which would help Apple attain pre-eminence in high end production. Even better if Apple could buy Alias|Wavefront from SGI and allow the latter to continue its slow death spiral.

  • Posted: 27 October 2002 04:31 PM #11


    It seems to me in cyclical terms, more importantly in this down market, not a matter of one company buying into Macintosh but the fact that Mac has only been able to impact the high-end desk top market as its only niche. Specifically, this system benefits the following: high-end personal users, graphics, video and sound designers. Although this is a plus and an upside to each of those user communities the problem for Mac has not been to create a great environment for those users but to create an environment that will allow Mac to increase its marketshare with the rest of the 90% who aren’t using Mac.

    As I see it, there is a key ingredient that is missing from their business strategy. The late 90’s saw Linux become the dominant platform in the server market while Mac released this overly priced server that in practical terms still hasn’t convinced enough business users to switch. Their server technologies although nice, aren’t convincing businesses in droves to switch from their Linux, Solaris, Netware or NT based technologies.

    Most importantly in making my point, even Sun Microsystems has a good and decent hold the Server Market.

    If I were to hedge off Microsoft and make a roadmap of where companies should go in the future, I would see the advantages of pairing up OS X with Solaris. Apple’s shift to the UNIX environment brought it more intimately closer with Solaris but both products are in desparate need of something more like SAMBA which makes Linux so Microsoft Friendly.  Convincing IT personnel that distributing thier massive, scalable IT infrastructure over Mac would have its advantages would encourage business users to swtich. It would have to be affordable and irresistable technology.

    Macintosh had the right idea but in the wrong place in terms of their educational strategy as well. Instead of going after grade schools for the next ten years like Macintosh did, go after college programs that are geared towards database design and Enterprise Scalability. These are the things that attract businesses. What makes those technologies easy to access? What makes those technologies easy to manage and what makes those technologies more reliable than the PC? If Macintosh in its own development could gear its products cheaper, more reliable and more efficient than the Microsoft we know now would have a serious and viable contender.

    A merger, buyout or hostile takeover would double the value server based technologies instantaneously and now make the next Version of Mac OS XI/Solaris the most integrated business solution available. The UNIX code would be easy to upgrade for all the OS X users, easy to integrate from the Linux Community with all the advanced Web Features needed in Ebusiness and most importantly would open up the multimedia market to more than a single wimpy desk-top environment. What could stop them from incorporating something like SAMBA to work with companies existing PC infrastructure and offer incentives financially to switch—-big ones if you’re buying 1000 units.

    Light-Wave in Linux Beowulf Clusters (Many Many Many 20+ Intel Processors at once) renders circles around any Mac. Massive Databases required for E-business would scream in such a scalable environment and for once Digital Audio and Video would not only have a stable environment that they love like Mac but also a very scalable environment with real super-computer attributes like clusters. Imagine what companies like Emagic and Stienberg could do in the sound world, and of course you Pro Tools people, if Mac’s were scalable like Linux with multiple clusters of G6 chips from IBM?

    Would your application be friendly enough to support 35 processors, networked together and what benefit woudl that have? Well the scalability. Imagine working in a sound house where you have 30 employees working on a single sound project. In a typical distributed environment via Macintosh Currently you’re going to run into network problems if you tax the network or a Mac server. Imagine taking that away and using cluster technology to let any resource on the network be used for an application. The power of your network goes up exponentially and efficient use of machines would occure increasing your bottom line, productivity and a host of other things. This concept in sound is finally being implimented by Steinberg but its only in its infancy.

    To summarize, Mac and Solaris could make a good run against Microsoft. They need a very usable feature like SAMBA to assist business from switiching back.


    Howard L. Salter
    Ravenwhite Productions
    Milwaukee, WI

  • Avatar

    Posted: 27 October 2002 06:11 PM #12

    To me the most compelling reason for Apple to look at Macromedia is there server stuff. Cold-Fusion running on OS X would be great. Plus if they continued the windows versions of Dreamweaver, Flash, and Director, they can make a heap of cash off the dark side. I don’t think Apple is too intrestred in competing with Adobe but Macromedia has tons of stuff that Adobe doesn’t offer. As a long time Director/Flash developer I am starting to feel left out in the cold by Macromedia’s lack of Mac offerings as of late. I want my Flash remote server on my Xserve (well if I had an Xserve).


    - Gavin (DrShakagee)