Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mattie_p on Wednesday February 19 2014, @07:34PM   Printer-friendly
from the when-all-you-have-is-$160-billion dept.

AudioGuy writes:

"Adrian Perica is a very busy man. Over the past 18 months, the mergers and acquisitions chief at Apple has been scouring the globe looking for deals, snatching up everything from search engines and data analytics to mapping software and motion tracking chips.

A source tells The Chronicle that Perica met with Tesla CEO Elon Musk in Cupertino last spring at around the same time analysts suggested Apple acquire the electric car giant.

The newspaper has also learned that Apple is heavily exploring medical devices, specifically sensor technology that can help predict heart attacks. Led by Tomlinson Holman, a renowned audio engineer who invented THX and 10.2 surround sound, Apple is exploring ways to predict heart attacks by studying the sound blood makes at it flows through arteries.

Taken together, Apple's potential forays into automobiles and medical devices, two industries worlds away from consumer electronics, underscore the company's deep desire to move away from iPhones and iPads and take big risks.

Good grief. Is the 'iTesla next in the 'i' line?"

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:40PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 19 2014, @09:40PM (#2887)

    Buying Tesla would be full on retard mode.

    I'd say it's about a 50-50 chance whether Tesla is around in 20 years. If they are around, they'll probably be a major automaker, but there are plenty of ways to fizzle out.

    Meanwhile Apple's day to day operations are focused on prospects which are doable within the next 10 years.

    If you tie these two things together, chances are good that one is going to be a millstone around the neck of the other.

    Most conglomerates were formed decades ago when the theory was that having diverse business units meant that profitability among different units would be uncorrelated, producing more stable average earnings in aggregate. These days that's considered a bit passé since current theory emphasizes focus on core competencies and leaves investors to diversify their own portfolios if that's what they want. There's some merit to both theories, but as I said, the old one is out of fashion.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Insightful=2, Overrated=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1) by githaron on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:23AM

    by githaron (581) on Thursday February 20 2014, @03:23AM (#3120)

    If a company gets too focused, they will probably be the best at what they do but will not be well suited to create interesting and useful combination of technologies. They will also likely die when trends shift significantly. If a company is too diverse you get a "Jack of all trades, master of none" situation.