
Apple Should Buy Sony - kawera
https://mondaynote.com/why-apple-should-buy-sony-22a9d576c1d9
======
torgoguys
This got me wondering, who else should Apple buy according to submissions to
HN? A quick search [1] reveals:

"Hollywood," Twitter, Tesla, "big companies," Yahoo, Netflix, Twitter (again),
"a university," Tesla (again), Amazon, Disney, Yahoo (again), Facebook, Tesla
(third time), "TV networks," Tesla (4th time), Nokia, foursquare, Skype,
Infineon, Netflix (again).

I attempted to de-dupe things by eyeballing it (e.g., the multiple nintendo
ones, etc.) but could have made missed something.

[1]
[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22apple%20should%20buy%22&sor...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=%22apple%20should%20buy%22&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

~~~
raldi
Free karma to anyone who wants to add those up and see if Apple actually has
the cash to do it.

~~~
mburns
I'll bite. Apple's cash on hand in Q3 was $261.5B.

    
    
      Company     Market Cap ($/Billion)
      -------     ----------------------
      Twitter     12.6
      Tesla       57
      Netflix     76.5
      Foursquare  0.7
      Nokia       34
      Time Warner 85  ('tv network', 'hollywood', with some additional overhead)
    

Totals to $265.8B, just a hair over our imaginary budget if they did a 100%
buyout. Presumably, Apple would sell off parts of Time Warner that weren't The
CW, HBO, Warner Bros.

What Apple would have had to pay for Yahoo would have varied quite a bit(+/\-
$40B?). Nintendo($53B) and Disney ($154B) are a bit further of a stretch.
Amazon($460B)/Facebook($492B) are more than half the size of Apple,
effectively out of reach.

~~~
emn13
They'd probably have to pay taxes to repatriate that cash to buy those firms,
however, and buying a firm has costs of its own (not just overheads, but you
obviously need to pay more than the market cap usually). So this amount is
well beyond reach (using only that 260B cash on hand, and wtf that's an
unimaginable amount).

~~~
Retric
You don't need cash on hand for the full price of a company. ~10x leverage is
possible so they have a ~ 1-2 Trillion dollar budget.

PS: They can also create a foreign subsidiary to make the purchase thus
avoiding taxes.

~~~
emn13
Definitely. But the parent poster I was replying to was suggesting you could
do it merely with cash in hand - and that's not going to be doable. I mean,
I'm not saying the scenario is particularly realistic: it's an absurd
hypothetical wherein they'd want all these companies, and want to use cash
alone to boot :-).

------
jasode
There are several angles to analyze this...

1) Based on previous Apple acquisitions[1], acquiring a multibillion dollar
conglomerate like Sony really hasn't been part of Apple's playbook. Things
could change of course, (Tim Cook philosophy different from Steve Jobs, etc).
If Apple somehow did buy Sony, they'd probably end up doing a carve outs for
the pieces they wanted (like Google did with Motorola.)

 _> Cornering the imaging sensor supply. The image sensor is a critical
component of the iPhone. _

2) Buying Sony to get the image sensor and exclude everyone else also seems
very un-Apple like. Apple seems to enjoy being a supply-chain _orchestrator_
and keeping hardware manufacturers at "arms length" via contracts instead of
_owning_ complicated fabrication facilities. E.g. Apple didn't seriously
entertain buying Corning to "own the Gorilla Glass facility"; if other
smartphones got Gorilla glass, no big deal. What's the convincing business
case for Apple to prefer acquiring Sony instead of just negotiating a
multibillion dollar supply contract?

 _> Acquiring Sony would give Apple a huge competitive advantage: access to
the most advanced chips of the industry, ahead of its smartphone competitors.
Given the camera's importance to the iPhone, this is a strong competitive
argument against Samsung’s Galaxy or Google’s Pixel._

3) The smartphone camera's _quality_ being perceived as #1 may not even be
strategically important to Apple. In the last ten years from 2007 until now,
was Apple iPhone ever #1 in camera quality? It always seemed like
Samsung/Lumia/Google had the better cameras and it never seemed to bother
Apple. Maybe the journalist is overemphasizing the camera's importance?
(Unless future cameras' sensor qualities are more integral to upcoming
"virtual reality" apps and Sony has secret sauce for that scenario that nobody
else has.)

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple)

~~~
pacaro
The quality issue is really interesting. I used to have the Lumia with the
40MP camera. The image quality was, in general, significantly better, and for
low light photography (for example a baby sleeping in a room with the drapes
closed) exceptionally better.

But. And there's always a but. Apple seems to have payed way more attention to
the user experience of taking a picture, so while I could adjust everything on
the Lumia, and potentially get a better picture, just taking a snap was so
unbelievably slow, the lag between clicking and the image being taken was
slow, and the time between taking pictures was slow, so my wife with an
equivalent generation iPhone could take 10-20 images in the time it took me to
take one.

Quality has to be understood in the context of the whole experience, not just
the final image.

I still keep the Lumia charged, years later, because there are times when it
makes a decent digital camera... YMMV

~~~
emn13
Being able to take pictures quickly does depend to a considerable extent on
the quality of the sensor; getting all that data off of it isn't trivial; and
analyzing it to pick a focus and other settings is similarly hard to do
quickly. And as it so happens, that's perhaps one area where sony is _most_
ahead of the competition. Sure, their sensors have some slightly better
technical characteristics in a lab (e.g. noise, dynamic range), but I kind of
doubt they're enough to make a really noticeable difference compared to the
competition. But they are _really_ fast; e.g. show-off stuff like their
relatively new RX10 gen 4 (see
[https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx10...](https://www.dpreview.com/products/sony/compacts/sony_dscrx10iv)
) have some fairly interesting features precisely because they're so fast.
24fps full phase detection autofocus? And it may well be able to do some image
analysis to even detect, follow and focus on moving eyes at that speed? For
frame of reference, canon's top end pro stuff (1DXm2) has around the same
resolution, and just 16fps, and nikon's D5 "just" 14fps (not that they're
really competitors, but just to give you an idea of what's technically high-
end).

Speed matters, and that's not really primarily a UI issue; it's to a large
extent a technical challenge too. Shutter lag isn't new, and it's been an
important stat for a loooong time. Even without any further information
whatsoever, I'd be willing to bet that the lumia's shutter lag wasn't just a
matter of poor UI or camera app software; but also one of sensor and other
imaging limitations.

TL;DR: if your old iphone had used your old lumia's imaging hardware, it
probably would have been slow too.

------
bllguo
This is very simplistic. There is a lot more to consider in potential M&A than
just raw numbers. Cultural fit, how it changes relationships with other
suppliers, laws and regulations, management, etc.

I'm not persuaded the current Apple-Sony relationship is such that a drastic
move like an acquisition is necessary..

------
X-Istence
Something in the article that made me go: "Wait, what?"

Apple is paying 17% average tax rate, and is in red, yet Coca-Cola does the
same, yet is in green.

What gives?

~~~
eridius
I noticed that too. The graphic is also missing all context, like what
countries the companies are paying taxes in, which matters because different
countries have different tax rates, and just because one company is paying
more taxes than another doesn't mean it's doing any more to "pay [its] fair
share to the national economies", it might just mean that it has more revenue
in countries with higher tax rates.

------
alsetmusic
Reason 3 of the article focuses on the PlayStation ecosystem. This fails to
address the PlayStation software. macOS and iOS share a common architecture.
TvOS and watchOS are derived from iOS. Aside from patents, Apple would have
little use in acquiring the PlayStation OS because it wouldn’t be possible to
integrate without considerable rewriting (I can’t imagine Apple maintaining it
separately).

What is more likely, given Apple’s actions in the past, is iterative
development of game technology atop Apple’s existing technology. Acquiring the
PlayStation software would not be strategically useful.

~~~
zie
Playstation is based on FreeBSD, and Apple's OS also comes from BSD, apple's
UNIX underpinnings are basically FreeBSD userland. I'm sure there is a lot of
technical gotcha's here, but they are not at complete technical odds at an OS
level, like say Apple buying Microsoft would be(which would just be a disaster
for everyone).

------
_ph_
Besides the funny fact that many years ago people would blog that Sony should
buy Apple, I don't think this is a good idea. In general, I don't think
anything good comes out of a large company buying another large company. We
get less variety and competition. Sony once was, what Apple is now, a company
which would create very unique and beautiful pieces of technology.

Their advertising slogan "It is not a trick, it is a Sony" really held true -
they would come up with very innovative and nicely designed things. But while
a shadow of its past, the old Sony is not gone. Their camera division
currently is making the best sensors on the market and their A7 mirrorless
line is very popular for a good reason. Being bought by Apple would probably
destroy all of this.

Apple buying high-tech startups and small companies completely makes sense.
They cannot compete with the industry giants, so being bought means that their
technology comes to market faster. But for an established company with their
very own line of products it would possibly mean destruction as Apple most
likely wouldn't allow them to keep their own product lines.

~~~
emn13
Oh, I don't think there's any doubt it would be terrible for consumers if
apple bought Sony.

But as I read it, the article suggests it would be good for _Apple_ to buy
Sony. And that's a little more plausible. Although history does seem to
suggest that such a merger would destroy lots of good bits of Sony, as you
point out, which wouldn't just be a shame, but also a rather expensive shame.

------
santoshalper
This assumes that a large Japanese conglomerate would agree to (and be allowed
to) be purchased by a large US corporation. While Sony is not quite as
connected to Japan as Samsung is to South Korea, it would still be a major
blow to Japanese national pride and autonomy.

------
lechiffre10
Highly doubt a Japanese company would allow a takeover from an American one.

~~~
Pxtl
Yes. If that was possible, I'd have said Google should acquire Sony instead.

~~~
oneplane
For some reason that would make more sense to me than Apple buying Sony. Then
again, Apple getting Beats/DrDre was a weird one for me too, so what do I
know... ;-)

~~~
Pxtl
Sony has hardware and content, Google has software and OSs. Put them together
and you've got an Apple's worth of end-to-end integration. Well, plus a
gigantic media wing that would probably end up getting in the way.

Imagine a merger between the Playstation and Android/AndroidTV ecosystems.
Sony's content all getting prime space on Android's Play Store. "The Sony
Store" becoming Google's answer to the Apple Store..

------
holydude
Sony ? I do not think so. Sony Entertainment ? Very likely! Apple knows that
devices and software on their own have no value (for your average joe
customer). It's the content that matters and in my humble opinion Apple will
aim at companies like Netflix,Spotify etc first before acquiring tech
companies.

------
IBM
Why buy any company when poaching is working just fine?

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/apple-
s-g...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-21/apple-s-global-web-
of-r-d-labs-doubles-as-poaching-operation)

~~~
ryandrake
Ughh, I hate when articles (and even HNers) use this offensive term. The word
"poaching" implies that we tech workers are property like fish and wild game,
owned by our corporate lords, who are trying to prevent others from "stealing"
their property. Sorry, but as far as employment goes, we have agency and free
will to come and go as makes the best sense for our own careers. Our
relationships with our employers have nothing to do with ownership of our
person--I am not being "stolen" if I deliberately choose to change jobs.

~~~
nashashmi
You are being stolen if someone makes you an unsolicited offer you cannot
refuse.

------
kristianc
> “Future operating results depend upon the Company’s ability to obtain
> components in sufficient quantities on commercially reasonable terms.”

I can see how acquiring Sony would perhaps solve the "commercially reasonable
terms" part of this equation, though no doubt Apple has quite a lot of
leverage here already as the largest buyer of such sensors in the world, but
how would it solve their ability to obtain components, especially on 1M per
day iPhone scale? That's surely always going to be dependent on outside
factors - mining, shipping, freight etc? For all the effort it would take to
integrate a slow growth Japanese business with a huge cultural difference, it
doesn't at all seem worth it.

------
zitterbewegung
If Apple would buy anyone it would be a flash memory supplier. Which they are
almost doing (Apple-Bain Consortum purchase for $18 billion). There was a
recent price hike on their store on larger flash memory sizes.

See [http://news.softpedia.com/news/apple-bain-consortium-
acquire...](http://news.softpedia.com/news/apple-bain-consortium-acquires-
toshiba-flash-memory-unit-for-18-billion-517850.shtml)

Sony doesn't make sense.

Movies catalog and Playstation Ecosystem are either expensive or Apple doesn't
want to go into content production they want to do distribution.

Image sensors are still competitive with other phones if not better.

~~~
emn13
Apple has used Sony sensors repeatedly. I can't remember an iphone without
one, and some googling shows that the past three generations (6, 7, 8) have
used sony sensors.

If anything, flash is a poor bet for apple. Sure, there's a shortage now, but
there are several suppliers to choose from; and if anything the high prices
hurt low-end supplies more than apple. The status quo may not be ideal, but
it's relatively benign. And the flash market has had quite a few ups and
downs; buying a supplier risks being left with a dud if the market crashes.

Sony sensors have competitors; but unlike flash they're not quite as
interchangable; and sony's tech seems to be not just the most predominant, but
also the best in the business. Keeping the best stuff for itself could well be
an actual advantage for apple, unlike with flash.

Not that I'm saying it makes sense, but it makes _more_ sense than buying a
flash producer.

------
readhn
it would be a huge mess. Somehow integrating Sony into apple ecosystem. Its
cheaper just to buy what you need from them.

------
coding123
The movie business and playstation lines alone would make sense for Apple.
Most other product lines would be liquidated. The playstation technical
employees would probably not have any job changes. I would suspect the
codebase of Playstation would remain the same, except for supporting Swift as
a language on the platform.

I'm not sure how long the Apple and Playstation stores would take to be
integrated, but they would probably make that happen.

Beyond that there could be many opportunities to integrate apple hardware with
your playstation account.

~~~
pentae
I have always said Apple should buy Nintendo. Much better fit, much better
synergy. Imagine what a competitive advantage they would have with Nintendo
exclusives being brought to iPhone? - The Nintendo switch is already basically
an iPad in a dock, Apple could release a Nintendo dock for iPad that comes
with game controllers. The iPad probably has a better GPU too.. $700 buying
you an iPad as well as a Nintendo gaming device with better graphics power
would be an incredible value proposition. The companies share a similar
culture - user experience, family friendly and a cult like following. Would be
super interesting as long as they didnt kill Nintendo.

------
tomc1985
Sony's practically the only option if you want elegant, high-quality tech
without the Apple logo :/

~~~
tootie
Samsung.

~~~
wil421
Nothing about Samsung products are high quality. I’ve owned Phones, Tablets,
microwaves, dishwashers and other appliances. The quality has been middle of
the road to crap across the board.

Samsung jumps into new features just to jump in, doesn’t matter if they work
reliably or not.

------
abrowne
No! They're just about the only source for a small but not low-end Android
phone these days.

------
nobodyorother
Does Apple acquire?

It'd be difficult/weird for them to start integrating/selling Android
devices/ecosystem, which feels like they'd be putting their feet up for a few
years while Google continued advancing. It feels antithetical to their
business model.

~~~
WillPostForFood
They do, but typically in a more focused way (e.g., Beats).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisitions_by_Apple)

Sony would be a weird one.

------
bitmapbrother
>To put things in perspective, with that amount of money, Apple could acquire
General Electric, Samsung or Royal Dutch Shell.

Samsung has a market cap of around 250 Billion USD. To suggest that Apple
could even afford to purchase Samsung is naive.

~~~
allwein
And the article points out that Apple currently has 262 Billion USD in cash. I
don't see anything naive there.

~~~
holydude
And the article is wrong. Samsung has revenue of 300bn and totals assets of
600bn. Why would they sell for so little as 262bn ? Or were we talking just
about Samsung Electronics ?

~~~
allwein
The article didn't say anything about Samsung's numbers. I was replying to
bitmapbrother who quoted a value of 250bn. In that case, I didn't understand
how 262bn>250bn was naive. If the numbers are actually 300bn and 600bn, that's
a different story.

------
remir
Apple is already making their own SoC. Could they also make their own ISP as
well? I realize Sony is the top player here, but this is Apple we're talking
about and they have boatloads of cash and competent engineers.

~~~
nkristoffersen
And the SoC skills came from an acquisition.

[https://www.extremetech.com/computing/142553-apple-
acquires-...](https://www.extremetech.com/computing/142553-apple-acquires-ti-
staff-moves-deeper-into-the-world-of-socs)

------
nextstep
Here's a great counterpoint to corporate consolidation in general:
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00wQYmvfhn4)

------
hylianwarrior
Mergers and consolidation do _not_ help anything. We need _more_ competition,
not less. Large corporations are not focused on innovation, which Apple
usually pursues

------
chaostheory
To this day, I don't understand why Apple didn't buy Nest instead of Beats. I
still don't understand the Beats acquisition.

~~~
infinityplus1
Think about the synergies, Beats produces over-priced mediocre quality
headphones with big marketing dollars spent on celebrity endorsements. Their
brand had pretty good value to earn high profits which Apple must have found a
good deal.

------
oneplane
I highly doubt that would work out for either of them.

------
odiroot
Oh god please no. Sony are my favourite Android phones. I don't want to see
them dumbed down and "artistically designed".

~~~
emn13
Glass backs.

Blech.

~~~
xaqfox
There is not a glass back on their newest, XZ Premium. Still no removable
battery, though, it does still have a microSD slot.

~~~
emn13
That's great news! I used to buy the old z[123] compact series, but that glass
back... I've got kids and it just doesn't work anymore. A phone needs to have
some modicum of robustness to be useful. The ancient, crappy looking samsung
s4 I now use is sadly functionally superior to the sony and apple high-end
phones, simply because it doesn't shatter when dropped - instead, the plastic
back cracks open (again), and maybe the battery get's detached. It's like an
unintentional airbag. And it's not like that's a really robust phone either;
pre-smartphone phones simply outclassed today's stuff.

Seriously, high end phones these days are a joke. They're not even trying.
What the beep happened?

------
cridenour
Nintendo's Wii? Why are we comparing a 2013 console to one released in 2006?

------
hndamien
How about Bragi...

