Have you noticed how people seem very loose with Apple’s money? It would be broke if it bought every company people have said it had to buy.
Writing for ZDNet, Larry Dignan tries to tell us “Why Samsung's Harman purchase will be seen as Apple blunder decades from now.” (Tip o’ the antlers to Tibo Csapo.)
Decades from now?! Well, that’s a good way to hedge your bet. When we’re all dead, we’ll look back on this and laugh.
The deal makes so much sense you have to wonder why Apple didn't buy Harman.
You don’t have to. There’s no law. We could just let Samsung do its thing and Apple do something else.
Ha, just kidding. Of course we can’t do that. That would be silly.
The crux of the case, outlined by Jim Cramer repeatedly…
Well, if the guy who yells on cable TV said it was a good idea…
…is that Apple could diversify and become the hub of the connected car.
Next, Apple should buy a weapons manufacturer. You won’t believe the chamfered edges on these tanks.
Arguing that Apple should have bought Harman is arguing that Apple should evolve into a conglomerate. It might make perfect sense for Samsung, because Samsung is a conglomerate — a company that makes everything from washing machines to refrigerators. They used to make construction vehicles.
They also used to have a weapons division! The tanks all looked like the iPhone 4.
Assuming Samsung doesn't completely botch the Harman purchase, Apple may regret not beating its rival to the punch.
Assuming this all works out perfectly, Apple will wish it had done the thing that worked out perfectly.
Despite the desire by pundits for Apple to make a huge acquisition, it doesn’t need, want or have to. There are more ways to kill a cat than by acquiring it to death.