Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Apple Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: SirWalterRalegh who wrote (169935)	5/28/2014 6:54:54 PM
From: rnsmth	1 Recommendation Recommended By MGV Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

<< But a lot more cash could be required to make this mistake viable. Poor decision but not earth shattering.>> Not a mistake, nor a poor decision, nor is it expensive, in my view.

To: SirWalterRalegh who wrote (169935)	5/28/2014 7:37:59 PM
From: Sr K	10 Recommendations Recommended By CHRIS LINELL clean86 david1951 ggamer HerbVic and 5 more members Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 213176

The key is the contracts and if Apple can assume them. That was the focus of the due diligence period. Apple starting from scratch would have had to go to each label, and overcome any conflict with Beats' 2 companies (Beats Music and Beats Electronics). I trust Bruce Sewell, Tim Cook and the Apple Board to know what they are doing. The valuable thing Beats had was those contracts. And Iovine likely knew this a long time ago.