-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
[Barrons] Apple’s Next Big Move? It Should Buy Nintendo
- Thread starter Pablo Mesa
- Start date
How come their online service and features are so shitty then? That's what I mean.
Love them or hate them, Nintendo does their own thing and says to hell with everyone else. They would never sell...and thats a good thing. The gaming industry wouldn't be what it is without them and I would never want them constrained by another company...especially scummy ass apple lmao
What is with tech blogs and sites that basically fap over the idea of big companies buying big companies?
No one should ever want this in any medium.
No one should ever want this in any medium.
eh, i doubt the actual writers of articles like that (and this one) don't know how dumb, childish and unrealistic most of these X should buy Y ideas are. they just want that attention grabbing title, and will write a half-assed article to go along with it.
Google just provide the platform on which the services run. The landlord of a butcher shop isn't responsible for how shitty the sausages the butcher makes are. I haven't played anything online for Switch so I can't really comment on it either way, but being on Google cloud services doesn't inherently determine how good or bad Nintendo online is. A lot of online services you use are probably just running on AWS or Google, maybe Azure.
Yeah and thats exactly how terrible an idea it is to buy Nintendo. Mario, Zelda on Ipads, no thanks. It makes little sense for Apple to have those when they already have loads of developers developing for their tablets and phones and even Nintendo is making ganes for them.
The person who wrote the article really stated that a $40b acquisition would be "cheap". He/she has no freaking idea.
On the other hand Apple thinks candy crush is the real deal in gaming, they would force Nintendo to forget about consoles and make more Super Mario Run-like games for their iPhone and iPads.
Or make the new iSwitchPhone :D
Dockable phone with console graphics.
(No I don't want that)
Yea they almost did. I might be messing up some details but talks went as far as getting Microsoft and Nintendo to sit down on a table.
This was before the xbox, and microsoft wanted to desperately get into the console scene. I think one of the proposals had them basically setting up the online infrastructure while Nintendo made the games. Ultimately Nintendo said no but they did stop to actually think about it.
It can now in theory since the iPhone X and the like are stronger than the Switch, which is stronger than the Wii U which Breath of the Wild is built on. It just wouldn't be practical at this time for several reasons, but graphic limitation isn't really one of them.
The stuff NSO actually has works fine, although they can be improved. The problem with NSO is how barebones it is.
I disagree with the article. I doubt Nintendo's shareholders are willing to sell, and if Apple tried a hostile takeover Nintendo would probably try a poison pill strategy or ask support from the Japanese government - which doesn't like big Japanese companies to be in foreign hands, at all.
If Nintendo ever neared bankruptcy (which I doubt, just look at their numbers) once again the Japanese government would step in and help prop the company up. It has happened with many big companies, like Toshiba, and they even have a name - zombie companies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38969273
Third, I see a big problem of culture clash there. Nintendo's and Apple's work and development cultures don't seem to be aligned, at all. Apple prefers to release new iterations of their models every year, and they have programmed obsolency on their devices. Nintendo still follows the video game industry model of creating a platform and letting it be on the market a couple of years before launching a revision (that will probably be more aesthetic than anything else) and still offers support and repair services to old consoles. In Japan, Nintendo dropped the NES support in 2007. Do you see Apple standing for that, when their main business is to sell new devices?
Regarding online and mobile, it appears to me a partnership (or even a joint business venture) could be far more likely. For example, having a unit from Nintendo that develops new IPs exclusive to mobile, like Dragalia Lost, and Apple takes care of logistics in the App Store and marketing. Sadly for them, Dena is basically fulfilling that role. Is online hasn't improved, it's probably because Nintendo at this point doesn't care. Nintendo's main aim by putting its big IP in mobile is to drag those casual players to its consoles - Apple would want the opposite, for those IPs to be only on their devices, so the only middle ground I find is for new mobile IPs.
Summary: I don't see any upsides to Apple buying Nintendo, and all positives the author list in the column make more sense as a joint venture or a partnership, but the role is currently used by Dena.
If Nintendo ever neared bankruptcy (which I doubt, just look at their numbers) once again the Japanese government would step in and help prop the company up. It has happened with many big companies, like Toshiba, and they even have a name - zombie companies.
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-38969273
Third, I see a big problem of culture clash there. Nintendo's and Apple's work and development cultures don't seem to be aligned, at all. Apple prefers to release new iterations of their models every year, and they have programmed obsolency on their devices. Nintendo still follows the video game industry model of creating a platform and letting it be on the market a couple of years before launching a revision (that will probably be more aesthetic than anything else) and still offers support and repair services to old consoles. In Japan, Nintendo dropped the NES support in 2007. Do you see Apple standing for that, when their main business is to sell new devices?
Regarding online and mobile, it appears to me a partnership (or even a joint business venture) could be far more likely. For example, having a unit from Nintendo that develops new IPs exclusive to mobile, like Dragalia Lost, and Apple takes care of logistics in the App Store and marketing. Sadly for them, Dena is basically fulfilling that role. Is online hasn't improved, it's probably because Nintendo at this point doesn't care. Nintendo's main aim by putting its big IP in mobile is to drag those casual players to its consoles - Apple would want the opposite, for those IPs to be only on their devices, so the only middle ground I find is for new mobile IPs.
Summary: I don't see any upsides to Apple buying Nintendo, and all positives the author list in the column make more sense as a joint venture or a partnership, but the role is currently used by Dena.
This article is so odd.
It even states that Nintendo has a market value of $34 billion. And Nintendo has almost $10 billion cash in the bank.
According to Nintendo's financials, Nintendo Co Ltd already own 21.5 million of their own shares. How would Apple be able to purchase those shares? And what about Japanese company law and the government preventing hostile takeovers of national companies from foreign entities?
Not to mention Nintendo's 129 years of staunch Japanese history.
It even states that Nintendo has a market value of $34 billion. And Nintendo has almost $10 billion cash in the bank.
According to Nintendo's financials, Nintendo Co Ltd already own 21.5 million of their own shares. How would Apple be able to purchase those shares? And what about Japanese company law and the government preventing hostile takeovers of national companies from foreign entities?
Not to mention Nintendo's 129 years of staunch Japanese history.
It's capitalist porn. They get off to it. Also they write these blogs to get clicks on slow days, the actual analysis in the piece is tame at best.
Why Nintendo?
Wouldn't they go for someone who is in cutting edge hardware and has good 3rd party relations and an established and robust online eco system?
Like, outside of Nintendo IP, I don't see Apple gaining anything from this acquisition they couldn't get in better form elsewhere.
Besides, no way in hell Nintendo would be up for that.
And if they want to get into software production on a high level themselves, they should look into buying Sony, because Sony is arguably the most successful publisher among the console manufacturers right now, they have built a robust 1st party department that scales well and also showed it can support 3rd party productions like Spider-Man in a meaningful way.
Wouldn't they go for someone who is in cutting edge hardware and has good 3rd party relations and an established and robust online eco system?
Like, outside of Nintendo IP, I don't see Apple gaining anything from this acquisition they couldn't get in better form elsewhere.
Besides, no way in hell Nintendo would be up for that.
And if they want to get into software production on a high level themselves, they should look into buying Sony, because Sony is arguably the most successful publisher among the console manufacturers right now, they have built a robust 1st party department that scales well and also showed it can support 3rd party productions like Spider-Man in a meaningful way.
Those are treasury shares, which can be cancelled out. I do not want to go into super detail about the financial statements here, but there are differences between market value and enterprise value. Effectively if you buy a company for $10 that has $3 in net cash (cash - debt), you are buying it for $7 since you get ownership of the $3 of cash.
There are a lot of "Why didn't you cover this topic?" posts here. There is very limited space in the weekly magazine. I get an allocation of a set number of words, so I can't cover all the angles and go into super detail on everything.
If you have any specific questions or points, I'll gladly discuss them here.
One point, both Apple and Nintendo are publicly-traded companies. Just because a company does not NEED more cash isn't a valid enough reason to say they can't be bought.
Theoretically, the board of every publicly traded company works for the shareholders and must do whatever it takes to maximize shareholder value over the long-term. Of course there is a lot of wiggle room to that, is this the best way? Are our shares undervalued today? etc. etc. That's what makes a market.
Barron's is not a blog. It is a respected financial journalism outlet with market and stock commentary that is almost 100 years old. It relies primarily on paid subscriptions and has a weekly print magazine + digital site.
Nintendo is one of the few companies that sell their hardware at a profit. If the big N were to ever be bought shutting down their hardware division would be a shot in their own foot.
I knew what you meant but just wanted to point out it's not a question of infrastructure (though that can be part of it). It's more about the software that runs the service.
The value of their IP, let alone the company itself, would be so massive that I don't think any entity could make a significant attempt to buy them, let alone a western one which the Japanese government would surely block.
There's just no feasible way for something like that to happen, and it boggles me that a pretty legitimate publication wouldn't realize that.
There's just no feasible way for something like that to happen, and it boggles me that a pretty legitimate publication wouldn't realize that.
It's bad article day eh?
"The US will save [insert us company here] - just look at GM and Chrysler!"
Besides, Tepco is an electric power company.
A company shutting down electricity for 1/3 of the country due to a bankruptcy that was the result of a natural disaster, may be a little different to your standard case.
Toshiba wasn't bailed out by Japan, instead they had to sell off big parts of the company like their chip business (to a foreign company).
Sharp wasn't bailed out and was acquired by Foxconn (a foreign company).
Takata wasn't bailed out and was acquired by Key Safety Systems (a foreign company)
Mitsubishi Motors wasn't bailed out either and 34% of it was acquired by Nissan who became their biggest shareholder.
Nissan is mainly foreign owned with Renault owning 43.4% (a foreign company).
Last edited:
LOL. Barron's is rather well regarded in the investment community.
I can't see it happening. It's notoriously hard for foreign companies to buy Japanese ones based on their legal structure.
https://www.barrons.com/articles/nintendo-on-blackrock-filing-1490279793
Another article about buying Nintendo (That was in 2017).
Another article about buying Nintendo (That was in 2017).