Apple's M&A track record is mixed (Beats success vs. Humans failure), resulting in a judgment that its capital allocation is average at best.

Would it be fair? To say that Apple's history in Mergers and acquisitions It was extremely uneven From your point of view? I think this is accurate. very. As you know, it was Beats Music acquisition Very good, clearly .

But it's impossible Actually, we are evaluating it because We don't know exactly how much The value he created For the shareholders.

but My assumption is that it was Successful, as he opened the door They have the ability to They are a two-party company The side and work on the side Supply and demand side of Both. investment The studio, as you know, It doesn't look great at first glance First.

They sold it For approximately 400 million Dollars in cash, but they Keep a share of Approximately 20% in Tripledot company, It is the company that ended They ended up selling it .

In the six months In the past, it decreased Their share of the revenue from Tripledot by 27% consecutively. So, as you know There isn't much data. But it is clear that this It's not something you really want.

In his vision of a matter that concerns Mergers And acquisition.

And then One of their failures The entire company is called Humans Which was developed For a social shopping application. They almost By reducing the value of this The investment is complete.

But as you know, that was done For $55 million only. Although This was clearly a mistake. However, at least he did not It would be an investment that To put the company at risk If things don't work out, Which, of course, is what happened.

So As you know, they had Their share, I believe, One of the great successes And some other things Which did not succeed. But on The least in matters that It didn't work; the size The bet, if it's permissible The expression, low by Enough to keep the business running The company naturally, Whether they did this Acquisition or not.

Yes, okay, I mentioned Reduce the value of their investment Entirely. What does this mean? In simple terms, they Reduce the value of that Investment reduced to zero. They reduced its value to Zero.

So, that was Clearly a failed attempt. But I agree with what you said. As you know, it's a bet small, and if the team The administration is doing its job honestly. mergers Only successful acquisitions.

I am likely to think They do not return Investing in opportunities Enough, and they probably They are more cautious than Necessary. Therefore, in general My impression is that allocation The company's capital is Average level at best Circumstances.

I mean, it's not Something terrible, but It's not something worthwhile Praise as well. in In reality, it won't be Likewise, as you know, Sometimes with companies Rarely, you will find that the ability The administration is allocating the head Money plus Having a basic business activity Slim could be A genuine reason for desire To join as a shareholder.

The reports Published by Fuzzy Panda and "Calber Research", and in a way The reports were basic Which bets on a decline The stock relates to companies Others like Apple and Google And Meta.

It is similar The common saying that "Apple" Not a technology company Indeed, it is a company Consumer appliances.

If we look at the numbers Tenjin, specializing in Marketing analytics, understanding They claim that Apple controls Even at slightly less than 40 % of transfer revenues iOS Ads and Acquisition Users of games Mobile phone.