Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Apple's massive $3B bet on Beats a sure thing compared to all-in gamble on NeXT in 1996

Steve Jobs and Gil Amelio in 1996

Last updated

Apple's recently-confirmed $3 billion purchase of headphone maker and streaming music provider Beats may be the largest cash outlay in its history, but it's far from the Cupertino company's biggest bet on an acquisition.

When then-Apple CEO Gil Amelio announced in December 1996 that his company would buy Steve Jobs's NeXT for more than $400 million, the world was a much different place. Toni Braxton's "Un-Break My Heart" topped the Hot 100, Hong Kong was still a British colony, and Apple was in dire straits thanks in no small part to Windows 95's blockbuster debut.

The $25 million profit that Apple posted in the quarter preceding the NeXT acquisition surprised many analysts, who widely expected yet another loss from a company that had shed nearly $2 billion in market cap that year. The cornerstone Mac was still reeling, and Amelio saw its salvation in NeXT and Jobs, the Mac's godfather.

So Amelio and Jobs agreed on a deal: Apple would pay NeXT $429 million ($648 million adjusted for inflation) in cash and grant Jobs 1.5 million shares of stock, worth about $9 million ($13.5 million) at the time. With a market cap of just $2.9 billion ($4.3 billion) when the acquisition was announced, Apple was betting more than 15 percent of the company on Jobs and his new object-oriented operating system.

A failure would likely have meant the death of Apple, and Jobs was no sure thing at the time. NeXT had burned through hundreds of millions of dollars with little to show for it, and his other company — Pixar — had failed in its own bid to sell hardware before stumbling into the feature animation business.

Luckily, Jobs proved equal to the task and Apple is now one of the richest companies on earth. Underpinned by NeXT's technology, the iPhone and iPad are the standard-bearers of the post-PC movement while the Mac is more popular than ever.

Just as Amelio bet on NeXT to save the Mac, current Apple chief Tim Cook seems to be looking to Beats to rescue iTunes. Music sales are quickly being replaced by streaming subscriptions, and Apple's efforts — even with iTunes Radio's 40 million users — have been lackluster.

The Beats deal includes $2.6 billion in cash and $400 million in stock, a similar arrangement to the one Jobs and Amelio reached nearly 17 years ago. The $3 billion figure is comparatively staggering, but in reality it represents just 0.5 percent of Apple's now-massive $538.9 billion market cap.

If an Apple employee bringing home $75,000 per year made purchases of the same magnitude, the NeXT acquisition would be like buying a car while the Beats agreement would net a nice lunch.

For that relative pittance, Apple will gain a fast-growing streaming service — Beats Music is thought to have doubled in size over the last two months — and add music industry heavyweights Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre to its leadership ranks. It also comes with a profitable, $1 billion-per-year accessories business on the side.

Only time will tell whether Iovine and Dre will be good for Apple, but there's certainly no cause for hand-wringing over the price. Apple can afford to eat out.



108 Comments

SpamSandwich 19 Years · 32917 comments

Sure, it's all just a matter of percentages... LOL.

gwmac 17 Years · 1800 comments

Very true that this is really not that big of a gamble. The headphone division alone should pay off the deal in a few short years. The staff from Beats that will now work with Apple and their streaming platform that allows Apple to get a foot in the door there as all are really just icing on the cake. I was against the deal when I first heard about it but now I see it as a smart move. I still think companies like Netflix, Broadcom, or Nintendo could also make great acquisitions for Apple as well but at least we now know Apple is not afraid to pay billions for a company if they really want it.

apple ][ 13 Years · 9225 comments

The price or the amount has never been my main concern, and it shouldn't be Apple's main priority either, if I am to believe what Apple has said in the past.

teaearlegreyhot 11 Years · 1012 comments

Quote:
It also comes with a profitable, $1 billion-per-year accessories business on the side.

 

It's never actually made clear in the news reports I've read whether that billion dollars is profit or sales.  

 

But, I have a hard time believing it in either case.  

gwmac 17 Years · 1800 comments

My original negative take was based off of a headphone purchase a young friend of mine made several months back. He often consults me about any tech type questions and asks my opinion. He wanted some high quality headphones and was trying to decide between a few different Beats models. I did some research and gave him a few suggestions for models by Shure and Sennheiser instead were actually cheaper but seemed to get far better ratings from some pro review sites. He would have none of it. He would not consider those brands for even a second. It was Beats or nothing. So even though he knew review sites rated Beats poorly and thought they were overpriced, that is what he wanted and would not even consider superior sounding and cheaper alternatives. That says a lot. Imagine how sticky the consumers will be once Apple engineers get a chance to actually make Beats headphones sound far better.