NEW YORK (
TheStreet) --Just when I thought it was finally over,
TheStreet's Dana Blankenhorn brought it back to life.
Leading up to
(AAPL - Get Report) announcement that it would cave in to normalcy and issue a dividend and buy back stock, all flavors of people floated ideas about how the company should spend its billions. I rarely involved myself in that type of talk. Whether I have been bullish or bearish short-term or long-term, I have generally stuck to the premise that Apple, not shareholders or the media, does the best job of managing its money.
I won't name names, but participants in that game made a case for why Apple should buy everything from
(SIRI). It was just all so absurd.
Now Blankenhorn, who is anything but absurd, brings back the loony Apple M&A discussion in
Why Apple Buying Facebook Now Makes Sense.
Blankenhorn argues the deal makes sense for several reasons, including:
Apple does not have a good social presence.
(FB) investors would appreciate it if Apple paid a premium to pluck them from under water.
Apple can afford to do it.
The U.S. Department of Justice wouldn't try to stop it.
Facebook would make Apple "younger" and the latter could groom Mark Zuckerberg to be Tim Cook's successor.
I'm not quite sure if I will ever be able to understand this seemingly collective desire for Apple to make indiscriminate, multi-billion dollar purchases. It makes more sense to challenge the company to close the state of California's budget deficit (actually, I don't think that's
It's tough enough for run-of-the-mill firms to integrate after major mergers and acquisitions, let alone one that has Apple's quirks. Why would Apple want to go through that process, particularly at a time when it has never been more successful? And, if I am correct in my belief that
the company will fall from greatness over the long-term
, is buying Face book -- or any other company for that matter -- the answer?
In an article published by
on Tuesday, I discussed Apple's position of strength vis-à-vis
(GOOG - Get Report)
frustrating lack of focus
While I understand that just about everything Google does comes with the same end goal, I just cannot endorse what Google has become. Back when the company bought
in a $1.65 billion stock deal, Pete Cashmore at Mashable
to put ads on as much content as possible
While it has certainly accomplished that, where does Google go from here? Pull up a YouTube video. It's like watching public access television as the spam-like Google ad appears at the bottom of the screen. There's little thought -- or so it seems -- around how the ad gets served. Just churn'em and burn'em. While I have been a Google bull historically, I am not sure how much longer I can hang with what I perceive as a lack of focus and innovative forward momentum.