> I can think you can see the point I'm making: yes, Apple has a big pile of cash, a fat amount of profit and high stock value. However, Alphabet its influence and reach is far, far beyond that of Apple. Its just not as flashy & visible.
Yes, I agree essentially with the above line (though Apple & Alphabet have comparable market values, which is why I said Alphabet has an excellent outlook). I didn't intend to start a minor flame war, as I meant "giant among giants" in the financial sense only, which of course is hugely important.
In terms of influence/clout (measured in eyeballs, political heft, economic clout via product ecosystems, etc.) Alphabet likely does edge out even Apple (perhaps not "far, far beyond"). However & without going into too much detail, I think my point still stands: from a "game theory" angle, there would likely be no strategic reason for Apple to join a partnership in this case.
Yes, I agree essentially with the above line (though Apple & Alphabet have comparable market values, which is why I said Alphabet has an excellent outlook). I didn't intend to start a minor flame war, as I meant "giant among giants" in the financial sense only, which of course is hugely important.
In terms of influence/clout (measured in eyeballs, political heft, economic clout via product ecosystems, etc.) Alphabet likely does edge out even Apple (perhaps not "far, far beyond"). However & without going into too much detail, I think my point still stands: from a "game theory" angle, there would likely be no strategic reason for Apple to join a partnership in this case.