Connect with us

Technology

The Big Five: Largest Acquisitions by Tech Company

Published

on

Big Tech Company Acquisitions

Can I share this graphic?
Yes. Visualizations are free to share and post in their original form across the web—even for publishers. Please link back to this page and attribute Visual Capitalist.
When do I need a license?
Licenses are required for some commercial uses, translations, or layout modifications. You can even whitelabel our visualizations. Explore your options.
Interested in this piece?
Click here to license this visualization.

The Big Five: Largest Acquisitions by Tech Company

The Big Five tech giants, or “FAAMG”—Facebook, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, and Google (Alphabet)—have a combined market capitalization of over $4 trillion.

These powerful tech behemoths often devour the talent, technology, or entire businesses of aspiring competitors. Given their financial weight, mergers and acquisitions have become a key tactic in maintaining their strong grip on tech supremacy.

Today’s Chart of the Week explores the world’s most powerful tech companies and their biggest acquisitions to date.

Which Acquisitions Were a Success?

While these tech giants may have had big aspirations for these exceedingly large deals, they have mixed success rates.

Microsoft

Microsoft made its big move 2016 to buy LinkedIn for $26.2 billion, and it’s the most sizable acquisition by any of the Big Five tech companies.

Microsoft’s 5 Biggest Acquisitions:

Acquisition (Year)AmountCategory
LinkedIn (2016)$26.2 billionSocial Media
Skype (2011)$8.5 billionTelecommunications
GitHub (2018)$7.5 billionSoftware
Nokia (2014)$7.2 billionTelecommunications
aQuantive (2007)$6.3 billionMarketing

The LinkedIn deal was made due to the synergy between the two companies’ offerings, and Microsoft’s desire to gain access to LinkedIn’s 575 million members.

However, not all of Microsoft’s acquisitions have been as successful, such as its 2014 purchase of Nokia’s Devices & Services business for $7.2 billion. This seemed like a smart move at the time, considering the Finnish company held 41% of the global handset market.

Yet, Microsoft sold the asset for a mere $350 million just two years later. Microsoft shifted its strategy and exited the feature phone market, choosing to focus on a narrow, niche market for their hardware.

Amazon

Amazon has closed more than $20 billion in acquisitions and investments since 2017. This includes the purchase of Whole Foods, which Amazon bought for $13.7 billion, and is the company’s largest acquisition to date.

Amazon’s 5 Biggest Acquisitions:

Acquisition (Year)AmountCategory
Whole Foods (2017)$13.7 billionRetail
Zappos (2009)$1.2 billionRetail
Ring (2018)$1.2 billionTechnology
PillPack (2018)$1 billionPharmaceuticals
Twitch (2014)$970 millionSocial Media

From purchases to bolster the AI of smart assistant Alexa, to Wi-Fi enabled doorbell Ring, recent additions clearly show the company intends to cement its presence in people’s homes.

After acquiring Whole Foods, Amazon began offering store discounts to Prime customers, in an attempt to bundle its home offerings and provide a more holistic customer experience.

Alphabet

Alphabet has made several daring moves into the hardware and data science sectors. The company’s biggest acquisition was Motorola, which it bought in 2012 for $12.5 billion.

Alphabet’s 5 Biggest Acquisitions:

Acquisition (Year)AmountCategory
Motorola (2012)$12.5 billionTelecommunications
Nest (2014)$3.2 billionTechnology
DoubleClick (2007)$3.1 billionMarketing
Looker (2019)$2.6 billionSoftware
YouTube (2006)$1.7 billionSocial Media

However, the purchase of Motorola was a bet that didn’t pay off. Alphabet sold off much of Motorola’s assets for less than $3 billion in 2014, a little less than two years after it had originally acquired it.

Alphabet continues to consolidate its acquisitions in order to simplify its organizational structure. DoubleClick, acquired in 2007, merged with Google Analytics 360 Suite under the Google Marketing Platform—making it easier for marketers to access their metrics using one platform.

Apple

Out of the Big Five companies, Apple has the fewest acquisitions over $1 billion. Its largest purchase was for Beats Electronics, which it acquired for $3 billion in 2014.

Apple’s 5 Biggest Acquisitions

Acquisition (Year)AmountCategory
Beats (2014)$3 billionMusic
Dialog Semiconductor (2018)$600 millionManufacturing
Anobit (2011)$500 millionManufacturing
Shazam (2017)$400 millionMusic
NeXT Computer (1996)$400 millionTechnology

Apple’s increasing music streaming efforts have been evident, with the acquisition of Shazam three years after it purchased Beats Electronics.

In an intriguing recent turn of events, Apple recently announced it will acquire the majority of Intel’s smartphone modem business. This $1 billion deal will allow Apple to build all of its devices in-house, and better prepare the iPhone for the upcoming 5G push.

Facebook

Facebook’s largest acquisition has been WhatsApp Messenger, which it purchased for $22 billion in 2014. The WhatsApp acquisition is the second largest of the Big Five, following Microsoft’s LinkedIn purchase.

Facebook’s 5 Biggest Acquisitions:

Acquisition (Year)AmountCategory
WhatsApp (2014)$22 billionSocial Media
Oculus (2014)$2 billionTechnology
Instagram (2012)$1 billionSocial Media
LiveRail (2014)$500 millionMarketing
Onavo (2013)$200 millionAnalytics

Aside from absorbing any competitors who encroach on Facebook’s turf—such as WhatsApp and Instagram—Facebook’s takeovers have been aimed at venturing into uncharted territory. The acquisition of virtual reality manufacturer, Oculus, is evidence of Facebook’s bet on virtual reality as the future of engagement.

“After games, we’re going to make Oculus a platform for many other experiences. Imagine enjoying a court side seat at a game, or studying in a classroom of students and teachers all over the world —just by putting on goggles in your home.”

—Mark Zuckerberg

Predicting the Next Shift

The Big Five are some of the most influential companies in the world today.

Beyond rapidly reshaping the global tech landscape, these acquisitions provide important context on how tech companies consolidate power—and, more importantly, what will fuel their next phase of growth.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Comments

Technology

How Do Esports Companies Compare with Sports Teams?

With some esports companies more valuable than traditional sports teams, we visualize esports vs sports in franchise value.

Published

on

Esports Companies VS Sports - Share

How Do Esports Companies Compare with Sports Teams?

Are esports on the same level as “real” sports? These comparisons range from tricky to subjective, but the monetary value of companies speak for themselves.

The world’s largest esports companies have definitely risen to the occasion. Valued at almost half-a-billion dollars, they’ve started to pass some sports franchises in value.

In the above graphic, we compare Forbes’ valuation of the top 10 esports companies in 2020 against median franchises in the “Big Four” major leagues (NFL, MLB, NBA, and NHL). Despite competitive gaming’s rapid growth, there’s still a long way left to go.

Esports Impress but NFL Teams Reign Supreme

The world’s top esports companies have grown quickly, and impressively.

As of 2018, there was only one esports company worth more than $300 million in valuation. By 2020, four of the top 10 were valued at more than $300 million.

Esports CompanyGames with FranchisesValue (2020)
TSMLeague of Legends$410M
Cloud9League of Legends, Overwatch$350M
Team LiquidLeague of Legends$310M
FaZe ClanCall of Duty$305M
100 ThievesLeague of Legends, Call of Duty$190M
Gen.GLeague of Legends, Overwatch, NBA 2K$185M
Enthusiast GamingCall of Duty, Overwatch$180M
G2 EsportsLeague of Legends$175M
NRG EsportsCall of Duty, Overwatch$155M
T1League of Legends$150M

When compared to traditional sports valuations, esports companies have already reached major league hockey status.

TSM, the world’s most valuable esports company in 2020, has a higher valuation than five NHL franchises. In fact, four esports companies were estimated to be more valuable than two NHL franchises, the Florida Panthers and Arizona Coyotes.

But other sports leagues are further away. While the median value of an NHL franchise in 2020 was $520 million, the MLB, NBA, and NFL all saw median values of over $1.6 billion.

Esports vs. Sports FranchisesLowest Valued TeamHighest Valued TeamMedian
NFL$2.0B$5.7B$3.0B
NBA$1.3B$4.6B$1.8B
MLB$980M$5.0B$1.6B
NHL$285M$1.6B$520M
Esports (Top 10)$150M$410M$188M

Differences in Esports vs Sports Structures and Growth

Try as we might to make a clean apples-to-apples comparison between esports and traditional sports teams, there are significant differences in the business models to consider.

For starters, major esports companies own multiple franchises and non-franchise teams across many games. Cloud9 owns both the eponymous Cloud9 League of Legends franchise and the London Spitfire Overwatch franchise, for example, as well as non-franchise teams in Halo, Counter Strike: Global Offensive, Fortnite, and other games.

The revenue streams for esports companies are also extremely varied. Companies like TSM, 100 Thieves, FaZe Clan and Enthusiast Gaming made 50% or more of their revenue from outside of esports, having instead expanded into diverse companies with an equal focus on content creation and apps.

But it’s this greater ability to diversify, and the still-increasing size of esports fandom, that continues to grow esports valuations. In fact, TSM’s estimated 2020 revenue of $45 million is less than half of the Arizona Coyotes’ estimated revenue of $95 million, despite a $100+ million valuation difference in favor of TSM.

That’s why the continued maturation of esports is only going to make traditional sports comparisons easier, and closer. Instead of having to pit companies against franchises, direct league-to-league comparisons will be possible, and the differences will likely shrink from billions to millions.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading

Technology

Global Stars: The Most Innovative Countries, Ranked by Income Group

From Switzerland and China to Vietnam and Tanzania — here are the world’s most innovative countries, taking income per capita into account.

Published

on

The Most Innovative Countries, Ranked by Income Group

Innovation can be instrumental to the success of economies, at macro and micro scales. While investment provides powerful fuel for innovation—the relationship isn’t always straightforward.

The 2020 ranking from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reveals just that.

The above map breaks down the most innovative countries in each World Bank income group, based on data from WIPO’s Global Innovation Index (GII), which evaluates nations across 80 innovation indicators like research and development (R&D), venture capital, and high-tech production.

While wealthier nations continue to lead global innovation, the GII also shows that middle-income countries—particularly in Asia—are making impressive strides.

Fueling Innovation

The economic and regulatory spheres within countries can have an enormous impact on their level of innovation—and vice versa, as innovation in turn becomes an economic driver, stimulating further investment.

The positive feedback loop between investment and innovation results in the success of some of the top countries in the table below, which shows the three most innovative countries in each income group.

Income GroupGroup RankCountry (Overall Rank)
High1🇨🇭 Switzerland (#1)
High2🇸🇪 Sweden (#2)
High3🇺🇸 United States of America (#3)
Upper Middle1🇨🇳 China (#14)
Upper Middle2🇲🇾 Malaysia (#33)
Upper Middle3🇧🇬 Bulgaria (#37)
Lower Middle1🇻🇳 Vietnam (#42)
Lower Middle2🇺🇦 Ukraine (#45)
Lower Middle3🇮🇳 India (#48)
Low1🇹🇿 Tanzania (#88)
Low2🇷🇼 Rwanda (#91)
Low3🇲🇼 Malawi (#111)

Switzerland, Sweden, and the U.S. are the top three in the high-income group. Considering that Switzerland has the second-highest GDP per capita globally, it is not a surprise leader on this list.

Upper middle-income countries are led by China, Malaysia, and Bulgaria. Note that China far surpasses other nations in the upper-middle-income group ranking, reaching 14th spot overall in 2020. Others in the income group only appear in the overall ranking after 30th place.

Below are several income group leaders, and some of their key areas of output:

  • Switzerland: First in Knowledge Creation, second in Global Brand Value
  • U.S.: First in Entertainment and Media, Computer Software Spending, Intellectual Property Receipts
  • China: First in Patents Registered
  • Vietnam: Second in High-Technology Net Exports
  • India: First in Information and Communication Technology Services Exports
  • Tanzania: 23rd in Printing and Other Media

Shining a Light on Global Innovators

Since 2011, Switzerland has led the world in innovation according to this index, and the top five countries have seen few changes in recent years.

Sweden regained second place in 2019 and the U.S. moved into third—positions they maintain in 2020. The Netherlands entered the top two in 2018 and now sits at fifth.

Here’s how the overall ranking shakes out:

RankCountryScoreIncome Group
1Switzerland66.1High
2Sweden62.5High
3United States of America60.6High
4United Kingdom59.8High
5Netherlands58.8High
6Denmark57.5High
7Finland57.0High
8Singapore56.6High
9Germany56.6High
10South Korea56.1High
11Hong Kong, China54.2High
12France53.7High
13Israel53.6High
14China53.3Upper Middle
15Ireland53.1High
16Japan52.7High
17Canada52.3High
18Luxembourg50.8High
19Austria50.1High
20Norway49.3High
21Iceland49.2High
22Belgium49.1High
23Australia48.4High
24Czech Republic48.3High
25Estonia48.3High
26New Zealand47.0High
27Malta46.4High
28Italy45.7High
29Cyprus45.7High
30Spain45.6High
31Portugal43.5High
32Slovenia42.9High
33Malaysia42.4Upper Middle
34United Arab Emiratesx42.4High
35Hungary41.5High
36Latvia41.1High
37Bulgaria40.0Upper Middle
38Poland40.0High
39Slovakia39.7High
40Lithuania39.2High
41Croatia37.3High
42Viet Nam37.1Lower Middle
43Greece36.8High
44Thailand36.7Upper Middle
45Ukraine36.3Lower Middle
46Romania36.0Upper Middle
47Russian Federation35.6Upper Middle
48India35.6Lower Middle
49Montenegro35.4Upper Middle
50Philippines35.2Lower Middle
51Turkey34.9Upper Middle
52Mauritius34.4Upper Middle
53Serbia34.3Upper Middle
54Chile33.9High
55Mexico33.6Upper Middle
56Costa Rica33.5Upper Middle
57North Macedonia33.4Upper Middle
58Mongolia33.4Lower Middle
59Republic of Moldova33.0Lower Middle
60South Africa32.7Upper Middle
61Armenia32.6Upper Middle
62Brazil31.9Upper Middle
63Georgia31.8Upper Middle
64Belarus31.3Upper Middle
65Tunisia31.2Lower Middle
66Saudi Arabia30.9High
67Iran (Islamic Republic of)30.9High
68Colombia30.8Upper Middle
69Uruguay30.8High
70Qatar30.8High
71Brunei Darussalam29.8High
72Jamaica29.1Upper Middle
73Panama29.0High
74Bosnia and Herzegovina29.0Upper Middle
75Morocco29.0Lower Middle
76Peru28.8Upper Middle
77Kazakhstan28.6Upper Middle
78Kuwait28.4High
79Bahrain28.4High
80Argentina28.3Upper Middle
81Jordan27.8Upper Middle
82Azerbaijan27.2Upper Middle
83Albania27.1Upper Middle
84Oman26.5High
85Indonesia26.5Lower Middle
86Kenya26.1Lower Middle
87Lebanon26.0Upper Middle
88United Republic of Tanzania25.6Lower I
89Botswana25.4Upper Middle
90Dominican Republic25.1Upper Middle
91Rwanda25.1Lower I
92El Salvador24.9Lower Middle
93Uzbekistan24.5Lower Middle
94Kyrgyzstan24.5Lower Middle
95Nepal24.4Lower I
96Egypt24.2Lower Middle
97Paraguay24.1Upper Middle
98Trinidad and Tobago24.1High
99Ecuador24.1Upper Middle
100Cabo Verde23.9Lower Middle
101Sri Lanka23.8Upper Middle
102Senegal23.8Lower Middle
103Honduras23.0Lower Middle
104Namibia22.5Upper Middle
105Bolivia (Plurinational State of)22.4Lower Middle
106Guatemala22.4Upper Middle
107Pakistan22.3Lower Middle
108Ghana22.3Lower Middle
109Tajikistan22.2Lower I
110Cambodia21.5Lower Middle
111Malawi21.4Lower I
112Côte d’Ivoire21.2Lower Middle
113Lao People’s Democratic Republic20.7Lower Middle
114Uganda20.5Lower I
115Madagascar20.4Lower I
116Bangladesh20.4Lower Middle
117Nigeria20.1Lower Middle
118Burkina Faso20.0Lower I
119Cameroon20.0Lower Middle
120Zimbabwe20.0Lower Middle
121Algeria19.5Upper Middle
122Zambia19.4Lower Middle
123Mali19.2Lower I
124Mozambique18.7Lower I
125Togo18.5Lower I
126Benin18.1Lower I
127Ethiopia18.1Lower I
128Niger17.8Lower I
129Myanmar17.7Lower Middle
130Guinea17.3Lower I
131Yemen13.6Lower I

Nordic countries like Sweden, Denmark, and Finland continue their strong showing across innovation factors—like Knowledge Creation, Global Brand Value, Environmental Performance, and Intellectual Property Receipts—leading to their continued presence atop global innovators.

But the nations making the biggest moves in GII ranking are found in Asia.

China, Vietnam, India, and the Philippines have risen the most of all countries, with all four now in the top 50. China broke into the top 15 in 2019 and remains the only middle-income economy in the top 30.

In 2020, South Korea became the second Asian economy to enter the top 10, after Singapore. As the first Asian country to move into the global top five, Singapore joined the leaders in 2018, and now sits at 8th place.

In another first for 2020, India has now broken into the top 50.

Innovation Input & Output: The Overachievers

While annual rankings like these confirm the importance of a robust economy and innovation investment, variations in the relationship between input and output are not uncommon.

The correlation between wealth and innovation isn’t always straightforward, and neither is the connection between innovation input and output.

Below is an overview of the GII inputs and outputs, as well as several of the world’s overall leaders in each pillar.

Input variables can be characterized as factors that foster innovation—everything from the quality of a country’s university institutions to its levels of ecological sustainability.

Input PillarsInput ExamplesInput Leaders
Institutions
Human Capital & Research
Infrastructure
Market Sophistication
Business Sophistication
University Institutions
Regulatory Environment
Intangible Assets
Entrepreneurship
R&D Spending
Venture Capital Deals
Researchers
1. Singapore
2. Switzerland
3. Sweden
4. U.S.
5. Denmark
6. U.K.
7. Hong Kong, China
8. Finland
9. Canada
10. South Korea

Output factors include innovation indicators like the creation of new businesses, and even the number of Wikipedia edits made per million people.

Output PillarsOutput TypesOutput Leaders
Knowledge & Technology
Creative
Registered patents
Creative goods and services
Scientific publications
National feature films
Entertainment and media
High-tech manufacturing
1. Switzerland
2. Sweden
3. United Kingdom
4. Netherlands
5. U.S.A.
6. China
7. Germany
8. Finland
9. Denmark
10. South Korea

Countries with impressive innovation outputs compared to input levels include:

  • China: 26th in inputs, but sixth in overall innovation outputs
  • Netherlands: 11th in innovation input, but fourth across outputs
  • Thailand: 48th in overall input, first in business R&D
  • Malaysia: 34th in overall input, first in high-tech net exports

Innovation Fuel Reductions Up Ahead?

Although financial markets have ignited, the economy as a whole has not fared well since lockdowns began. This begs the question of whether a steep decline in innovation capital will follow.

In response to the 2020 pandemic, will spending on R&D echo the 2009 recession and aftermath of 9/11? Will venture capital flows continue to decline more than they have since 2018?

Because innovation is so entwined with the economic growth strategies of companies and nations alike, the WIPO notes that the potential decline may not be as severe as historical trends might suggest.

No Stopping Human Innovation

Thankfully, innovation opportunities are not solely contingent on the level of capital infused during any given year. Instead, the cumulative results of continuous innovation stimuli may be enough to maintain growth, while strategic cash reserves are put to use.

What the GII ranking shows is that inputs don’t always equal outputs—and that innovative strides can be made with even modest levels of capital flow.

Subscribe to Visual Capitalist

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Continue Reading

Subscribe

Join the 230,000+ subscribers who receive our daily email

Thank you!
Given email address is already subscribed, thank you!
Please provide a valid email address.
Please complete the CAPTCHA.
Oops. Something went wrong. Please try again later.

Popular