or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Beats CEO in talks to join Apple as 'special advisor' to Tim Cook
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Beats CEO in talks to join Apple as 'special advisor' to Tim Cook - Page 2

post #41 of 72

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/04/01/apple-buys-beats/

 

Quote:
 

And one more thing…

YouTube’s streaming music heyday is about to end. As part of the Beats deal, the heads of the three major labels have secretly agreed not to renew their YouTube licenses. You can’t win unless you kill the competition, and Tim Cook has made a preemptive strike.

 

Interesting read, especially in light of this thread, looks like Jimmy gets paid after the deal too, not just a one shot deal, and a swipe at YouTube as well...

post #42 of 72
I'm a bit bemused by these 2 rumours too!
Just to set things straight I'm quite satisfied with Apples presentations, you think that the quip Phil made would carry any weight
if it weren't for the revealing of Mac Pro?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

You can't see WHY Apple would need this guy??!! Apple, who is run by a bunch of stick-in-the-muds, needs a cool guy to front for them. With the loss of Steve, the keynotes have been dull as dirt... so dull, in fact that when Phil Schiller said, "Apple can't innovate, my ass!" it was the high-point of the whole event!

Apple needs a face that speaks for it that is memorable, like John Hodgman or Carly Foulkes, the girl-in-the-pink-dress was for T-mobile. Cook & crew may be the best managers, but they stink as the public face of Apple.

Apple still know how to entertain & Federighi is a good presenter, maybe it's the hair! 1wink.gif
Getting back to the question of Jimmy lovine he maybe their to give that missing essence of Jobs in the form of Love of Music, as of late there really wasn't
an event with musical ending.

More over Apple did have Harman Kardon make pro-speakers for them, they HK are owners of AKG headphones they AKG have made a Dre Beats
version of their 700 - 400 series. I love the retro look of the "akg 701"
If they could make & improve those headphones tech wise but keep the look.

On the front of their model for subscription, I don't know anything about their sound-files & if those are higher quality?
Dre Beats bought out MOG (for 14M) which created deals for their mobile/sound system in all thing lap-tops, iPods, Cars etc
but to have Apple now buy DB for 3.2B is questionable & laughable.
post #43 of 72
hmm... audio equipment may be an Apple' weak area so there may be some credence. For example Apple head/ear-phones are poor compared to the Etymotic Pro ones I use. That said, it might simply be choice on Apple' part so far, maybe they don't want to make premium quality head/ear-phones. However, I think Beats equipment sucks the big one so I hope it's not true.
post #44 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

sorry, I have not been able to provide you with any insider information about the evaluation of Beats valuation.

1) So now you're claiming I asked for insider information and not simply a model as to why this would be worthwhile to Apple?

2) You should really pay more attention here instead of trying to make smarmy comments. This forum is great resource for learning if you're willing to open yourself to the knowledge and PoVs others have to offer.
Quote:
Until such time, all valuation I for one will consider a scientific wild ass guess

It's a scientific -and- a wild ass guess? How exactly does that work? My understanding of the term "wild ass guess" is one that involves no data points in which to build a model. There is nothing scientific about that.

With Beats and Apple there are plenty of points in which to make factual statements. You've even made one yourself which you cited as Iovine met with Cook in 2011. Unfortunately you then stopped looking for more data and decided that was all the proof you needed.

Making a prediction is like counting cards. In that case, based on what cards have been removed from the shoe and the number of cards remaining you can reliably calculate the odds of another card appearing. Playing the odds doesn't guarantee any hand but over a long enough period the odds will balance. You don't deviate from your bet because "you have a feeling." Determining how a person will act is tricker as it contains a lot more variables and any one person may appear irrational but as a whole they tend to follow predictable patterns. Companies often do the same thing.

Could Apple pay 8x(?) more Beats than any other acquisition in their history? Possibly, but do you honestly think, given all the information you have about Apple and Beats' actions and financial history that it's the most likely thing to happen? It would be highly unusual so what information can you provide to be the catalyst for this atypical move? The best I've read is that Apple feels iT(Music)S is getting stale and no longer appealing to a younger crowd. I can see that as anything well structured, long-established, and ubiquitous can seem boring to a younger generation.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/9/14 at 12:17am

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #45 of 72
(just trying to lighten the thread up, if that's possible)
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

that or "Magic wand"

Great¡ Now I hear Sheena Eastons' Sugar Walls in my head...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

.

Good point. Concise. I like it.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #46 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Just as it was clear that he was not looking for opinion either from other posters either that he has tried to shutdown.

If I didn't want an intelligent opinion I wouldn't ask questions on this forum. Note that I qualified my comments with the word intelligent, something you having been supplying in your comments
Quote:
If he wants to have a debate based on opinion he is surely free to do that if he finds it valuable and a good use of one's time to have a debate which will never draw any closer to reality.

Speaking of reality your comments seem to be slipping further and further from it. You can make it back to Earth Sandra.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #47 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


You can't see WHY Apple would need this guy??!! Apple, who is run by a bunch of stick-in-the-muds, needs a cool guy to front for them. With the loss of Steve, the keynotes have been dull as dirt... so dull, in fact that when Phil Schiller said, "Apple can't innovate, my ass!" it was the high-point of the whole event!

Apple needs a face that speaks for it that is memorable, like John Hodgman or Carly Foulkes, the girl-in-the-pink-dress was for T-mobile. Cook & crew may be the best managers, but they stink as the public face of Apple.

 

Oh, give me a fucking break with all the sensationalism. I don't think many people really give a shit how "cool" Apple's execs are, as long as they're the best for the job and develop great products. "Dull as dirt"? Not quite. The products have always been the star of the show, and Apple keynotes are still by FAR the most exciting in tech. Apple's execs arent the most charismatic people on the planet, but they certainly dont "stink" as far as tech execs go- They're still more charismatic and sincere than most. 

post #48 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Until such time, all valuation I for one will consider a scientific wild ass guess

It's a scientific -and- a wild ass guess? How exactly does that work? My understanding of the term "wild ass guess" is one that involves no data points in which to build a model. There is nothing scientific about that.
 

exactly! we finally agree. This is a common phrase that one use's when you are being asked to provide an accurate number when in fact you have no freaking clue or accurate information which will lead you with any hope to even come close. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #49 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

exactly! we finally agree. This is a common phrase that one use's when you are being asked to provide an accurate number when in fact you have no freaking clue or accurate information which will lead you with any hope to even come close. 

I wonder if you'll ever comprehend the difference between stating an opinion and making an unwavering, absolute statement. So far the odds are against it.


PS: If you think we agree then you don't even understand what you wrote, much less what I wrote.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #50 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

exactly! we finally agree. This is a common phrase that one use's when you are being asked to provide an accurate number when in fact you have no freaking clue or accurate information which will lead you with any hope to even come close. 

I wonder if you'll ever comprehend the difference between stating an opinion and making an unwavering, absolute statement. So far the odds are against it.


PS: If you think we agree then you don't even understand what you wrote, much less what I wrote.

Let me make this clear. Feel free to give your opinion and SWAGs.  I for one am not interested in debating with opinion and generating scientific wild ass guesses out of my butt.  So please... proceed and ignore me.  Hope you find what you are looking for from this forum through this approach and are satisfied with it.


Edited by snova - 5/9/14 at 12:37am
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #51 of 72
Rumors rumors...now Amazon is going to pay 5B, so they could lost money in order to drive up the stock price...LOL
post #52 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

I for one am not interested in debating with opinion and generating scientific wild ass guesses out of my butt.

1) You want to debate what is already proven to be factual. That makes perfect sense¡ 1oyvey.gif

2) Your repeated use of "scientific wild ass guesses" again proves my point.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #53 of 72

Let's see...

Spotify is worth $4 B...

Pandora is worth $5.4 B...

 

$3.2 B for Beats is not so crazy at all...  Plus they have hardware patents that are licensed globally and strong media industry connections...

 

I predict that this deal will happen and will be a huge success.

 

iTunes is becoming Apple's biggest money maker.

post #54 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Oh, give me a fucking break with all the sensationalism. I don't think many people really give a shit how "cool" Apple's execs are, as long as they're the best for the job and develop great products. "Dull as dirt"? Not quite. The products have always been the star of the show, and Apple keynotes are still by FAR the most exciting in tech. Apple's execs arent the most charismatic people on the planet, but they certainly dont "stink" as far as tech execs go- They're still more charismatic and sincere than most. 
God help Apple if they think they need Jimmy Iovine to give Apple some cool factor or to be the showman at keynote events.
post #55 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Let's see...
Spotify is worth $4 B...
Pandora is worth $5.4 B...

$3.2 B for Beats is not so crazy at all...  Plus they have hardware patents that are licensed globally and strong media industry connections...

I predict that this deal will happen and will be a huge success.

iTunes is becoming Apple's biggest money maker.
What hardware patents of theirs would Apple need/want? What industry connections are worth $3B and what would Apple need them for? If Eddy Cue is unable to get a Spotify like service off the ground and Apple is willing to spend the money then just buy Spotify! Or buy Pandora and make iTunes Radio better. Buying a trendy brand that gets routinely panned for being overpriced crap is a horrible idea.
post #56 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


What hardware patents of theirs would Apple need/want? What industry connections are worth $3B and what would Apple need them for? If Eddy Cue is unable to get a Spotify like service off the ground and Apple is willing to spend the money then just buy Spotify! Or buy Pandora and make iTunes Radio better. Buying a trendy brand that gets routinely panned for being overpriced crap is a horrible idea.

You don't understand that it is not easy to get products like Beats Music or Spotify off the ground and time is money.  

It takes a long time and a costs a lot of money to get the contract agreements if you can get them at all.  

The industry would even challenge Apple more aggressively because they are Apple.  

It is easy for Apple to scoop this up and make money because it is already a successful business with no legal problems.

 

-As soon as Apple signs the $3.2 B check and takes Beats Music Global, the Streaming Music subscription alone will be worth over $10 B.

-Plus Beats owns over 50% of the premium headphone market.

-When Apple ventures into the iTV market, it will need good audio. 

-iOS in the Car will get bigger and bigger, Apple can also offer Beats Audio in the car.

-Beats Audio patents are licensed by phone makers, computer makers, car makers etc...

 

You must understand that if you had $3 B in your pocket right now, you could not build up Beats with it.

Moreover, I would buy Beats over Nest any day of the week and twice on Sunday for my $3 B.


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 5/9/14 at 4:44am
post #57 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

You don't understand that it is not easy to get products like Beats Music or Spotify off the ground and time is money.  
It takes a long time and a costs a lot of money to get the contract agreements if you can get them at all.  
The industry would even challenge Apple more aggressively because they are Apple.  
It is easy for Apple to scoop this up and make money because it is already a successful business with no legal problems.

-As soon as Apple signs the $3.2 B check and takes Beats Music Global, the Streaming Music subscription alone will be worth over $10 B.
-Plus Beats owns over 50% of the premium headphone market.
-When Apple ventures into the iTV market, it will need good audio. 
-iOS in the Car will get bigger and bigger, Apple can also offer Beats Audio in the car.
-Beats Audio patents are licensed by phone makers, computer makers, car makers etc...

I would buy Beats over Nest any day of the week and twice on Sunday for my $3 B.
But who likes Beats audio? And who says they will still be a fashion statement 6 months or a year from now. Plus does Apple really need to spend $3B on a fashion statement? Does Jony Ive really want to spend time designing headphones? I suppose Apple could make Beats a subsidiary and just leave the brand as is, but that seems like a money grab more than anything. And I think it would have a negative impact on Apple's brand which is about quality, not overpriced crappy plastic headphones.
post #58 of 72
Someone on CNBC said they spoke with several "sources" who said this is all about the headphones. So basically Apple is paying $3B for a brand of overpriced headphones with crap sound quality. Tim, no. Just no. 1oyvey.gif
post #59 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


But who likes Beats audio? And who says they will still be a fashion statement 6 months or a year from now. Plus does Apple really need to spend $3B on a fashion statement? Does Jony Ive really want to spend time designing headphones? I suppose Apple could make Beats a subsidiary and just leave the brand as is, but that seems like a money grab more than anything. And I think it would have a negative impact on Apple's brand which is about quality, not overpriced crappy plastic headphones.

A lot of people like Beats Audio including myself although I am a Sennheiser fan.  

They currently have over 50% of the premium market and it's not just because of fashion, the headphones sound good.

More importantly, the contracts for Beats Music are worth a fortune and are not easy to get even if you have the money.

 

There are a few things companies like Apple gladly pay for if it fits their need:

1.  Cost savings   (How much would it cost to do from scratch)

2.  Regulatory / Legal hurdles  (How hard would it be to negotiate the contracts if at all possible)

3.  Current Major Business initiative alignment  (Does it fit their current initiative to revamp iTunes / iOS)

 

If you think about it, Beats covers all 3 of these categories for Apple and that makes it a no brainer.

Not to mention, time is money and Beats is already successful and very well connected.


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 5/9/14 at 5:18am
post #60 of 72
Wouldn't acquiring Beats infringe on Apple's promise to Apple Records not to impede in their business?
post #61 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

A lot of people like Beats Audio including myself although I am a Sennheiser fan.  
They currently have over 50% of the premium market and it's not just because of fashion, the headphones sound good.
More importantly, the contracts for Beats Music are worth a fortune and are not easy to get even if you have the money.

There are a few things companies like Apple gladly pay for if it fits their need:
1.  Cost savings   (How much would it cost to do from scratch)
2.  Regulatory / Legal hurdles  (How hard would it be to negotiate the contracts if at all possible)
3.  Current Major Business initiative alignment  (Does it fit their current initiative to revamp iTunes / iOS)

If you think about it, Beats covers all 3 of these categories for Apple and that makes it a no brainer.
Not to mention, time is money and Beats is already successful and very well connected.
You lost me at "the headphones sound good". The future is the cloud yet Apple is buying a company that makes overpriced plastic headphones, a company whose value is all brand/marketing and little valuable technology IP. When CNBC says it's all about the headphones that signals to me Cook is looking for an easy way to add a cash cow to Apple's portfolio.
post #62 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
 

 

Oh, give me a fucking break with all the sensationalism. I don't think many people really give a shit how "cool" Apple's execs are, as long as they're the best for the job and develop great products. "Dull as dirt"? Not quite. The products have always been the star of the show, and Apple keynotes are still by FAR the most exciting in tech. Apple's execs arent the most charismatic people on the planet, but they certainly dont "stink" as far as tech execs go- They're still more charismatic and sincere than most. 


  But here's the thing:  What we love about Apple and how wildly successful their successes are is clear.  But their music service(s) are not the Gorilla In The Room that we assumed a decade ago they'd be now.  In fact, quite the opposite.  From having two daughters (and jillions more at work) I'm around lots of young people and their music and iTunes is, regardless of what any numbers say, is not regarded as being cool and current.  Forget about how it compares feature-wise, they're not using it to obtain their music nearly as much as the hipper seeming services.  Seriously, I see use splintered among all the popular streaming/renting/discovery services and iTunes barely pokes its head through.  Again, there may be numbers that show its popularity, but if you asked 100 people on the street what they use you'd get everything but iTunes.  This is just an area where it's not that Apple needs someone else's technology, it's just that other people have come along and done it better, or done a better twist on it.  

 

Apple is excellent at looking amazing to us, its devotees.  But to kids Apple is the fogey and the others are the new thing.   

 

  One of my favorite Jimmy Iovine quotes about music producing (he produced great Springsteen, Petty, Stevie Nicks, Dire Straits albums among many, many others)  though I can't quote it so I'll paraphrase, is "I don't produce for myself.  I don't make things I want to buy.  I make records for the people who spend their money on records."   He is completely tapped into the market of who has been spending music dollars for the past decade.  Apple is not.  Apple's market is the whole world and everybody, and as a result they lost the certain sector of kids and young adults who want something they feel speaks to them.

post #63 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Then wouldn't it be prudent to not say so in your post?   again, looks like more and more like you are trying to gracefully back away from eating crow.

Im done.  For a guy you tries very hard to look open minded, you failed today.   Very uncharacteristic of you and surprising.  I'm very surprised.

I'm also rather surprised... because I (very!) highly respect Soli as one of the best commentators here at AI... or any website for that matter... and why I many times take the necessary time to go through the comments in the first place.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #64 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

(just trying to lighten the thread up, if that's possible)
Great¡ Now I hear Sheena Eastons' Sugar Walls in my head...
Good point. Concise. I like it.

Thanks a lot Phil ¡... now I got Bootylicious swirling around in mine....! 1smoking.gif
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #65 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Thanks a lot Phil ¡... now I got Bootylicious swirling around in mine....! 1smoking.gif

From Destiny's Child? YT gives me nothing, as I don't have Flash installed. I'll check it out on my iPad later...
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #66 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post


  But here's the thing:  What we love about Apple and how wildly successful their successes are is clear.  But their music service(s) are not the Gorilla In The Room that we assumed a decade ago they'd be now.  In fact, quite the opposite.  From having two daughters (and jillions more at work) I'm around lots of young people and their music and iTunes is, regardless of what any numbers say, is not regarded as being cool and current.  Forget about how it compares feature-wise, they're not using it to obtain their music nearly as much as the hipper seeming services.  Seriously, I see use splintered among all the popular streaming/renting/discovery services and iTunes barely pokes its head through.  Again, there may be numbers that show its popularity, but if you asked 100 people on the street what they use you'd get everything but iTunes.  This is just an area where it's not that Apple needs someone else's technology, it's just that other people have come along and done it better, or done a better twist on it.  

Apple is excellent at looking amazing to us, its devotees.  But to kids Apple is the fogey and the others are the new thing.   

  One of my favorite Jimmy Iovine quotes about music producing (he produced great Springsteen, Petty, Stevie Nicks, Dire Straits albums among many, many others)  though I can't quote it so I'll paraphrase, is "I don't produce for myself.  I don't make things I want to buy.  I make records for the people who spend their money on records."   He is completely tapped into the market of who has been spending music dollars for the past decade.  Apple is not.  Apple's market is the whole world and everybody, and as a result they lost the certain sector of kids and young adults who want something they feel speaks to them.

Gotta say: this is a very nice post!

Especially as it relates and speaks to the younger generation of Apple fans, who BTW are growing up almost from Day 1 with Apple devices like iPhones and iPads.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #67 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Let's see...
Spotify is worth $4 B...
Pandora is worth $5.4 B...

$3.2 B for Beats is not so crazy at all...  Plus they have hardware patents that are licensed globally and strong media industry connections...

I predict that this deal will happen and will be a huge success.

iTunes is becoming Apple's biggest money maker.

What hardware patents? Design patents? You don't pay billions for design patents. Doing so would be a rebuke of Jony Ive and Apple's design team.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #68 of 72
@AppleSauce007,

Your comments are first I've read — despite asking repeatedly — that paints a decent picture as to why Apple would find it beneficial to purchase Beats. Some of your pros seem only superficially plausible, especially considering how long Apple's been distributing music and making headphones compared to Beats existence, but you've intrigued me.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #69 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
 


  But here's the thing:  What we love about Apple and how wildly successful their successes are is clear.  But their music service(s) are not the Gorilla In The Room that we assumed a decade ago they'd be now.  In fact, quite the opposite.  From having two daughters (and jillions more at work) I'm around lots of young people and their music and iTunes is, regardless of what any numbers say, is not regarded as being cool and current.  Forget about how it compares feature-wise, they're not using it to obtain their music nearly as much as the hipper seeming services.  Seriously, I see use splintered among all the popular streaming/renting/discovery services and iTunes barely pokes its head through.  Again, there may be numbers that show its popularity, but if you asked 100 people on the street what they use you'd get everything but iTunes.  This is just an area where it's not that Apple needs someone else's technology, it's just that other people have come along and done it better, or done a better twist on it.  

 

Apple is excellent at looking amazing to us, its devotees.  But to kids Apple is the fogey and the others are the new thing.   

 

  One of my favorite Jimmy Iovine quotes about music producing (he produced great Springsteen, Petty, Stevie Nicks, Dire Straits albums among many, many others)  though I can't quote it so I'll paraphrase, is "I don't produce for myself.  I don't make things I want to buy.  I make records for the people who spend their money on records."   He is completely tapped into the market of who has been spending music dollars for the past decade.  Apple is not.  Apple's market is the whole world and everybody, and as a result they lost the certain sector of kids and young adults who want something they feel speaks to them.

 

I don't buy this at all.

 

If your market share is growing it doesn't matter from which sector it comes. Why trip over dollars to pick up dimes.

 

Streaming services are Apple's big threat to iTunes. Being hip and cool is irrelevant, as long as your share and revenues/profits are increasing.

 

All digital music services are being threatened by streaming services.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #70 of 72
I'll believe all of this when the sources aren't the NY Post and Financial Times

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #71 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Makes even more sense if Apple buys Beats as a wholly owned subsidiary.   keeps licenses and successful brand in place, while Apple pulls the puppet strings in their favor. 

Why does this cost over $3 billion?
Quote:
For all those doubters, all I got to say, is evidence continues to mount from different media sources.

What evidence? More articles about a rumour is not evidence.
Quote:
Still think its an absurd rumor? 

I said it's unsubstantiated and that I would like an explanation as what Apple would get for that purchase that it can't do it itself. So far no one has been able to even begin to answer that question and looking at what HTC paid for it over a 50% share, what HTC was paid to give up all it's shares, and knowledge of Apple's history of mergers and acquisitions it would be a unique occurrence in their history if Apple were to buy Beats for $3.2 billion dollars.

You answered that, yourself, in the earlier thread:

Creative understanding of the music business -- and 40 plus years of experience, connections, contacts -- plus the streaming licenses with the record companies -- something Apple, Jobs, Cook, Cue, et al have never been able to accomplish. Iovine, himself, is an executive of a record company!

In the words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy ..."
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #72 of 72
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

You answered that, yourself, in the earlier thread:

Creative understanding of the music business -- and 40 plus years of experience, connections, contacts -- plus the streaming licenses with the record companies -- something Apple, Jobs, Cook, Cue, et al have never been able to accomplish. Iovine, himself, is an executive of a record company!

In the words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy ..."

That was from last night before the new information was posted and is exactly the type of information I was asking for which weirdly made @snova upset that anyone would inquire as to "why" instead of blindly accepting something as factual solely on the basis of his excitement level.

I still don't see how that curation process is worth over $3 billion but at least we finally have information about what Beats can offer Apple that Apple may find impossible to build itself in a reasonable amount of time.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Beats CEO in talks to join Apple as 'special advisor' to Tim Cook