I think it would probably be what Apple ultimately does is to rebrand everything Apple and removing Beats over time. I just know that Apple doesn't like OTHER brands on their products. You don't see Apple products with stickers on the outside saying Intel Inside. Apple doesn't do that.
Yes, I agree. But this assumes that Apple want to integrate Beats products into their own business - that may not remotely be the case.
I can envisage a scenario where Beats retains its independence as a brand (this is very likely actually, because a big part of a company's value is goodwill - and goodwill is tied to brand value, and Apple is acutely aware of this), but that the companies collaborate in a number of areas. It's not outside the realms of possibility.
Obviously Apple has a FIRM rule of not giving free products away or paying people to endorse their products. They loan equipment for product placement in TV, Movies, etc., but those are returned and they have a loaner pool like that. Beats on the other hand, probably gave a lot of free headphones away, wore them on TV on American Idol, and other TV shows and marketing and other photo opportunities, etc. So they kind of didn't play with the same rules Apple plays under with regards to marketing.
Sure, but I don't see why the two companies wouldn't have slightly different marketing approaches. I think that this is highly contingent on the earlier question about whether or not Apple will allow Beats to remain an independent brand. Once that question is answered, we are likely to have a sense of how the marketing approach may or may not change.
Now, if they are trying to make it fashionable, then you have the fashion industry to seek, since they have Angela from Burberry, I'm SURE she can help in that area.
See, this is where it's important to have clear distinctions.
Angela was not a fashion designer - she was responsible for retail, and that's precisely where Apple are using her.
Beats designs products that have a foot in the fashion space, and that have a direct "wearable" appeal. That is quite different.
Anyway, I'm responding to something a little old, let me address some newer points here.
I hate to say this to Beats fans, that's what happens when a big company swallows a little company, they rebrand and toss the brand they bought in the trash bin.
No, that's not always what happens. Not at all. It is sometimes what happens, yes.
But sometimes one company buys another in large part because of brand appeal. It may be that Apple does get rid of the Beats brand entirely, but this makes little sense and we should not automatically assume that they will.
Now, Apple has NEVER had ANY product using the name of a person involved with the name of a product or even labeled on a product, so I'm sure Apple will just keep the existing products they have in the stores as is until they run out of stock and they are ready to release the refreshed product line. The same goes for the name. I really don't see Apple putting Beats By Apple.
You are right about Apple's own branding, but you're still making an assumption that Apple's only real option is to either dump the Beats name, or say something lik e"Beats by Apple". This is a false dichotomy!
There is a third and fourth option.
The third option is that Apple leaves Beats existing product lines as independent lines which retain the Beats brand.
The fourth option is the same as the third option, but with an additional component: Apple and Beats remain separate brands with their own product lines, but the two companies collaborate on specific projects (which may carry either brand, or be dual-branded).
I'm sure there are many other options besides these.
We have to slightly widen our frame of reference on this one, in part because (as you indicated), this is a fairly unprecedented situation.