or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wants Beats Music, but likely to keep Beats hardware alive after deal - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wants Beats Music, but likely to keep Beats hardware alive after deal - report - Page 3

post #81 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Apple should have bought Pandora or Netflix.

That would please the self-important tech pundits and Valley chinwags, but so would Apple making Android phablets. In other words, Apple's doesn't acquire companies to impress the pundits.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #82 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

i think Samsung's advertising stung Apple and the marketing department is worried that those ads dinged Apple's "cool" factor. And buying a trendy headphone maker that teenagers like might get some of that "cool" back.

OK, I not only think that's not only a fair point but also insightful one. I wouldn't be adverse to more elaboration on that topic.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #83 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

OK, I think that's not only a fair point but also insightful. I wouldn't mind more elaboration on it.

I hope it's not an indicator of Apple chasing trends, versus setting them.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


I have a pair of Sony headphones that are 20 years old and which sound better than any Beats.  The driver diaphragms have a layer of vapour deposited amorphous diamond for stiffness.  The Headband has Nitinol memory alloy which allows them to be folded into a small volume for portability.

300,000 subscribers at 3B is $10,000 a head.  Lol - don't think so.  Good luck with even getting the purchase price back from this deal.  It's another, though vastly more expensive,  liquid metal purchase IMO.  Still, Apple can afford to get it wrong if that's how it turns out.
I assume Apple is expecting to get the purchase price back based off of headphone sales. But for that you would need to assume Beats will continue to remain popular and Apple can continue to sell lots of their headphones at a high markup.
post #85 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Maybe he is, but I queried if you think Beyoncé would marry him if he hated women given what she signs about? I wouldn't think so but, as you note, I don't know them personally. (If Beyoncé ever gets a divorce I call dibs )

I have no idea.  It could all be a marketing stunt for all we know.  To use celebrity couples as a measuring stick of character, morals, or really anything in the "real" world- isn't really a good barometer.  You can have dibs- I just need one night- really 2-3 minutes. ;)

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #86 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoundaboutNow View Post
 

 

What is the manufacturer/model of your headset?

Mine are sony and I do not remember the model since I do not use them that offer, my kids use them more than I do. I know Sony Quality and performance have not keep up, however, At the time they had the purest tone quality of any head phone of the time and they did not cost as much as beats. I never tried them and I speaking from what I read, Beats do not reproduce the sound as you would expect.

 

I guess if all you are listing to is electronic generated music and sound, there is nothing for you to compare to so it probably sounds okay to most people.

post #87 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

Anecdotal opinions from around the web seem to indicate that many younger people go to YouTube for their music listening now. Yes, listening, not for the videos. I've done my own research and find all kinds of obscure music on YouTube that has been ripped. And kids don't pay for music subscriptions. I wonder if both paid and subscription music services are a dead end and we're headed back to expectations of free music everywhere once again, a la Napster.

I've found music on YT because in a few minor cases, the song wasn't available anywhere else. But I'm pretty sure YT has to respond to DMCA take down requests from recording labels, so not quite sure why this is even a thing.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #88 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


I assume Apple is expecting to get the purchase price back based off of headphone sales. But for that you would need to assume Beats will continue to remain popular and Apple can continue to sell lots of their headphones at a high markup.

No- that is clearly not the case.

 

It's not a simple "hardware purchase".  $200-300 million in hardware profit to try to clear a $3.2 billion purchase price?  I don't even want to do the math- just keeping status quo, they would never make their money back when you factor interest.  Even if they doubled the revenue and profits of Beats to 600 million profit- its what- 50 years to make back your money?

It has to be something more.


Edited by Andysol - 5/12/14 at 9:45am

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #89 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

It could all be a marketing stunt for all we know.  To use celebrity couples as a measuring stick of character, morals, or really anything in the "real" world- isn't really a good barometer.

Then couldn't the same be said for using musicians for their lyrics in decades old songs as a barometer of their character, morals, or really anything in the "real" world?


edit: fixed quote.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/12/14 at 9:58am

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #90 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

He's pointing out that even in a supporting role for their HW sales Apple's SW and expansive cloud-based services are exceptionally profitable. Anything that can add to that will help sell their devices and probably lead to one device category sale become a second device category sale (like an iPhone buyer then buying an iPad and/or Mac).

 

Then I didn't misunderstand him, and I still disagree. There is no reason to run out and spend $3B to bolster revenue on a service which earns a small (though significant in total $ as it may be compared to other companies) percentage of your overall revenue and profit that exists solely to support your main offering: hardware. They've never spent this much to bolster their hardware business, it makes no sense to spend this much on one of their smallest contributing (and ancillary) offerings. It's a lot to spend to make the iTunes system so much more appealing that people begin to think of iTunes as a reason to buy Apple products - it seems an odd lever to pull.

post #91 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by justp1ayin View Post

I just realized that most people are upset cause of racism and nothing else. Apple might have a black guy who curses working as an executive, as opposed to a white guy who drops acid.

I know more about Dre than Iovine, but Dre fits in with the apple mentality. Running his record label, he believed in releasing a product only when it was perfect (he's worked on his last cd for about 13 years now and refuses to release it because he doesn't feel it's good enough, and did that with many artist). The music might not be what you like but in his genre, he release a ton of number 1 CDs. And as far as the cursing goes, he uses ghost writers, he isn't a rapper, so he just said the words. Maybe thatll make some of you feel better instead of posting how he will buy all that "bling" and waste all his money. (Apparently no one realizes that he managed to come from nothing to having 500 million before this deal)


I've been on these forums for years, following Apple for longer. As a black guy, your race card arguments are wholly invalid here.

Next
post #92 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

I hope it's not an indicator of Apple chasing trends, versus setting them.

Please. If they wanted to chase trends, they would make a smaller iPad and a bigger iPhone and someday a 6" phablet that replaces both and runs Android and is stuffed with geek-self-esteem-raising specs. /s

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #93 of 168
I'm very disappointed by Apple's performance in the music streaming space considering it had the premier music service in the world a few short years ago. What has Apple been doing with iTunes the last 3 years? Tim Cook really took his eye off the ball considering he did so much damage to iTunes in such a short period of time that Apple's only fix is to replace iRadio with Beats. Awful CEOing!
post #94 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

OK, I not only think that's not only a fair point but also insightful one. I wouldn't be adverse to more elaboration on that topic.
Just a guess on my part. I might be way off base. But those leaked emails from the patent trial indicate that Samsung marketing was very much on Apple's mind, and there was even one Samsung ad (I believe it was a Super Bowl ad) that Schiller said was very good. Also Schiller sent an email to Cook suggesting Apple might need to shake up what agencies they work with. That's what I'm basing this on.
post #95 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamlondon View Post

Then I didn't misunderstand him, and I still disagree. There is no reason to run out and spend $3B to bolster revenue on a service which earns a small (though significant in total $ as it may be compared to other companies) percentage of your overall revenue and profit that exists solely to support your main offering: hardware. They've never spent this much to bolster their hardware business, it makes no sense to spend this much on one of their smallest contributing (and ancillary) offerings. It's a lot to spend to make the iTunes system so much more appealing that people begin to think of iTunes as a reason to buy Apple products - it seems an odd lever to pull.

That's like saying they shouldn't invest in the Mac line simply because the iPhone line makes a lot more by comparison. Their iTunes/Cloud umbrella is massive and I think Apple should do whatever it can to not only make it better but also tie it into their HW to help increase sales and profit across the board. I'm not sure how you can disagree with that.

It would be their largest acquisition by about 7x but why does that matter if they can not only get that money back within a couple years but also turn a hefty profit and make both their HW and SW much better products better as a result. Of course, even if all the rumours are true there is no guarantee that it would ultimately increase Apple's profits but that's beside the point as any such acquisition would clearly be made only if Apple did think it would lead to that goal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Just a guess on my part. I might be way off base. But those leaked emails from the patent trial indicate that Samsung marketing was very much on Apple's mind, and there was even one Samsung ad (I believe it was a Super Bowl ad) that Schiller said was very good. Also Schiller sent an email to Cook suggesting Apple might need to shake up what agencies they work with. That's what I'm basing this on.

1) It's the what-if opinions that spark the best conversations. So long as you word an opinion as an opinion, and not as an absolute statement, it's all good.

2) I seem to recall something from Apple that indicated they were concerned about Samsung's ads having that effect.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #96 of 168

The other issue Apple will have with Beats is the fact that so many knock-off of there headphone are all over the market. Why would you pay the big $ that beats wants when you get find a near perfect knock-off for $30. Beats has not defend this space well enough and it would create a problem for Apple, the revenue stream is at risk.

 

I suspect the company Beats hired in China to make their headphones is making some extra for themselves to sell.

post #97 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

No- that is clearly not the case.

It's not a simple "hardware purchase".  $200-300 million in hardware profit to try to clear a $3.2 billion purchase price?  I don't even want to do the math- just keeping status quo, they would never make their money back when you factor interest.  Even if they doubled the revenue and profits of Beats to 600 million profit- its what- 50 years to make back your money?
It has to be something more.

What?! 600 million is 0.6 billion. That's 5.3 years.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #98 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Then couldn't the same be said for using musicians for their lyrics in decades old songs as a barometer of their character, morals, or really anything in the "real" world?

Why was that quote attributed to me? I didn't write that.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #99 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I'd like an automatic 1 week ban by the mods for all deliberate political comments that are likely to derail a thread on AI. That's my chill level ...

But them google ad impressions won't serve themselves up.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #100 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by izaiahmazin View Post

I've been on these forums for years, following Apple for longer. As a black guy, your race card arguments are wholly invalid here.

Next

Well I'm dr Dre and things just ain't the same for gangsters.

With a little imagine on the internet there's no limit to what you can....imagine...
post #101 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


What?! 600 million is 0.6 billion. That's 5.3 years.

You're right- But only if that $3.2 billion is sitting under a mattress at Tim's house or buried in the back yard of 1 Cupertino Loop  :p 

 

 

When I'm making an offer or acquisition I use 10% as my interest and calculate that with my added synergies and projections.  Most use 8%.  Some aggressively growing and profitable businesses use even higher.

 

A rudimentary example-

A company profits $100k ebitda.  After the added synergies it makes $200k.  I want to make the money back in 3-5 years. I personally don't borrow money so I calculate my interest.  So if I really want the company, and I'm looking at a 4 year return, offering $550k is the equivalent of offering $800k to my bottom line.

 

That all said- this is speaking in the billions.  I've never made a million dollar acquisition.  So my piddly few hundred thousand here and there is likely a completely different ballgame.

I have no idea the tax implications, or really anything about it.  But I do know it won't simply be a hardware purchase based on the numbers.  $3.2b is WAY too much.  If someone sold me half that- then yes, I could see it.


Edited by Andysol - 5/12/14 at 10:19am

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #102 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamlondon View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Here:
http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/

And, here:


http://www.asymco.com/2014/05/09/measuring-not-getting-the-cloud/#disqus_thread


Look at these and note what is happening toApple's content and services business categories. Especialy what is happening with
Music
vis a vis
Services
.



IMO. Apple understands that they need to do something to offset the decline in music revenues. I suspect, they think the Beats Streaming Service will goose the music revenues -- and is exactly what Apple needs for the next 5 years (or so).


Even to a company the size of the Fortune 130, the acquisition price is a reasonable amount.

If I'm understanding you correctly then I completely disagree with your conclusion. iTunes, the App Store, iCloud, while they may make money for the company, their number one reason is to support and make more valuable Apple Hardware.

What you say was true for much of the last decade, but times are changing -- at least for Apple's music content and music hardware.

Quote:

If Apple hardware didn't exist, none of those entities would either. There is no reason to possess a streaming music service for a company like Apple without hardware to which in can be streamed, so buying something as a revenue source that exists in a more agnostic device world doesn't make any sense - it's not a reason to buy this.

One of Apple's biggest assets is its customers -- customers that have money and are willing to spend it.

While the number of Apple customers is increasing, they are spending less money on music from Apple.

Where are those Apple customers spending their music money?

If those Apple customers are looking elsewhere for their music -- might they look elsewhere for other purchases?

Quote:

It's not Apple, and if it happens it would signal a HUGE shift in how Apple views its portfolio, and events like that, although they sound easy on paper, almost never ever happen in the business world - it's one reason companies die, because they can't change who they are.

What do you mean:  "it's not Apple ... it would signal a HUGE shift in how Apple views its portfolio"?

What you do you think happened when Apple introduced the iPod -- then [bought and] released iTunes -- for Macs?  For Windows?

What do you think happened when Apple introduced the iPhone and the iPad?

What, do you think happened when Apple changed its name from Apple Computer to Apple?

Why?

I'll tell you why -- technology, times and tastes were changing -- and Apple was observant and prescient enough to go boldly (commit the company) where none had gone before!


I submit that each of the above changes were a bigger risk to Apple, when they occurred -- than spending ~ 2% of their cash on the Beats acquisition.

Quote:

In my opinion Apple isn't about to place a new and big focus on non-hardware services as revenue streams. The non-hardware services can make money (and most if not all of Apple's do), but that's not the reason they exist and I don't see that changing.

I totally disagree!

And, I think Apple has already shown us how they will do it.

Announce iBeats as a $100/year service bundled with the paid iCloud service -- available to all comers.

First time purchasers of an iWatch [sic], Mac, AppleTV, iPhone, iPad, iPod -- will get the service free, for 1 Year.

Existing Apple customers will get the service at 50% off for 1 year.

Existing iCloud customers will get their subscription extended through some acceptable means.

Have special promos for iCloud/iBeats services as the opportunities warrant!


Where do you think current and former Apple music customers will get their music a year from now?

Do you think the added value of iBeats/iCloud might just influence a potential customer to choose Apple hardware and services over a competitor?


See how that works?


Happy, now?
Edited by Dick Applebaum - 5/12/14 at 10:07am
"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 #103 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35 View Post
 

 

its a premium brand.

 

they have 70% of the consumer premium/high end headphone business.

No, it is not a premium brand. It is a cheap brand that gets away with selling low quality headphones at premium prices. Just the opposite of what Apple is all about. A premium brand in this area would be Sennheiser, AKG, Stax, Beyer, B&W etc.... I prefer Stax (I mainly use the SR-009 - probably the best headphones in the world), but I also listen to Sennheiser (HD800 for their exeptional sound stage) and have a set of AKG 701 I use occasionally. On the move I usually use Sennheisers, but also have a set of Bose (for their exceptionally good noise reduction system). Qualitywise Beats are really way, way, way down the ladder. Market share does not make it a premium brand.

post #104 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

I'm very disappointed by Apple's performance in the music streaming space considering it had the premier music service in the world a few short years ago. What has Apple been doing with iTunes the last 3 years? Tim Cook really took his eye off the ball considering he did so much damage to iTunes in such a short period of time that Apple's only fix is to replace iRadio with Beats. Awful CEOing!
IMO this is on Eddy Cue. He's been running iTunes since forever. Obviously the buck stops with Cook but Cue is the DRI (directly responsible individual) in Apple speak.
post #105 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Anecdotal opinions from around the web seem to indicate that many younger people go to YouTube for their music listening now. Yes, listening, not for the videos. I've done my own research and find all kinds of obscure music on YouTube that has been ripped. And kids don't pay for music subscriptions. I wonder if both paid and subscription music services are a dead end and we're headed back to expectations of free music everywhere once again, a la Napster.

Your observation is interesting. In the past, when uploading videos to YT, you had to be careful with musical content. YT would scan the music, build a fingerprint, and compare that to a database of copyrighted music fingerprints. If it found a match, it would warn you and/or take down the video.

Yesterday I was simulating building a iBeata-style scattershot playlist by searching and posting YT videos on the other AI thread. Many of these videos are just pictures of the album cover with audio as accompaniment.

I understand what you mean by "go to YouTube for their music listening".

What I don't understand is why YT allows free access to copyright material.

For example:

"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 #106 of 168
No question Beats has a great brand proposition for the youth market (even if their headphones suck). If Apple was really after great headphone hardware, they would have looked elsewhere (Audio Technica?) They want the brand and the streaming service expertise. If they sell a few headphones in the process, great.
post #107 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

See how that works?

Happy, now?

 

No, actually you did nothing to sway my opinion, I'm familiar with those arguments, people have been making them for years, they've never been true before and there's no reason to believe that's going to change.

 

It stems from a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of iTunes as it relates to Apple, why it exists and what it means to the company. iTunes is an anomaly, it's like a "loss leader" but it makes money (quite a lot), and for some reason people assume that makes it a business that Apple will/does/should treat as a separate going concern regardless what happens to Apple's hardware business. What I mean is that people think that iTunes would remain around long after Apple stopped making hardware, which couldn't be further from the truth.

 

Yes, iTunes (the entire system) is a benefit to Apple customers, yes it's a reason people are willing to pay *more* for Apple products, yes it adds value to Apple's products, but no, it isn't the main reason Apple exists, and no it wouldn't continue as a business if there were no hardware for it to support, which is what it is, a support division that ends up making them money.

 

The business model of Apple's is exactly the opposite to that of Amazon's, which sells hardware (cheaply) through which it can sell its services (same with Google) which is where it makes all its money. Putting $3B into an ancillary service offering seems to me to be exactly backwards to Apple's business model, where it would make sense to do it if you were Amazon or Google, but not Apple, which is why people here (in this thread and elsewhere) believe there's more to this acquisition than an overpriced upgrade to what they already possess in their portfolio of offerings (ignoring the Beats headphones business).

 

Do I think it might attract more people to buy Apple products, yes, I think that's a safe assumption. Do I think it's possible to realise enough of those additional sales to warrant and justify this $3B investment? Absolutely not.

post #108 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Apple should have bought Pandora or Netflix.

That would please the self-important tech pundits and Valley chinwags, but so would Apple making Android phablets. In other words, Apple's doesn't acquire companies to impress the pundits.

Cheaper and better to buy viable seeds and grow your own -- superior results at a fraction of the cost.

That's the way Apple has always done it!
"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 #109 of 168
Another view to look at.. Beats Music is not only for iOS but is also on Android and Windows phones, this is the fastest way to get all those users
post #110 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by tryd View Post
 

No, it is not a premium brand. It is a cheap brand that gets away with selling low quality headphones at premium prices. Just the opposite of what Apple is all about. A premium brand in this area would be Sennheiser, AKG, Stax, Beyer, B&W etc.... I prefer Stax (I mainly use the SR-009 - probably the best headphones in the world), but I also listen to Sennheiser (HD800 for their exeptional sound stage) and have a set of AKG 701 I use occasionally. On the move I usually use Sennheisers, but also have a set of Bose (for their exceptionally good noise reduction system). Qualitywise Beats are really way, way, way down the ladder. Market share does not make it a premium brand.

It is a premium BRAND, but not a premium product.  The BRAND allows them to sell an ordinary product at high prices.  The BRAND is doing all the work here, not the product itself.  If Apple was really interested in audio quality they would have purchased a company like Grado.  They would have given Tomilinson Holman carte blanche to improve the audio hardware in all Apple products to a higher standard.  Apple wants what the BRAND has to offer, not specifically the products.  Let's face it, almost 100% of headphone buyers out there are uninformed.  Accuracy, neutrality, sound stage, linearity, distortion, presence - none of these words mean anything to those buyers.  The people who care about such things (like me and you) are in an extreme minority, thus making our wishes irrelevant to companies like Beats and even Apple.  There are not enough of us to sell to and thus make any sort of profit for giant companies.  It appears to me that any Beats acquisition is mostly a BRAND grab and maybe a software/algorithm grab.

post #111 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

As for me, I'm off to a klan meeting, right after I finish up with this post. I also have a confederate flag as my desktop picture.

Aren't you in NY? That's quite a bit aways from the Mason-Dixon line. lol.gif
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #112 of 168

Have you finished elementary school buddy?

post #113 of 168

The question is how that brand has been built. Apple was built up by quality and innovation, Coca Cola was built because they had a product nobody else had etc... What has built the brand Beats? They have always sold low quality products - they have nothing that distinguishes them from other producers (apart from selling overpriced junk). 

post #114 of 168

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I guess it all comes down to how one defines the word premium. For me, in the context of Apple, it means superior quality. For others it might mean expensive, irrespective of quality.

 

I agree with you that I think Beats are overpriced for what you get, but the masses don't agree with us.  It's all subjective.  They sell well and people are happy to pay the premium price for what they perceive to be a better quality product.  Go out and find people who have spent hundreds of dollars on a pair of Beats headphones and ask them how they feel about them and why they bought them.  Obviously there's the design aspect that people like, but I suspect that a vast majority will also be very pleased with the quality of their headphones.  I also suspect that a vast majority would agree with someone who said that they have superior quality in relation to other headphones.

post #115 of 168

IMO they are keeping the Beats brand alive. Selling headphones is one thing but Id like to see them making plastic colorful phones (like the 5c series maybe with a little less functionality) and selling them at the $300 price range. they cant do that right now and market them as "iphone" (that would dilute the brand) but they can surely make them and market them as "beats" with a big red "b" logo smack on the reverse side! thats what I wanna see!

post #116 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


How is Beats perceived as a premium brand? Just because their headphones are expensive? I would argue Beats is perceived as an overpriced brand. I don't get why Apple would want to be associated with that.

As well as the streaming service and Iovine's talent, this deal will give Apple and Jony a smaller boutique brand under the Apple umbrella in which to design cool products but without the stress of it being an "Apple Product" and all the baggage that comes with that.  Think of the Beats hardware as a place for Jony and his team to play, take some risks and make some great stuff.

post #117 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Aren't you in NY? That's quite a bit aways from the Mason-Dixon line. lol.gif

 

Yes, I'm a Yankee. 

post #118 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by bennettvista View Post
Think of the Beats hardware as a place for Jony and his team to play, take some risks and make some great stuff.

 

It's a terrible idea, when Jony Ive could just continue making things for the Apple brand, which is much more highly regarded than any Beats brand.

post #119 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by justp1ayin View Post

I just realized that most people are upset cause of racism and nothing else. Apple might have a black guy who curses working as an executive, as opposed to a white guy who drops acid.

I know more about Dre than Iovine, but Dre fits in with the apple mentality. Running his record label, he believed in releasing a product only when it was perfect (he's worked on his last cd for about 13 years now and refuses to release it because he doesn't feel it's good enough, and did that with many artist). The music might not be what you like but in his genre, he release a ton of number 1 CDs. And as far as the cursing goes, he uses ghost writers, he isn't a rapper, so he just said the words. Maybe thatll make some of you feel better instead of posting how he will buy all that "bling" and waste all his money. (Apparently no one realizes that he managed to come from nothing to having 500 million before this deal)

Was wondering when someone would play the old race card. All that pent up rage for Apple coloring all those headphones white I guess. I didn't know that Iovine was black.
post #120 of 168
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

But them google ad impressions won't serve themselves up.

LOL. ..

I have ad blocker and never see them, not sure everyone doesn't use it!
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini, SE30, IIFx, Towers; G4 & G3.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple wants Beats Music, but likely to keep Beats hardware alive after deal - report