or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Beats Music had 110K subscribers in March with impressive free-to-paid conversion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Beats Music had 110K subscribers in March with impressive free-to-paid conversion - Page 2

post #41 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This rumour is looking better and better everyday.

110 thousand subscribers? WOW.  impressive.  And at what level is it going to level off and will it be profitable at that point?  No one knows the answer to that one.

 

I still don't know why Apple couldn't get their own subscription model going without wasting $3.2 Billion to get 110,000 subscribers.  If Apple just turned on this service on their own, which they could have done, they would probably see an even faster adoptance level and they already have 800 Million iTunes account holders to convert, so the conversion rate per customer wouldn't have that $3.2 Billion price tag.  Beats doesn't have $3.2 Billion worth of infrastructure.  I wonder how much actual infrastructure they actually have.  I'm also wondering what value they attached to Beats music vs Beats the headphone company.  I see the headphone division the only money maker out of the two.  The music service wasn't making any money and Beats was looking for additional funding per another recent article I linked. So they are paying to acquire a money losing venture along with a money making venture.     The problem is that selling content really isn't that profitable compared to the costs involved.  Even the iTunes store runs at a low Net Profit margin.  Same with Netflix, their movie rental business doesn't make much in terms of profit margin, so the whole chasing the content sales/rental business is a really tough business model. I think Apple should have saved their money and did their own model without buying out another company to do it.  They could have easily done this themselves.  Maybe all they needed was to hire someone else to run the iTunes business to get a subscription service going if the current person couldn't figure it out.

post #42 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) I'm not making any absolute claims as to what Apple is or interested in. If you wanted to state that as opinion it was easy enough, "In my opinion I don't think Apple is interested in the hardware sales."

2) It read to me as if you were ignoring that when you answered a comment about the growth of Beats Music in a month with the entire rumoured sale of the company for $3.2 billion.

 

1. Take it as a given.

 

2. I haven't ignored it but we've had this conversation before about what Apple is capable of doing themselves for $1-2 billion as opposed to buying a company. I really  really don't think that Apple is going to keep the HW. It's not in Apple's business model. They dumped that type of merchandise over a decade ago. The question I am seeing, is Apple going to get enough back from the HW to make the fledging music service worthwhile at any price.

 

To me this just doesn't seem to fit Apple's mo. Apple buys fledging stand-alone companies at comparatively cheap prices. This is a dual company and it's not cheap, imo, if Apple is only considering the streaming service. IMO, if Cook wants to get into the accessories market again, then he's nuts... at almost any price.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #43 of 141

so what they converted trail users into paying users in a short period of time. I bet if you look at other similar services they saw the same thing initially. The real question is what are the stay power to these paying subscribers. Not like Cable TV where most people only have one choice. How long before these people move on to the next great thing.

 

I suspect most of these people beating the Beat door down have been married to over service many times over and they have no loyalty.

post #44 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm3 View Post

Not sure how you can combine the words "impressive" with 110k users. That is 0% compared to iTunes 500 million accounts.

AOL had great numbers too. This is just trendy crap.
Apple drove sales of Beats headphones as they were in the stores not the other way around. . Now I see it was because of Lovine's fruendship with Jobs that they were sold there. . I always wondered why such crap was for sale at Apple stores.
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #45 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Hell, I told someone in their 30s the other day that, "I don't give a shit."... and they got up in my face for swearing at them. Dark ages.

Invading someone's personal space and potentially threatening violence and exposure to their germs is so much less offensive than using the word shit¡

There is a Jim Jefferies scene from Legit I was going to post but I can't find it on YouTube.

"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 #46 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Invading someone's personal space and potentially threatening violence and exposure to their germs is so much less offensive than using the word shit¡

There is a Jim Jefferies scene from Legit I was going to post but I can't find it on YouTube.

Thank god- now please go away.
Edited by pazuzu - 5/13/14 at 9:47am
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
 
Where's the new Apple TV?
Reply
post #47 of 141

I think all Apple really had to figure out is to go to the same record distributors they already have deals with and sign them so they can have whatever out of their existing catalog for a subscription service model and then all Apple would have to do is link different royalty rates depending on whether the song was downloaded as a sale at one price OR played under a subscription service at a different royally rate and then iTunes internally would just keep track so they could figure out how much they owed each record distributor whether the content was sold or played in a subscription service model.  Pretty simple if you ask me.  Getting these types of deals is OBVIOUSLY not that big of a problem.  Why couldn't Apple do that themselves and save $3.2 Billion on it?  Beats really isn't a threat to Apple's business anytime in the near future if they stayed on their own.  110,000 subscribers? Their growth rate would eventually have slowed down and leveled off.  How many paid subscribers does Spotify have?  Something like 6 Million?  They have about 24 million account holders, but only 6 Million paid subscribers.


Apple has 800 Million iTunes account holders, so if they got 1/4 of their iTunes account holders to switch, that's about 200 Million.  How long would it take Apple to get paid subscribers?  Maybe less than a year or two.  I really think Apple didn't have to pay $3.2 Billion to get in this game, I think it's just a matter of getting someone to approach the distributors to activate the same contracts as these others.    That doesn't take that long.  They already know who the top 3 major players are and already deal with them.

post #48 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

Apple has 800 Million iTunes account holders, so if they got 1/4 of their iTunes account holders to switch, that's about 200 Million. 

 

I don't think that the market is anywhere close to that number.

 

This is a streaming service that costs $10 a month. 

post #49 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

1. Take it as a given.

2. I haven't ignored it but we've had this conversation before about what Apple is capable of doing themselves for $1-2 billion as opposed to buying a company. I really  really don't think that Apple is going to keep the HW. It's not in Apple's business model. They dumped that type of merchandise over a decade ago. The question I am seeing, is Apple going to get enough back from the HW to make the fledging music service worthwhile at any price.

To me this just doesn't seem to fit Apple's mo. Apple buys fledging stand-alone companies at comparatively cheap prices. This is a dual company and it's not cheap, imo, if Apple is only considering the streaming service. IMO, if Cook wants to get into the accessories market again, then he's nuts... at almost any price.

1) I read very quickly and usually only look at the username after the fact, although some writing styles stick out. If you make an absolute statement that in no way indicates it an opinion or a hypothetical I am not likely to read it as such. I'll do my best to accommodate you since you are saying that you do mean to state an opinion but I can guarantee this conversation won't happen again. Take Ireland as an example, he states he desires as unwavering, factual statements and then if 1 out of 50 comes true he'll be the first one on the board to say something like, "See I told you so. You can all thank me now." IMO, that's not a reasonable way to have a discussion since there is no volleying of ideas; no learning; no growth.

2) It would definitely be a departure from anything we've seen Apple do in the past. From the price to how well known Beats is to not simply being a single component or feature of an Apple product to being a purchase that apparently is multifaceted it's an unusual rumour. But don't the odds say that Apple will change their routine at some point?

The part that really gives this rumour some traction for me is iTunes Store music segment finally suffering a loss in YoY sales. I think that with over a decade it's becoming your parents music service]. Well, maybe not our parents, but for the kids that were preteen when it launches who are now adults they may not find it cool anymore. And maybe it isn't. Perhaps this is complex deal that will allow Apple to achieve many things and at a relative bargain for how much of a rumoured profit center they get compared to other acquisitions we've seen.

As for the headphones, I find it odd that people keep calling them crap when Apple doesn't seem to have any good skin in this game. Do the original Beats headphones being too bassy mean that Apple can't make them less bassy. It's like when people are going through an open house looking for a purchase they make their decisions based on the current paint and furniture (this happens a lot!). It's shortsighted.

"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 #50 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) I read very quickly and usually only look at the username after the fact, although some writing styles stick out. If you make an absolute statement that in no way indicates it an opinion or a hypothetical I am not likely to read it as such. I'll do my best to accommodate you since you are saying that you do mean to state an opinion but I can guarantee this conversation won't happen again. Take Ireland as an example, he states he desires as unwavering, factual statements and then if 1 out of 50 comes true he'll be the first one on the board to say something like, "See I told you so. You can all thank me now." IMO, that's not a reasonable way to have a discussion since there is no volleying of ideas; no learning; no growth.

2) It would definitely be a departure from anything we've seen Apple do in the past. From the price to how well known Beats is to not simply being a single component or feature of an Apple product to being a purchase that apparently is multifaceted it's an unusual rumour. But don't the odds say that Apple will change their routine at some point?

The part that really gives this rumour some traction for me is iTunes Store music segment finally suffering a loss in YoY sales. I think that with over a decade it's becoming your parents music service]. Well, maybe not our parents, but for the kids that were preteen when it launches who are now adults they may not find it cool anymore. And maybe it isn't. Perhaps this is complex deal that will allow Apple to achieve many things and at a relative bargain for how much of a rumoured profit center they get compared to other acquisitions we've seen.

As for the headphones, I find it odd that people keep calling them crap when Apple doesn't seem to have any good skin in this game. Do the original Beats headphones being too bassy mean that Apple can't make them less bassy. It's like when people are going through an open house looking for a purchase they make their decisions based on the current paint and furniture (this happens a lot!). It's shortsighted.

 

Hard music is down everywhere. It took its first hit in 2013.

 

Streaming is the way to go. It's on the upswing. I just don't think that Beats is the best deal for $3.2 billion. It doesn't fit Apple's MO, imo.

 

Apple changing its routine? Not a really great sign for investors to have a company go from solid to "who knows what the hell will happen".

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #51 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

Apple has 800 Million iTunes account holders, so if they got 1/4 of their iTunes account holders to switch, that's about 200 Million.

Do you ever think? First of all, iTunes and Beats Music/Pandora/Spotify are not mutually exclusive internet-based services. There is no 1:1 switching going on here. With HW, that's usually how it works but this isn't HW. Second, iTunes covers a lot more than just music so what is your reasoning that someone that signs with a music streaming service will remove their CC and account from the vast iTunes/iCloud umbrella? I'm going to go out on a limb and say you have none.

"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 #52 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post

110 thousand subscribers? WOW.  impressive.

In one month when the previous report was a total of 300k total at the end of 2013. That means a 36% increase over that number for one month. That's impressive growth for a new service no matter how much you want to spin your hatred for Dr. Dre.
Quote:
I still don't know why Apple couldn't get their own subscription model going without wasting $3.2 Billion to get 110,000 subscribers.

If the rumours had all been "Apple wants to buy Beats Music, and only Beats Music to get their subscription additions for the month of March" you'd have a point. They aren't. You don't.

"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 #53 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

As for the headphones, I find it odd that people keep calling them crap when Apple doesn't seem to have any good skin in this game. Do the original Beats headphones being too bassy mean that Apple can't make them less bassy. It's like when people are going through an open house looking for a purchase they make their decisions based on the current paint and furniture (this happens a lot!). It's shortsighted.

 

I'm saying that if Apple were interested in getting into the headphone game, they would be better served by making their own large headphones and releasing them under their own brand. No brand is better than Apple. Apple can start from scratch, headphones is not rocket science, and Apple certainly doesn't need any headphone tech from a company that is far down the list when it comes to good headphones.

 

Like it or not, the Beats brand is not viewed favorably by a lot of people.

post #54 of 141
MR seems to be interpreting the data differently. They appear to be saying that their total subscription base is only 111k as of March. That's a major drop from the previous report of 300k.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Like it or not, the Beats brand is not viewed favorably by a lot of people.

Sure but "a lot of" is a meaning statement. A lot of people hated Gandhi. A lot of people hated Mother Theresa.

When being objective you can't factor in your own desires. You should look at it from Apple's PoV to try to see why Apple would want to buy them. The same for any rumoured acquisition. People wanted Apple to buy Nest but it's really hard to find a legitimate reason that doesn't include someone's personal love for the product.



OK, big day shooting wild boar from a helicopter with Ted Nugent¡ Later.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/13/14 at 9:53am

"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 #55 of 141
FYI, I signed up for Beats yesterday. When you reject the paid plan the first time, they text you a code for AT&T subscribers for 3 free months on AT&T. I'm thinking this is why so many AT&T customers are signing up.
post #56 of 141

Reading a ton of articles about this rumored acquisition by Apple, I still fail to see any positives. If Apple is interested in the streaming services Beats offers, why can't they just develop their own? Why would they need Beats? Lets face it, Beats subscriber numbers really aren't that impressive, regardless of how you spin the numbers. All the deals Beats have with the labels for their streaming service would be void in a takeover. Apple doesn't need Beats to develop their own headphones if that's what they are interested in. If this deal becomes reality, I think this will be a bad decision by Tim Cook. I do tip my hat to Beats though for making a ton of money selling crappy quality headphones. 

post #57 of 141
Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post
I do tip my hat to Beats though for making a ton of money selling crappy quality headphones. 

 

I’m a little worried about this in regard to the rumor that Apple will start selling higher quality audio.

 

Apple could sell ALAC files (LIKE THEY SHOULD), but it wouldn’t mean much if their hardware is garbage…

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #58 of 141

110k subscribers for $3B is about $27,000 per ONE subscriber paying $10 a month and after payout to studios bringing like $3 a month?

 

:lol: 

post #59 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You should look at it from Apple's PoV to try to see why Apple would want to buy them. 

 

And when I do try to look at it from Apple's POV, I still find that it would be a bad idea. Note, I'm talking about the headphones here only.

 

If Apple released their own Apple headphones, it would appeal to practically 100% of Apple's customer base. Apple users don't have anything against Apple.

 

If Apple released any Beats headphones, it would appeal to a far lesser percentage of people, so why would Apple wish to eliminate so many potential customers? And as I stated before, no brand is more powerful than Apple, so why would they put themselves at a disadvantage?

post #60 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


When being objective you can't factor in your own desires.

This would have been good advice to follow when you were arguing with drblank about the relative levels of achievement of mastering a musical instrument and programming a rap song into recording software.
post #61 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post
 

 

I don't think that the market is anywhere close to that number.

 

This is a streaming service that costs $10 a month. 

I'm just looking at the percentage of active users vs paid subscription potential using Spotify's numbers since they've been doing it longer than Beats.  That's all I'm looking.  If it's not 20 percent for Apple, then what percentage do you think they would have at a point where it leveled off to a consistent amount?  Remember, during the first year or two, these types of things ramp up at fairly high growth rates until it drops to a more normalized growth rate (up or down).    Do I think Apple could get 200 Million paid subscribers out of their current 800 Million after a couple of years?  It's possible considering that the iTunes account holders is STILL growing pretty rapidly as Apple increases their markets by opening up more countries with iPhones (which is obviously the new iPod, if you will).   What growth rate are the active iTunes account holders growing at and what number is likely after another year or two?  They might hit 1 Billion active accounts in the next two years or so.  So 200 Million paid subscriptions paying $10 a month is possible.  It's hard to tell since it's a new business model and there isn't anyone large enough that been doing it long enough to really know, so it's more speculation.  But how profitable is it compared to the other models they currently have and at what point (number of subscribers) does it make decent enough profit margins to do it.  What's risks are is can they get enough subscribers to make it more profitable than just selling digital downloads?  That's what this model would be competing against. Apple would actually be compteting against themselves in selling digital downloads vs the subscription more than they would competing against Spotify.  At the rate Spotify is growing, Apple's business isn't being greatly affected all that much.  If Spotify has 6 Million active users paying $10 a month, how much of that $120 a year is Net Profit x the number of paid subscribers?  What do they make, do you know?  I'd bet they probably make about $10 a year in actual Net Profit per user if they are at a point where they can become profitable.   Compare that against how much per user do they make doing the digital download method.  Which one stands a chance at making the most Net Profit per user, per year.  How many people will continue at the same rate of BUYING content and STILL pay for the subscription service.  Some people might actually stop buying music altogether which they would essentially lose business on one model and get less money through the other model.   there are a lot of things to consider.

 

An example, Amazon's Prime increased how much they charge for their movie viewing service that gives cost savings on shipping product orders.  What I'm getting at is, is $10 enough for this type of service, or are they going to have to increase the monthly fee and will it still retain those types of customers.

 

There are still a lot of unknowns obviously, but I think Apple can get a large number of their active iTunes account holders to buy a $10 month service if they market it properly.

post #62 of 141
Still not worth billions. Only tarnishes the Apple brand, does not improve it.
post #63 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

There are still a lot of unknowns obviously, but I think Apple can get a large number of their active iTunes account holders to buy a $10 month service if they market it properly.

 

I wonder how many people pay for iTunes Match? That's only $25 a year. I have iTunes Match, and I like it.

 

I'm not somebody who is interested in any streaming service, not for $10 a month, or for any price really, but maybe there are others who are.

 

As you said, there are still a lot of unknowns.

post #64 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

This rumour is looking better and better everyday.

There is a lot of knee jerking going on around here based on very little information. The fact that Apple might be making a deal that on the surface is outside of the norm for Apple, and possibly way outside of its perceived comfort zone should be interesting and cause a pause for thinking instead of outright dismissal. Most of us here think that Apple generally speaking make very good, well considered decisions, and I am sure the more rational among us understand this alleged purchase was not an impulse buy. So far the only interesting reading I have done on the subject come from writers who are trying to figure out how this can be a good play by Apple. Hating Hip Hop, and specifically Dre, certainly ads nothing useful to the conversation. Reactions to the celebratory foulmouthed video are understandable, perhaps, but out of place. We all know that in so many ways Steve Jobs was the biggest prick around and yet we all forgive him because really, who cares?

 

Personally I think the headphones (insignificantly) came with the purchase and will continue under the Beats name - Beats by Apple. They may or may not be improved upon. The more interesting part is the streaming service and Dre and Lovine. Apple just got an inside track to the heart of the music business which surely is a good thing. I am wondering if Apple would /c could spin off the music content part of its business to a whole new business unit (Beats?) iTunes is definitely beginning to look very old school to me, and I'm not even young. My kids never use iTunes (they use  YouTube).

post #65 of 141

As someone who has worked in the music industry in various areas and degrees, the one concern I do have in all this is the potential negative financial effect selective streaming of music (as opposed to the actual purchase of same) will have on the creators of said music. Notice the image of the statement in the article pointing out the abysmally tiny royalty rate.

 

With VIDEO, the studios can determine which movies and TV shows are available for streaming. If you've ever noticed with Netflix, you can't get a lot of the movies and TV shows you want for streaming because the studios control their availability. The studios know that with a $7.99/month subscription someone could technically watch movies 24/7 for a whole 30 days for only $8. Studios would lose money, so they pick and choose which movies and TV shows to allow to be streamed, and when they are available.

 

With MUSIC, the record companies can't do that now. To limit the catalog puts limits on the number of people who'll sign up and use a streaming service. So they put the entire catalog out there, but offer a horrible royalty rate to the songwriters on the back-end. End result… no one "buys" the music anymore, they only "rent" it. And the songwriter loses at all angles - lack of mechanical royalties from sales, lack of performance royalties from regular radio airplay and venues, and the worse of all royalty rates from selective streaming.

 

For those that think that artists make the bulk of their money on the road playing shows anyway… well, that used to be the case. But in the last couple decades it's been harder and harder to do that. Venues that used to offer live music have either close down, turn into a DJ or KJ venue, or became a sports bar. Those that continue to offer live music now force you to pay-to-play (buy x # of tickets in advance and it's up to you to sell them to get that money back and make any actually payment money on top of that). That used to be the exception in the 80s and early 90s. Now it's much more the rule.

 

Unless you're an established artist with a studio backing, it's become a lot more difficult to make money performing live. And now, with selective streaming, even if you do "make it" in the industry, as a songwriter you're ability to make any money continues to be that much more difficult. Even the performing artist loses because of the lack of sales, thus the lack of mechanical royalties. But the studios/record companies continue to make bank.

I don’t have an answer as to how to fix this so that the artist and songwriter don’t get screwed. But it does need to be pointed out that they are and will continue to be screwed under this current structure

post #66 of 141

With Trent Reznor involved in Beats (the streaming music portion), it would be nice to somehow setup a system such that the artists can self-publish to iTunes and cut out the record companies altogether. What the leaked doc shows is that out of everyone, the artists are getting the biggest shaft of all. Trent is obviously big enough that he can do it for himself (and I also love the cost of his music direct from him, more people will buy and he gets more revenue by doing it directly vs through all the middle men), it would be great if they could somehow extend that to others as well.

post #67 of 141

Beats likely has such a high fraction of "paying" subscribers because of the link to AT&T wireless accounts, where users can get 3 months free. Will have to see what fraction keep paying after the 3 months expire.

post #68 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by RalphMouth View Post
 

 

I have to admit this as well. I was not happy at first after seeing Dr. Dre's profanity and n-word laced youtube video.  I do not want Apple associating with that type of culture. I feel the same way if it was Eminem so it isn't a Black/White thing. I am getting more intrigued as I read about this acquisition and the reasons for it.

 

It is.

post #69 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cpsro View Post
 

Beats likely has such a high fraction of "paying" subscribers because of the link to AT&T wireless accounts, where users can get 3 months free. Will have to see what fraction keep paying after the 3 months expire.

 

If they're on Android phones, then the percentage of people who continue to subscribe will obviously be extremely low.

post #70 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Yeah, there seems to be a lot of spin for an idea that nobody had even mentioned before.

I do have my doubts of course, but I won't pass any final judgement until we hear all of the facts, and as of now, there aren't any at all, because Apple hasn't said anything at all.

Until Apple opens its mouth and we hear the details, I will remain doubtful about this deal.
Yep, if you took a poll of AI readers and asked them what they'd like to see Apple do with its cash I doubt anyone would have suggested buying Beats. The website MacDailyNews claims that an updated Apple TV is ready to go, the hold up is content deals. If this rumor pans out it indicates to me that Eddy Cue can't hack it in that department and Cook is bringing someone in (possibly Jimmy Iovine) who can.
post #71 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson View Post

Still not worth billions. Only tarnishes the Apple brand, does not improve it.
If Apple keeps the headphones (and let's face it that's the part of the company making money right now) business I hope they don't just milk the existing product. I hope they improve it. And maybe even expand it further. Maybe they can use Beats to kick start a wearables line.
post #72 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by quanster View Post

Articles after articles ask why Apple didn't go after other services like Spotify. I think Apple picked the right service to buy with Beats. They are looking for the service that will help them corner the market in the future not buying the current market leader. Spotify doesn't have anything innovative to offer except its user base. If Apple can convert even 10% of the itunes account into subscribers, it would dwarf Spotify. And Beats have the tools to make that happen. I think the Beats branding will remains and will be the apple brand for all things music - Apple Beats. The 1 billion dollar in sales headphone hardware is just cherry on top. It is almost a risk free venture because they will make back the purchase price in a few year.

And the argument on why they didnt buy a better headphone company... There are many that make higher quality headphones but how come they can't monetize it for sh*t? They have no idea about fashion and culture that's why. Like Apple, Beats showed they the way and now they start paying more attention to the hardware design. Apple can easily improve the audio but it is harder to improve the branding.

 

Geeks/Engineering types will never get it which is why Google hardware is a flop profit wise. Apple needs for their next device are: great engineering, design, and fashion and that is going to be very hard to do, but Apple is the only company in the tech world today, that has any chance do it. 

post #73 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
If this rumor pans out it indicates to me that Eddy Cue can't hack it in that department and Cook is bringing someone in (possibly Jimmy Iovine) who can.

 

Iovine is definitely the most valuable part of this deal I think, as he has all of the connections with the labels. If there is any deal, then it's probably him that Apple is after.

post #74 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post
 

Apple needs for their next device are: great engineering, design, and fashion and that is going to be very hard to do

 

And what exactly do you think that Apple has been doing this whole time? Apple doesn't need any fashion help from anybody, Apple sets the trends, they release devices that are so greatly engineered and designed that everybody else ends up copying them, releasing their own poor imitations.

 

Apple is a trendsetter and practically every single one of their products is heavily copied, mimicked and sets the tone and style for whole industries. That's what they've been doing for decades.

post #75 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Hard music is down everywhere. It took its first hit in 2013.

 

Streaming is the way to go. It's on the upswing. I just don't think that Beats is the best deal for $3.2 billion. It doesn't fit Apple's MO, imo.

 

Apple changing its routine? Not a really great sign for investors to have a company go from solid to "who knows what the hell will happen".

 

MOG could that be the reason.

post #76 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheUnfetteredMind View Post
 

With Trent Reznor involved in Beats (the streaming music portion), it would be nice to somehow setup a system such that the artists can self-publish to iTunes and cut out the record companies altogether. What the leaked doc shows is that out of everyone, the artists are getting the biggest shaft of all. Trent is obviously big enough that he can do it for himself (and I also love the cost of his music direct from him, more people will buy and he gets more revenue by doing it directly vs through all the middle men), it would be great if they could somehow extend that to others as well.

 

Not going to happen existing contracts with content companies. iBooks is also tied in the same way with the book publishers.

post #77 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


Apple isn't interested in the hardware sales. Maybe as a spin off, a flip, but that's about it.

I suppose if Apple was able to get $1 billion or more from the hardware side it would make the streaming business seem a bit more attractive.

By the way, do you think that any Beats contracts will be transferred in the deal? I, for one, don't.
The only reason Beats is worth anything is because of the hardware sales. The brand is all around the headphones, not their relatively new streaming service. Last week a CNBC reporter said her sources said it was "all about headphones". At this point we know nothing. But I somehow doubt Apple wouldn't be interested in profitable hardware. Who knows, maybe they'll use the Beats brand to kick start a new wearables category.
post #78 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post

MOG could that be the reason.
And what did Beats pay for MOG? Something like $10M.
post #79 of 141
Quote:
Originally Posted by Danox View Post
 

 

MOG could that be the reason.

 

... and Apple should have bought MOG. Late to the party, imo.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #80 of 141

Every other Apple-related site is telling exactly the opposite - that Beats's subscription service proves to be a failure with JUST some 100k subscribers; in other words, let's just hope THAT was not the reason Apple decided to spend 3 billion USD on Beats  - so the million-dollar question is: why is AI spinning this story in a totally different way?

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.9.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Beats Music had 110K subscribers in March with impressive free-to-paid conversion