or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's rumored Beats acquisition reportedly pushed back one week
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's rumored Beats acquisition reportedly pushed back one week - Page 2

post #41 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) I don't add any because I don't know of any streaming service that has been recently acquired by another company at a highly inflated price that doesn't like up with minimal profits or losses. What are Pandora and Spotify doing in revenue and profits?

2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range. Everything else appears to be a cost center or operating at a loss.
I wonder if Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine and he said no deal unless you take Beats along with me. And maybe Apple agreed because they want Jimmy that bad and will just leave the Beats hardware brand as it is. Still feels a bit like Apple is skating to where the puck was, not where it's going to be. I think it's fair to ask what has Apple been doing the past 3-4 years? Were they so wedded to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music? Or were they fearful of busting up iTunes and the download business model? I have a hard time believing it's because the record companies won't deal with Apple. According to the WSJ, the music industry has tired to get Apple to move to the streaming model, but Apple stubbornly clung to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303701304579550682787925164
post #42 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Well, I, for one, don't have to ask that question because I think the whole thing is bullshit. If it isn't bullshit, then, imo, Cook needs to get his head examined.

Since you're conclusion is so absurdly improbably that you think Tim Cook has some sort of debilitating brain injury and no one at Apple is willing to stop him (as if he's making these decision on his own) then that's exactly why you should ask yourself the question.
Quote:
If there is something that we are not seeing then it is something that Beats has never ever divulged to the public... imo…

Or something you're choosing not to consider because you're prejudged and aren't willing to examine your judgments.
Quote:
and we can make up anything at this point. Transporter? Mind reading device that fits in an iPhone? Invisibility cloak?

We sure can, but it makes sense to work within a reality we could conceive coming true within the next month. Reductio ad absurdum isn't adding anything to this conversion.
Quote:
[ re: 1. MOG - as I mentioned before, I think that Apple was late to the party on that one. 2. Has Apple only bought  companies with software/services that Apple doesn't already have in one form or another? ]

What MOG by itself could do for Apple.

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 #43 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Since you're conclusion is so absurdly improbably that you think Tim Cook has some sort of debilitating brain injury and no one at Apple is willing to stop him (as if he's making these decision on his own) then that's exactly why you should ask yourself the question.
Or something you're choosing not to consider because you're prejudged and aren't willing to examine your judgments.
We sure can, but it makes sense to work within a reality we could conceive coming true within the next month. Reductio ad absurdum isn't adding anything to this conversion.
What MOG by itself could do for Apple.

 

... and what you are failing to consider is that I could be right.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #44 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

I wonder if Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine and he said no deal unless you take Beats along with me. And maybe Apple agreed because they want Jimmy that bad and will just leave the Beats hardware brand as it is. Still feels a bit like Apple is skating to where the puck was, not where it's going to be. I think it's fair to ask what has Apple been doing the past 3-4 years? Were they so wedded to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music? Or were they fearful of busting up iTunes and the download business model? I have a hard time believing it's because the record companies won't deal with Apple. According to the WSJ, the music industry has tired to get Apple to move to the streaming model, but Apple stubbornly clung to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303701304579550682787925164

I like you're thinking of plausible scenarios but my feeling is that Iovine doesn't have the upper hand to force Apple to spend $3.2 billion for a single person. I don't think a person is worth that and as Apple's first large purchase at over 7x more than their last highest purchase, NeXT in 1997, I think this purchase needs to be well calculated because it will be in the public eye for many reasons.

Based on the available info, if true I think it's for a variety of reasons with Beats Electronics providing a profitable and popular brand that could make the aging iTunes (Music) Store cool again and reinvigorate their dropping unit sales.

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 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

... and what you are failing to consider is that I could be right.

I've always contended that there is no deal and I clearly stated your "Tim Head head trauma paired with no one at Apple realizing Cook had severe head trauma" was not impossible. You're the one that doesn't seem to want to look at it from all angles.

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 #46 of 102
So a rumored deal is allegedly rumored to be delayed. How long until this rumored deal is rumored to be cancelled?
post #47 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I've always contended that there is no deal and I clearly stated your "Tim Head head trauma paired with no one at Apple realizing Cook had severe head trauma" was not impossible. You're the one that doesn't seem to want to look at it from all angles.

 

Tell me one angle that you know that I haven't mentioned. Please.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #48 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Tell me one angle that you know that I haven't mentioned. Please.

How about any angle that this deal could benefit Apple?

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 #49 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Based on the available info, if true I think it's for a variety of reasons with Beats Electronics providing a profitable and popular brand that could make the aging iTunes (Music) Store cool again and reinvigorate their dropping unit sales.
and this is what worries me, that it's basically Apple spending $3B because they're concerned about not being cool within certain demographics. Though I don't know that owning beats necessarily transfers that cool to Apple. It could be that some consumers would stop buying Beats headphones just because they were owned by Apple. Perhaps Beats no longer becomes cool once the uncool Apple owns them.
post #50 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

So a rumored deal is allegedly rumored to be delayed. How long until this rumored deal is rumored to be cancelled?

That's classified.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #51 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


How about any angle that this deal could benefit Apple?

 

I asked you to be specific. I asked "you" to tell me that angle.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #52 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

and this is what worries me, that it's basically Apple spending $3B because they're concerned about not being cool within certain demographics. Though I don't know that owning beats necessarily transfers that cool to Apple. It could be that some consumers would stop buying Beats headphones just because they were owned by Apple. Perhaps Beats no longer becomes cool once the uncool Apple owns them.

As their first large acquisition I can see why that would be a concern but that was bound to happen at some point. You have several things in play that make Apple uncool.

1) Apple has been on top for a very long time. Kids usually try to step out of their parents shadows to create their own identity. It doesn't behoove Apple to have children choosing Android, Google Play and Amazon Music over the iPhone, App Store and iTunes Store. These decisions may never get reversed or take years. This is a big reason why companies like to get their products in the classroom. There is no altruism there.

2) iTunes (Music) Store has not only plateaued but started to slide. The reason could simply be that streaming and rental music is gaining traction, iTunes Store for music is no longer "cool", or a variety of reasons. Either way, they need to do something about it.

3) Regarding the second item on #2, iTunes (Music) Store is 13 years old. It's changed a lot since then but how much technology services have you been using for that long? I think my email providers are even newer than that, perhaps except my @mac.com email address back in the iTools days, but I only ever use that @me.com address. Either way, that makes my argument because iTools to .Mac to MobileMe to iCloud have all been radical changes and iTunes Store has only ever added to itself; no reinvention. I have no problem with iTunes (Music) Store but what about kids that bought their first song with an iTunes GC at 10yo and are now in their 20's? Do they still think iTS is still cool? Is that not something Apple should consider?

Regardless of what happens we're only talking about $3.2 billion of Apple's money so it's not the end of the world if Apple buys them.

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 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

I asked you to be specific. I asked "you" to tell me that angle.

I, and numerous other people and websites, have spent the last week detailing multiple advantages for buying Beats based on the available information as its come up. I've done it in this thread. You're the one that is failing to even consider the possibility.

You don't have to think it's probable but if there is an iota of chance the scientific mind will not automatically disregard it as impossible.

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 #54 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I, and numerous other people and websites, have spent the last week detailing multiple advantages for buying Beats based on the available information as its come up. I've done it in this thread. You're the one that is failing to even consider the possibility.

You don't have to think it's probable but if there is an iota of chance the scientific mind will not automatically disregard it as impossible.

 

Pardon me?

 

I'm the one who has said that the music streaming service is the thing that makes the most sense.

 

I'm also the one that has detailed why I don't think that the headphone business is in Apple's dna.

 

Multiple advantages? Well, let's hear them again. Name just one [that I haven't mentioned].

 

Quit being wishy washy.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #55 of 102
Originally Posted by jameshca View Post
The merger sounds like a marriage between High Elf and Orc.
 

You know… I just happen to have a VERY relevant comic regarding that. Except it’s… more than a smudge too lascivious to post here:lol:

 

And in this case, the orc is Apple and the elf is Beats

 

EDIT: apparently it won’t load in the viewer, so just download it; more than one page


Edited by Tallest Skil - 5/15/14 at 9:04am
post #56 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range.

 

And that's why it's a bad idea. It would be better if there was no "baggage".

 

Do you remember when Tim Cook got pissed at the Apple shareholder meeting when some climate change denying group was trying to take Apple to task and Cook replied that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issue? So profits are not the primary concern for Apple when it comes to every issue, and they shouldn't be on this issue either, as the potential negatives outweighs any positives.

post #57 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post


I'm sure there are many here that remember a certain Graphics card maker pre announcing a deal with Apple only to be frozen out by Apple as a punishment for the leaks. I couldn't help having a flash back on reading this rumor.

 

I mentioned that some days ago and yes, that is a good reason to kill the whole deal.

post #58 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Pardon me?

I'm the one who has said that the music streaming service is the thing that makes the most sense.

But you stated it as (paraphrasing), "this is the only benefit, everything else is crap, which makes this a bad deal." That's not seeing from Apple's PoV if they were going to drop $3.2 billion on a deal.
Quote:
I'm also the one that has detailed why I don't think that the headphone business is in Apple's dna.

Yes, yes you did.
Quote:
Multiple advantages? Well, let's hear them again. Name just one [that I haven't mentioned].

Here are list of the ones off the top of my head. It's not a conclusive list of things that have been discussed. @Dick Applebaum can probably think of a few more:

  • High revenues
  • Growing revenues
  • High profits
  • Growing profits
  • Iovine and Young, and possibly Trent Reznor and others
  • Iovine and Young having patents that Apple needs to stave off their iTunes (Music) Store losses
  • Music rental service
  • Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate
  • Making Beats a gateway into Apple products buy creating a lock in
  • Successful headphones sales with Apple-likes construction and profit margins
  • Jony Ive seeing that he can take Beats headphones to the next level with a few changes to their look and sound

Quote:
Quit being wishy washy.

That's not in my DNA.

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 #59 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

So profits are not the primary concern for Apple when it comes to every issue, and they shouldn't be on this issue either, as the potential negatives outweighs any positives.

Of course they are, the difference between Apple et al. is that Apple looks much farther ahead and at a much bigger picture than their contemporaries. This is why they invest in things that might not become profitable for years to come but that repeatedly have pushed them far ahead of the competition.

That why you shouldn't look at what Beats is right now to consider why Apple might want them. Consider what it could mean for Apple in the long run. What is Apple missing or think they will be missing that Beats could supply them? I'd think the drop in iTunes music sales is pretty obvious concern.

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 #60 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


But you stated it as (paraphrasing), "this is the only benefit, everything else is crap, which makes this a bad deal." That's not seeing from Apple's PoV if they were going to drop $3.2 billion on a deal.
Yes, yes you did.
Here are list of the ones off the top of my head. It's not a conclusive list of things that have been discussed. @Dick Applebaum can probably think of a few more:
 
  • High revenues
  • Growing revenues
  • High profits
  • Growing profits
  • Iovine and Young, and possibly Trent Reznor and others
  • Iovine and Young having patents that Apple needs to stave off their iTunes (Music) Store losses
  • Music rental service
  • Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate
  • Making Beats a gateway into Apple products buy creating a lock in
  • Successful headphones sales with Apple-likes construction and profit margins
  • Jony Ive seeing that he can take Beats headphones to the next level with a few changes to their look and sound
That's not in my DNA.

 

"Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate"

 

That is the only thing in your list that I have not touched upon.

 

Is it worth $3.2 billion? That is the question.

 

At least you finally found one angle that I hadn't mentioned. It took a while for you to answer the question.

 

That was what I had asked you to do after all.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #61 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

 I'd think the drop in iTunes music sales is pretty obvious concern.

 

I just wish that the whole hardware aspect didn't exist. If it were streaming only, then I wouldn't be so against this deal.

post #62 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

"Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate"

That is the only thing in your list that I have not touched upon.

Is it worth $3.2 billion? That is the question.

At least you finally found one angle that I hadn't mentioned. It took a while for you to answer the question.

That was what I had asked you to do after all.

1) Why argue that the algorithm needs to be worth $3.2 billion on its own? Where is the logic in that?

2) You covered Jony Ive taking Beats Electronics to the next level?


PS: Just to be crystal clear I DON'T CARE WHAT APPLE DOES. I have zero concern for any acquisition at this point since at this point I have no reason not to trust Apple to make the right decision for them. I am certainly not saying that if the deal is true Tim Cook is a brain damaged idiot that should be fired because I know more than Apple. My only concern is that, if it's true, I would have correctly assessed the possible reasons and direction given by Apple based on the known information. My only skin in the game is to solve the puzzle, not to judge it.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/15/14 at 9:33am

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 #63 of 102

 When Apple acquires a company, the acquisition compliments or enhances their existing business.  If Apple were to make this acquisition, it would be a strategic business move. Apple is primarily a hardware company, and the premium headphone market where people are willing to spend $600 for headphones is the market Apple would be after.

 

With Beats, Apple is acquiring an established brand in the premium headphone market that is already priced at over $200. Beats would basically become a subsidiary of Apple as an independent brand. Apple will leverage its own reputation as a maker of quality hardware, with the resources and the economies of scale to acquire and license high quality audio technology from headphone manufacturer's such as Sennheiser. 

 

Knowing Apple, they would leverage their engineering and design expertise to improve the Beats headphones in both design as well as sound quality, and take the Beats headphones to another level. I am looking forward to seeing what headphone designs and technology that Apple will produce; that Apple may have already designed for production far in advance of this potential acquisition.


Beats will just be the platform.

 

If this succeeds, Apple would obviously market the Beats headphones to its own customer base of over 800 Million credit card holders. A pair of Beats headphones at $200 each, sold to 1 million paying customers equals $200 million. 10 Million units at $200 each equals $2 Billion. 100 million units at $200 each equals $20 Billion.


Looking at the numbers, and the fact that Apple doesn't sell premium headphones in this market, this acquisition makes total business sense.  


Edited by InteliusQ - 5/15/14 at 9:40am
post #64 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) Why argue that the algorithm needs to be worth $3.2 billion on its own? Where is the logic in that?

2) You covered Jony Ive taking Beats Electronics to the next level?


PS: Just to be crystal clear I DON'T CARE WHAT APPLE DOES. I have zero concern for any acquisition at this point since at this point I have no reason not to trust Apple to make the right decision for them. I am certainly not saying that if the deal is true Tim Cook is a brain damaged idiot that should be fired because I know more than Apple. My only concern is that, if it's true, I would have correctly assessed the possible reasons and direction given by Apple based on the known information. My only skin in the game is to solve the puzzle, not to judge it.

 

1. Because, imo, Apple buying a company for more than it needs and adding an extra level of complexity is not in Apple's dna. Yes, it could happen... but, imo, it's just stupid. 

 

2. yes, I covered that in saying that Apple could do the same on its own. You said that Ive would change the look and the sound. WTF? So now they are not Beats headphones, they are Ive/Apple headphones. ... and Apple had to pay $3.2 billion for that?

 

... and I love the hyperbole in your Tim Cook statement... and you call that scientific logic? Oh boy.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #65 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

1. Because, imo, Apple buying a company for more than it needs and adding an extra level of complexity is not in Apple's dna. Yes, it could happen... but, imo, it's just stupid.

Again, you're basing you opinion on far less data than Apple would have in making this deal so for you say it's bullshit, stupid, crazy, etc. without being open to the possibility that Apple isn't just smarter than we are but is able to make a more informed decision is ridiculous. Could it be a mistake? Of course, that's not impossible, but given all the info it's ridiculous for you to come that conclusion as the only viable option.
Quote:
2. yes, I covered that in saying that Apple could do the same on its own. You said that Ive would change the look and the sound. WTF? So now they are not Beats headphones, they are Ive/Apple headphones. ... and Apple had to pay $3.2 billion for that?

Could they really make music cool again on their own? Looking at IBM, MS, MySpace and many others it seems hard to bring back cool once a brand get tarnished as old.
Quote:
... and I love the hyperbole in your Tim Cook statement... and you call that scientific logic? Oh boy.

That was your (I hope) hyperbole, but when you add the qualifier "In my opinion" it seems hard to justify it as such.

"If it isn't bullshit, then, imo, Cook needs to get his head examined."

I'd think something along the lines of, "If it isn't bullshit, then I hope there is something wildly beneficial to Apple's customers and therefore Apple's profits that I'm not seeing." Instead you jumped off the deep end.

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 #66 of 102

It's such a blessed relief that Apple Insider are finally posting an article about a Beats rumour, after the dearth of such articles.

 

I'm surprised that they haven't picked up on the latest one about Jimmy Iovine scratching his knee. Some say that he's found a new spot on it; others say that he's making a mountain out of a molehill; still others say that this is definitive proof that Iovine is too dirty for Apple's clean image.

 

It has since been confirmed that Iovine had a slight itch.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #67 of 102

Let it NOT be true, please.

iMac Intel 27" Core i7 3.4, 16GB RAM, 120GB SSD + 1TB HD + 4TB RAID 1+0, Nuforce Icon HDP, OS X 10.10.1; 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 10.10.1; iPad Air 64GB; iPhone 5 32GB; iPod Classic; iPod Nano 4G; Apple TV 2.

Reply
post #68 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) I don't add any because I don't know of any streaming service that has been recently acquired by another company at a highly inflated price that doesn't like up with minimal profits or losses. What are Pandora and Spotify doing in revenue and profits?

2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range. Everything else appears to be a cost center or operating at a loss.
I wonder if Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine and he said no deal unless you take Beats along with me. And maybe Apple agreed because they want Jimmy that bad and will just leave the Beats hardware brand as it is. Still feels a bit like Apple is skating to where the puck was, not where it's going to be. I think it's fair to ask what has Apple been doing the past 3-4 years? Were they so wedded to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music? Or were they fearful of busting up iTunes and the download business model? I have a hard time believing it's because the record companies won't deal with Apple. According to the WSJ, the music industry has tired to get Apple to move to the streaming model, but Apple stubbornly clung to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music.

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303701304579550682787925164

Going by revenue, I would say that people still do overwhelmingly want to own music rather than rent it.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #69 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Well, I, for one, don't have to ask that question because I think the whole thing is bullshit. If it isn't bullshit, then, imo, Cook needs to get his head examined.

Since you're conclusion is so absurdly improbably that you think Tim Cook has some sort of debilitating brain injury and no one at Apple is willing to stop him (as if he's making these decision on his own) then that's exactly why you should ask yourself the question.
Quote:
If there is something that we are not seeing then it is something that Beats has never ever divulged to the public... imo…

Or something you're choosing not to consider because you're prejudged and aren't willing to examine your judgments.
Quote:
and we can make up anything at this point. Transporter? Mind reading device that fits in an iPhone? Invisibility cloak?

We sure can, but it makes sense to work within a reality we could conceive coming true within the next month. Reductio ad absurdum isn't adding anything to this conversion.
Quote:
[ re: 1. MOG - as I mentioned before, I think that Apple was late to the party on that one. 2. Has Apple only bought  companies with software/services that Apple doesn't already have in one form or another? ]

What MOG by itself could do for Apple.

I think island hermit was using hyperbole to make his point; I don't think he seriously thinks that Cook has a brain defect. Anyone can make mistakes - even Tim Cook. He said that he thought the timing of the iMac release was a mistake. Good for him for admitting it.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #70 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Again, you're basing you opinion on far less data than Apple would have in making this deal so for you say it's bullshit, stupid, crazy, etc. without being open to the possibility that Apple isn't just smarter than we are but is able to make a more informed decision is ridiculous. Could it be a mistake? Of course, that's not impossible, but given all the info it's ridiculous for you to come that conclusion as the only viable option.
Could they really make music cool again on their own? Looking at IBM, MS, MySpace and many others it seems hard to bring back cool once a brand get tarnished as old.
That was your (I hope) hyperbole, but when you add the qualifier "In my opinion" it seems hard to justify it as such.
 
"If it isn't bullshit, then, imo, Cook needs to get his head examined."

I'd think something along the lines of, "If it isn't bullshit, then I hope there is something wildly beneficial to Apple's customers and therefore Apple's profits that I'm not seeing." Instead you jumped off the deep end.

 

Jumped off the deep end? Pardon me? this from someone who translates a statement like "Cook needs to get his head examined" to "brain damaged idiot".

 

I asked you to give me an example of one angle that I was not seeing. Your scientific logical brain wanted me to imagine something that does not exist to the best of your or anyone else's knowledge. You wanted me to imagine something that I am not seeing. A fairy tale in other words. Something that even you have not been able to provide me that is worth $3.2 billion.

 

What I say is my opinion, whether I say it or not. We all know that anyone saying anything on here is giving their opinion and only that because they do not have intimate knowledge of Apple's operations. We've been over that. Having said that then you have to realize, which you have not yet done, that being that this is my opinion then I can state it any damned way I please. Whether I'm right or not is another thing. To say that I have to believe as you do that there are probable explanations of which we are unaware is absolute horseshit. I can think anything I damn well want. Whether it suits your fancy is another thing. To underscore that, you haven't really given any reason that Apple might be doing this deal that accounts for $3.2 billion in expense that is outside of all the other knowledge that we have been given so far. Something that you asked of me and yet you yourself cannot provide. That to me is a situation that I call so improbable as to be insignificantly possible. Everything else, other than the algorithm, I have already covered.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #71 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

I think island hermit was using hyperbole to make his point; I don't think he seriously thinks that Cook has a brain defect. Anyone can make mistakes - even Tim Cook. He said that he thought the timing of the iMac release was a mistake. Good for him for admitting it.

Then why include "In my opinion"? That defeats the purpose of the hyperbole, but as I stated I did hope that was merely an oversight and not his actual feeling on the matter. Regardless he could have made a more balanced statement even while including hyperbole for comic effect.
Edited by SolipsismX - 5/15/14 at 10:32am

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 #72 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

and this is what worries me, that it's basically Apple spending $3B because they're concerned about not being cool within certain demographics. Though I don't know that owning beats necessarily transfers that cool to Apple. It could be that some consumers would stop buying Beats headphones just because they were owned by Apple. Perhaps Beats no longer becomes cool once the uncool Apple owns them.

As their first large acquisition I can see why that would be a concern but that was bound to happen at some point. You have several things in play that make Apple uncool.

1) Apple has been on top for a very long time. Kids usually try to step out of their parents shadows to create their own identity. It doesn't behoove Apple to have children choosing Android, Google Play and Amazon Music over the iPhone, App Store and iTunes Store. These decisions may never get reversed or take years. This is a big reason why companies like to get their products in the classroom. There is no altruism there.

2) iTunes (Music) Store has not only plateaued but started to slide. The reason could simply be that streaming and rental music is gaining traction, iTunes Store for music is no longer "cool", or a variety of reasons. Either way, they need to do something about it.

3) Regarding the second item on #2, iTunes (Music) Store is 13 years old. It's changed a lot since then but how much technology services have you been using for that long? I think my email providers are even newer than that, perhaps except my @mac.com email address back in the iTools days, but I only ever use that @me.com address. Either way, that makes my argument because iTools to .Mac to MobileMe to iCloud have all been radical changes and iTunes Store has only ever added to itself; no reinvention. I have no problem with iTunes (Music) Store but what about kids that bought their first song with an iTunes GC at 10yo and are now in their 20's? Do they still think iTS is still cool? Is that not something Apple should consider?

Regardless of what happens we're only talking about $3.2 billion of Apple's money so it's not the end of the world if Apple buys them.

What if the answer to your second point is that there simply isn't as much great music being recorded? What if  musicians are realising that they're never going to make money because of streaming, and so more and more of them are not making the music in the first place?

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
post #73 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Jumped off the deep end? Pardon me? this from someone who translates a statement like "Cook needs to get his head examined" to "brain damaged idiot".

You're implication was that he might have dandruff? Come on! You're implication was that a head injury caused some form of damage to his brain which has affected his cognitive abilities.

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 #74 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


You're implication was that he might have dandruff? Come on! You're implication was that a head injury caused some form of damage to his brain which has affected his cognitive abilities.

 

WTF? I'm sorry, but now I know you've lost it.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #75 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

What if the answer to your second point is that there simply isn't as much great music being recorded? What if  musicians are realising that they're never going to make money because of streaming, and so more and more of them are not making the music in the first place?

I think history has shown that it has never been the case despite decade after decade of the older generation saying that good music ended with them. However, there is clearly an end somewhere so I think it's perfectly reasonable to debate when that end might happen.

I wonder if music adoption also has some biological factor that makes us accept and/or reject certain forms if it wasn't available to us by a certain developmental state.

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 #76 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

WTF? I'm sorry, but now I know you've lost it.

Then help me find it. So what was your implication if not that his cognitive abilities are somehow impaired by the mere consideration of this deal? Dandruff/ Head lice? Seborrhoeic Dermatitis?

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 #77 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Is music really the future? This seems so mid 2000s to me. As if Apple is trying to get back some of the iPod cool. Listen to this recent podcast from Ben Thompson: http://exponent.fm/. the guy on the podcast with him makes some good points. Apple's MO has always been about making the best products. I don't see how this fits in with that. It doesn't seem like Beats really has the best of anything other than just a cool brand. And when in the past has Apple purchased another company for its brand or for a revenue stream? If Jimmy Iovine is really that special surely Apple could have nabbed him without having to buy the whole company?

Streaming music certainly is the future of music, but is it the next big thing? We can make fun of Google buying a thermostat company, but what they were really buying into is the internet of things, buying into big data. Tony Fadell already said they're thinking beyond thermostats and smoke detectors. Go to any website these days and all you see are Microsoft Cloud advertisements. They're all over TV too. Again all about big data. Microsoft's virtual assistant Cortana already has more functionality than Siri does. To me Beats isn't skating to where the puck will be. It's trying to buy some cool and fix a music service that Apple should have working on 3-4 years ago. Acquisitions like AuthenTec, PrimeSense, a lot of the location mapping stuff, the hires with experience in the medical devices fields, those all seem more about the future than Beats does. And none of them cost $3B.

A) I'm not sure what you're trying to say about music, that people are going to stop listening to it? In retrospect, after thinking about this Beats rumor, it seems pretty obvious that buying music off iTunes, even stealing it from bit torrent or whatever, has become stale. iTunes is a great service, but as Iovine said in that interview (highly recommend watching it), iTunes is just a utility (lack of curation, descriptions of artists or albums are not good, and are few and far between). Nowadays (most) people, particularly younger people, the people primarily consuming music, are looking for other ways of getting music, and its usually free, and legal. These new sources curate the music. Soundcloud is a great example of this, with free streaming and downloads, curated by the artists I chose to follow, and the songs they curate on thier own feeds. Beats Music, with the resources of iTunes/Apple, can vastly improve iTunes, and create a fantastic curated music service.

 

B) I don't think Apple is "buying cool." This actually seems like a practical and astute move. Apple knows they can't build this in house, so they are bringing in people that can, even if they're rough around the edges. I don't think you can find people that will fit neatly in the Apple ethos that can provide the type of music curation service that Beats is offering.

 

C) I think it's very misguided to say that Apple should not be working on this because it may not be "the next big thing" (whatever that means). It doesn't mean Apple isn't working on other things (integrated home, wearables, whatever). Apple seems to value music as much more than just the revenue it brings in, or as just another utility for the ecosystem; every year they make a point to have some sort of music performance, and say something along the lines of "music is at the heart of everything we do."

 

D) Again, the pricetag seems pretty insignificant to me since they're bringing along a fairly large and profitable hardware service.


Edited by PatchyThePirate - 5/15/14 at 10:57am

   

Reply

   

Reply
post #78 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post
 

What if the answer to your second point is that there simply isn't as much great music being recorded? What if  musicians are realising that they're never going to make money because of streaming, and so more and more of them are not making the music in the first place?

 

Like any technology (or anything for that matter), there is a shelf life.

 

ITunes and other businesses like it showed there first decline last year. Streaming services, on the other hand, are showing significant increases each year.

 

Though relatively small in comparison to the music selling business, streaming or something similar will grow as the only viable alternative. Just as vinyl succumbed to tape and tape to cd and cd to online sales, the music selling business will succumb to streaming... imo.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #79 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Then help me find it. So what was your implication if not that his cognitive abilities are somehow impaired by the mere consideration of this deal? Dandruff/ Head lice? Seborrhoeic Dermatitis?

 

It's an expression, damnit. Get over it.

Hmmmmmm...
Reply
Hmmmmmm...
Reply
post #80 of 102
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatchyThePirate View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Is music really the future? This seems so mid 2000s to me. As if Apple is trying to get back some of the iPod cool. Listen to this recent podcast from Ben Thompson: http://exponent.fm/. the guy on the podcast with him makes some good points. Apple's MO has always been about making the best products. I don't see how this fits in with that. It doesn't seem like Beats really has the best of anything other than just a cool brand. And when in the past has Apple purchased another company for its brand or for a revenue stream? If Jimmy Iovine is really that special surely Apple could have nabbed him without having to buy the whole company?

Streaming music certainly is the future of music, but is it the next big thing? We can make fun of Google buying a thermostat company, but what they were really buying into is the internet of things, buying into big data. Tony Fadell already said they're thinking beyond thermostats and smoke detectors. Go to any website these days and all you see are Microsoft Cloud advertisements. They're all over TV too. Again all about big data. Microsoft's virtual assistant Cortana already has more functionality than Siri does. To me Beats isn't skating to where the puck will be. It's trying to buy some cool and fix a music service that Apple should have working on 3-4 years ago. Acquisitions like AuthenTec, PrimeSense, a lot of the location mapping stuff, the hires with experience in the medical devices fields, those all seem more about the future than Beats does. And none of them cost $3B.

A) I'm not sure what you're trying to say about music, that people are going to stop listening to it? In retrospect, after thinking about this Beats rumor, it seems pretty obvious that buying music off iTunes, even stealing it from bit torrent or whatever, has become stale. iTunes is a great service, but as Iovine said in that interview (highly recommend watching it), iTunes is just a utility (descriptions of artists or albums are not good, and are few and far between). Nowadays (most) people, particularly younger people, the people primarily consuming music, are looking for other ways of getting music, and its usually free, and legal. These new sources curate the music. Soundcloud is a great example of this, with free streaming and downloads, curated by the artists I chose to follow, and the songs they curate on thier own feeds. Beats Music, with the resources of iTunes/Apple, can vastly improve iTunes, and create a fantastic curated music service.

 

B) I don't think Apple is "buying cool." This actually seems like a practical and astute move. Apple knows they can't build this in house, so they are brining in people that can, even if they're rough around the edges. I don't think you can find people that fit neatly in the Apple ethos that can provide the type of music curation service that Beats is offering.

 

C) I think it's very misguided to say that Apple should not be working on this because it may not be "the next big thing" (whatever that means). It doesn't mean Apple isn't working on other things (integrated home, wearables, whatever). Apple seems to value music as much more than just the revenue it brings in, or as just another utility for the ecosystem; every year they make a point to have some sort of music performance, and say something along the lines of "music is at the heart of everything we do."

 

D) Again, the pricetag seems pretty insignificant to me since they're brining along a fairly large and profitable hardware service.

There's no such thing as free music. Somewhere along the line, a musician has to be paid for the music they compose. If you want great music to be created, streaming is not the answer. As things stand, the music industry is looking into the abyss, thanks to Spotify and Youtube.

"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
"If the young are not initiated into the village, they will burn it down just to feel its warmth."
- African proverb
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's rumored Beats acquisition reportedly pushed back one week