or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Beats acquisition reportedly delayed over Dre and Iovine roles, valuation, more
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's Beats acquisition reportedly delayed over Dre and Iovine roles, valuation, more - Page 3

post #81 of 215
If this deal goes through, Kim Kardashian will have found the way to make her first billion.

"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 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx View Post
 

Let just say this:  The Beats deal makes sense if 50% of the deal goes directly to Iovine ($1.6 billion) and it is treated like a hire for Apple.

 

The other guy is just a bad rap artist that is not worth that kind of money.  That is the hold up.  Ego.

 

Dr. Dre owns a rumored 20-25% of Beats.  Iovine likely owns far more.   Dr. Dre did not start out in Hip-Hop.  He started out producing for The World Class Wrecking Cru.   He is is a producer not a Rapper/Hip-Hop artist. 

 

If there is a deal being made it's being hammered out.  Billboard and others are just trying to milk the Soap Opera.  

He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
He's a mod so he has a few extra vBulletin privileges. That doesn't mean he should stop posting or should start acting like Digital Jesus.
- SolipsismX
Reply
post #83 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


That comment borders on the idiotic. One, he reversed it. Two, and more important, your observation has nothing to with my post, which was (and your response to that too was) specifically about the likely valuation for Beats.

Don't change the premise midway through a conversation.

Apparently Apple doesn't have a handle on it if this article is to be believed. One of the points in this article was they weren't sure how to value it. That's my point about John Browett. Clearly Cook didn't know what he was buying there. And a deal like this would be much harder to reverse.

post #84 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

What I've read is that the electronics portion of Beats (headphones) makes a decent profit, but the Beats Music (subscription service) is losing money as they were looking for $100 Million more for the Beats Music division, which doesn't surprise me.

 

If you look at the Net Profits to Gross Revenue for any content subscription, movie rental (NetFlix), Digital Download (Amazon), etc.  it's a VERY low profit margin business.

Apple just needs to negotiate deals to offer a subscription service, but I don't think they NEED to at this time.  Several reasons why I feel this way.

 

1.  They can't get the entire catalogs from the record distributors to allow for subscription based music downloads as they simply don't let companies offer the entire catalog.

 

2.  No one has proven that it's profitable.  Apple's iTunes, is the largest download site and they don't run off of large Net Profit margin, as it's more offered as a convenience (and to help fend off illegal downloads) to Apple iPod customers as that what it was originally designed for.  I just think it's more of getting Beats out of the picture instead of Google, Microsoft, etc. from buying them out.

 

Whether this happens or not, if Apple simply walked away from the deal, it would probably make Beats less valuable and less attractive to someone else buying them out as it would signal lots of questions behind them bailing on the deal.

 

I wish I had more answers than that, but since Cook & Co. have been tight lipped on it, who knows what the reality is behind this deal. Maybe Cook finally got exposed to things that changes the deal after the YouTube video that Dr. Dre released with his drinking buddies.  I'm sure that might have some impact on this since it was prematurely released that the deal was signed and sealed and official.  I'm sure that didn't go over well in Cupertino.

 

1.  Apple need to revamp iTunes ASAP as subscription music outfits are a threat to the iTunes model long term.

2.  Apple is buying Beats for what Iovine and Dre can do for Apple and not just what they have.

3.  If Iovine and Dre can help revamp iTunes and get iTV off the ground, they're worth more than $3 Billion to Apple.  They may already have been instrumental in getting iTunes off of the ground with Steve Jobs, leading to a $500+ Billion market cap for Apple.

 

You need to think big to see the potential benefits of this deal.  It's about much more than technology and products.

post #85 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

1.  Apple need to revamp iTunes ASAP as subscription music outfits are a threat to the iTunes model long term.
2.  Apple is buying Beats for what Iovine and Dre can do for Apple and not just what they have.
3.  If Iovine and Dre can help revamp iTunes and get iTV off the ground, they're worth more than $3 Billion to Apple.  They may already have been instrumental in getting iTunes off of the ground with Steve Jobs, leading to a $500+ Billion market cap for Apple.

You need to think big to see the potential benefits of this deal.  It's about much more than technology and products.
Do you work for Beats or something?
post #86 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

1.  Apple need to revamp iTunes ASAP as subscription music outfits are a threat to the iTunes model long term.
2.  Apple is buying Beats for what Iovine and Dre can do for Apple and not just what they have.
3.  If Iovine and Dre can help revamp iTunes and get iTV off the ground, they're worth more than $3 Billion to Apple.  They may already have been instrumental in getting iTunes off of the ground with Steve Jobs, leading to a $500+ Billion market cap for Apple.

You need to think big to see the potential benefits of this deal.  It's about much more than technology and products.

1. None of the subscription music services are a threat to ITunes, most of that mentality is conjured up by the media and it's nothing but misleading hype.

2. Neither of these two can design an actual product.

3. How could they help? Their celebrity status? For $3.2 Billion, Apple could hire 100 famous celebrities to do a series of print and TV ads for the next. 20 years and probably have money left over.
post #87 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

If this deal goes through, Kim Kardashian will have found the way to make her first billion.

 

Apple is about make a lot of ordinary people millionaires.

There is still time to invest.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Do you work for Beats or something?

I wish. :)

That would have made me a millionaire soon.

post #88 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

Apple is about make a lot of ordinary people millionaires.
There is still time to invest.
I wish. 1smile.gif
That would have made me a millionaire soon.

How is apple going to make a lot of ordinary people millionaires?
post #89 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Apparently Apple doesn't have a handle on it if this article is to be believed. One of the points in this article was they weren't sure how to value it. That's my point about John Browett. Clearly Cook didn't know what he was buying there. And a deal like this would be much harder to reverse.

"... If the article is to be believed"? Really? Some dingbat entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple does? Really?

Look, if you so badly want to 'win the argument' by stooping to such logical ridiculousness, be my guest.
post #90 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post


1. None of the subscription music services are a threat to ITunes, most of that mentality is conjured up by the media and it's nothing but misleading hype.

2. Neither of these two can design an actual product.

3. How could they help? Their celebrity status? For $3.2 Billion, Apple could hire 100 famous celebrities to do a series of print and TV ads for the next. 20 years and probably have money left over.

1.  Don't be foolish, Spotify is determined to take a bite out of iTunes and remember that iTunes content is key behind the success of iPhones, iPads and iPods etc...  People like the idea of having full access to all the latest music for a small yearly fee.  Apple needs to provide that.

Check this out...

 

2.  These guys are not designers nor are they engineers but the record labels and media houses will trust them with deals that they would never trust current Apple management with regardless of money.  You see, if they can bring in Universal and succeed, then the others will likely follow.  It's  as if the media industry is going to trust Apple with all the goods, they want one of their own on the Apple side of the deal to keep things in check.:)

 

3.  Forget about celebrity it's a matter of trust although Beats probably has a very talented marketing team.  If I own all the content and you want me to trust you with all of it without restrictions then I want to be dealing with someone that I can trust.  I think Iovine was instrumental in getting the original unprecedented iTunes deal for Steve Jobs.  Now Apple needs unrestricted access to all sorts of media to revamp iTunes and get iTV off of the ground, I think they are going back to Beats. 

 

In my opinion, if Apple buys beats for 3 Billion, Beats will be worth $300 Billion by the second anniversary of the deal.

Apple use to be a computer company.  It changed radically about 10 years ago into a portable device and media / cloud company.

Apple is about to change radically again with Mobile Payments, Wearables and Television amongst other things...  Fasten your seat belts folks.

 

Imagine if Apple could come up with an a la carte model to take unrestricted Music, TV, Movies, Podcasts and Education global?


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 5/24/14 at 3:39pm
post #91 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

In my opinion, if Apple buys beats for 3 Billion, Beats will be worth $300 Billion by the second anniversary of the deal.

This has to be the silliest thing I've ever read on these forums! I sincerely hope you're just trolling us.
post #92 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

"... If the article is to be believed"? Really? Some dingbat entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple does? Really?

Look, if you so badly want to 'win the argument' by stooping to such logical ridiculousness, be my guest.
um, per the article:
Quote:
Another person who’s been in and around the discussions tells Billboard Apple was nowhere near ready to have this news break as it tries to work out what exactly it’s getting for $3.2 billion.

Quote:
But we’ve also heard concerns as to whether they’ll fit in or if they would be best as permanent consultants rather than full-time executives.

Quote:
Sources say there is still some discussion around figuring out the valuation of Beats Music. Given it has less than 200,000 subscribers, doesn’t yet have much market traction and is built on a white label service, what is it worth to Apple? We’d heard a $200 million valuation before news of the Apple deal broke. Is it worth that much or in fact a lot more if it is the reason for deal? This is what both sides have been unable to agree on so far, according to a source.
post #93 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

In my opinion, if Apple buys beats for 3 Billion, Beats will be worth $300 Billion by the second anniversary of the deal.
Talk about RDF. lol.gif
post #94 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post
 

1.  Don't be foolish, Spotify is determined to take a bite out of iTunes and remember that iTunes content is key behind the success of iPhones, iPads and iPods etc...  People like the idea of having full access to access to all the latest music for a small yearly fee.  Apple needs to provide that.

Check this out...

 

2.  These guys are not designers nor are they engineers but the record labels and media houses will trust them with deals that they would never trust current Apple management with regardless of money.  You see, if they can bring in Universal, the others will likely follow.  It's  as if the media industry is going to trust Apple with all the goods, they want one of their own on the Apple side of the deal to keep things in check.:)

 

3.  Forget about celebrity it's a matter of trust.  If I own all the content and you want me to trust you with all of it without restrictions then I want to be dealing with someone that I can trust.  I think Iovine was instrumental in getting the original unprecedented iTunes deal for Steve Jobs.  Now Apple needs unrestricted access to all sorts of media to revamp iTunes and get iTV off of the ground, I think they are going back to Beats. 

 

In my opinion, if Apple buys beats for 3 Billion, Beats will be worth $300 Billion by the second anniversary of the deal.

Apple use to be a computer company.  It changed radically about 10 years ago into a portable device and media company.

Apple is about to change radically again with Mobile Payments, Wearables and Television amongst other things...  Fasten your seat belts folks.

 

Imagine if Apple could come up with an a la carte model to take unrestricted Music, TV, Movies, Podcasts and Education global?

1.   How many PAID subscription holders on Spotify are there?  About 1 Million.  How many active iTunes account holders are there?   800 Million.

If Spotify is charging about $10 a month, and Apple has people buying more than $120 a year on iTunes, it's going to take a VERY long time until Spotify makes even a 5% dent in Apple.  Remember, Apple is STILL growing the number of iTunes accounts as they are opening up new markets and more people are switching to Apple.  Having 20 Million tracks doesn't mean anything.  Apple still has over 26 Million songs and they have a bunch of exclusive content.  The problem with the subscription service is that they only sell about $10 a month in subscriptions, yet Apple can EASILY sell that much in actual downloads and then people can use the FREE Radio service in addition.  I don't see the subscription service making enough money.

 

2.  HUH?  I don't even understand a word you are saying, it makes no sense whatsoever.  What's not to trust about Apple selling content?  They've been selling more content than anyone.  Your logic made NO SENSE.  Seriously, you need to work on your logic on this.

 

3.  Trust?  MY ASS.  Apple is a Fortune 100 company, Beats isn't even a publicly traded company.  So, what's this trust issue all about?  Apple reports all of the sales of everything to the record labels whenever they want it so they already have a system in place to pay the proper royalties.  Trust about who sells the content is not, nor has it ever been in question with Apple.  

 

4.  Apple can only offer content in the manner in which the content houses allow.  If the content house allow for a specific model that Apple wants to do, they can figure that out without Dr. Dre or Iovine.  They already know all of the various possibilities, it's just a matter of what they want to do that makes the most sense that the content distributors want to buy into.

 

5.  Beats at the rate they are going will NEVER be worth $300 Billion unless they go public and BS the media and potential share holders that the company is going to make a lot of money.  By the time Beats (without being bought out by Apple) is worth $300 Billion, Apple would be worth $300 Trillion.  Look at Netflix, they are publicly traded and they have been in business longer than Beats and they are grossly overvalued at $24Billion, and they actually have over $4.3 Billion in Gross Revenue.  Beats Music doesn't even make a profit right now.  The Headphone market is just an accessory item and it's never going to be that big to warrant being a $300 Billion company.  The Beats Music was losing money.  I think someone is wrong with your logic and reasoning behind this.

post #95 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

1.   How many PAID subscription holders on Spotify are there?  About 1 Million.  How many active iTunes account holders are there?   800 Million.

If Spotify is charging about $10 a month, and Apple has people buying more than $120 a year on iTunes, it's going to take a VERY long time until Spotify makes even a 5% dent in Apple.  Remember, Apple is STILL growing the number of iTunes accounts as they are opening up new markets and more people are switching to Apple.  Having 20 Million tracks doesn't mean anything.  Apple still has over 26 Million songs and they have a bunch of exclusive content.  The problem with the subscription service is that they only sell about $10 a month in subscriptions, yet Apple can EASILY sell that much in actual downloads and then people can use the FREE Radio service in addition.  I don't see the subscription service making enough money.

 

2.  HUH?  I don't even understand a word you are saying, it makes no sense whatsoever.  What's not to trust about Apple selling content?  They've been selling more content than anyone.  Your logic made NO SENSE.  Seriously, you need to work on your logic on this.

 

3.  Trust?  MY ASS.  Apple is a Fortune 100 company, Beats isn't even a publicly traded company.  So, what's this trust issue all about?  Apple reports all of the sales of everything to the record labels whenever they want it so they already have a system in place to pay the proper royalties.  Trust about who sells the content is not, nor has it ever been in question with Apple.  

 

4.  Apple can only offer content in the manner in which the content houses allow.  If the content house allow for a specific model that Apple wants to do, they can figure that out without Dr. Dre or Iovine.  They already know all of the various possibilities, it's just a matter of what they want to do that makes the most sense that the content distributors want to buy into.

 

5.  Beats at the rate they are going will NEVER be worth $300 Billion unless they go public and BS the media and potential share holders that the company is going to make a lot of money.  By the time Beats (without being bought out by Apple) is worth $300 Billion, Apple would be worth $300 Trillion.  Look at Netflix, they are publicly traded and they have been in business longer than Beats and they are grossly overvalued at $24Billion, and they actually have over $4.3 Billion in Gross Revenue.  Beats Music doesn't even make a profit right now.  The Headphone market is just an accessory item and it's never going to be that big to warrant being a $300 Billion company.  The Beats Music was losing money.  I think someone is wrong with your logic and reasoning behind this.

 

1.  No, Apple cannot wait until they reach hundreds of millions to respond.  As more people subscribe, they will buy less.

http://press.spotify.com/us/information/

Some fast figures

  • Paying subscribers: Over 10 million
  • Active users: Over 40 million*
  • Ratio of paying subscribers to active free users: Over 20%
  • Revenue paid to rights holders since launch: $1bn
  • Number of songs: Over 20 million**
  • Number of songs added per day: Over 20,000
  • Number of playlists: Over 1.5 billion created so far
  • Available in 56 markets - Andorra, Argentina, Austria, Australia, Belgium, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hong Kong, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Monaco, New Zealand, Netherlands, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, UK, Uruguay and USA.

 

2. Never mind.

 

3.  If Apple is so powerful how come they could not launch iTV 2 years ago?  They were ready technology wise and they had the money but they could not do it.  Why?   If they had friends like Iovine and Dre inside of Comcast, TimeWarner and Verizon, perhaps they could have launched in the States at least not to mention globally.

 

4.  That is true and that's were Iovine comes in with Beats.  Remember that Iovine and Dre do not own 100% of Beats, other Media industry moguls stand to make a lot of money as well.

 

5.  With Apple behind Beats, I think it can but I could be wrong.  We all know that a dying Apple 10 years ago turned a 400+ million purchase of NeXT into what is now worth 500+ Billion.  What can a healthy Apple do in the next few years?  I submit that Apple is on the verge of reinventing itself yet again.  (Mobile Payments, Smart Wearables, Global Media anywhere).


Edited by AppleSauce007 - 5/24/14 at 4:37pm
post #96 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post

1.  No, Wikipedia says "the service had approximately 10 million users as of 15 September 2010, 
about 2.5 million of whom were paying users.  
Total users reached 20 million by December 2012, 5 million of whom pay a monthly subscription fee that varies based on locale."

2. Never mind.

3.  If Apple is so powerful how come they could not launch iTV 2 years ago?  They were ready technology wise and they had the money but they could not do it.  Why?

4.  That is true and that's were Iovine comes in with Beats.  Remember that Iovine and Dre do not own 100% of Beats, other Media industry moguls stand to make a lot of money as well.

5.  With Apple behind Beats, I think it can but I could be wrong.  We all know that a dying Apple 10 years ago turned a 400+ purchase of NeXT into what is now worth 500+ Billion.  What can a healthy Apple do in the next few years?

1. OK, so Spotify has 2.5 million paid users paying $10 a month. That's about $300 Million a year GROSS REVENUE. What's their Net Profit? Are they even making a profit? If so, how much? How much does iTunes store make in Gross Revenue? I just read that Apple iTunes has about $2.4 Billion in revenue for the Q1 of '14. So, they are raking in around $10Billion a year from iTunes. Now, if Apple buys Beats, they will probably roll Beats Music into iTunes and therefor Beats Music as people know it will go bye bye and will become a non-issue. It makes ZERO sense for Apple to buy Beats Music and let them continue to run independently of iTunes. Then the Beats name will become worthless as the company would cease to exist. The problem is no one knows how many of the 800 Million Apple iTunes account holders will pay for a $10 a month subscription service for just music. 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, etc. of these 800 Million account holders? And how many download sales will there be once someone signs on to the monthly subscription? I buy some content through Apple iTunes, but not that much. I don't know if I would pay $10 a month for subscription service for music and I don't know how many others will either. Time will tell how successful Apple will be, but they could do this without Dr. Dre and Iovine. They don't NEED them to do it is my point.

2. NEVER MIND.

3.. iTV? Apple has their current TV box and they are working with the TV stations (which Iovine and Dr. Dre have nothing to do with TV or Cable TV). As far as what the next replacement product is going to be is as much of a guess as anyone else. but it's the cable TV companies that don't want Apple taking control over the cable TV industry as a LOT of cable companies like Comcast, etc. stand to go out of business. Iovine and Dr. Dre couldn't do anything about that even if Dr. Dre got all of his gangster rappers to apply any gangster tactics against the CEOs. Both Iovine and Dre are USELESS in this area. Apple has to deal with the major networks to figure out how to distribute through whatever Apple has cooked up. I'm sure we'll find out soon. Beats doesn't do anything but music subscription and they are LOSING MONEY. Apple has to deal with people that are in the cable TV business. Why? I haven't a clue and iodine and Dre are useless in this area.

4. I could care less who owns what percentage of Beats.

5. Apple bought NeXT and through perseverance and coming up with the iPod, then the iPhone and iPad and continuing their improvements in Laptops and desktops, iTunes, Apple Stores, App Stores, etc. Apple eventually gained a lot of business, but in case you've been living under a rock, Apple's Gross Revenues and Net Profits are flattening out because they can't grow the company as fast as they once did. This happens to MOST companies. They have a lot of growth rate until things get saturated. I think Apple has more growth potential with focusing on OS X computers than playing the BS game behind iTunes. There are a LOT of frustrated Windows users that are getting ready to switch to OS X and Apple would be MUCH better off doing more to attract those people than playing around with content that's basically low margin business. Apple needs to obviously bring out larger screen iPhones, maybe a 12 inch iPad, continue making new laptops and desktops, and I think they could do well with a SmartTV, but the two BIGGEST problems with SmartTVs are actually two fold. 1. People don't replace TVs as often as computers/mobile devices and 2. The percentage of people that actually use their smartTV for more than just a TV is very small. Most people that buy a SmartTV don't actually use the "Smart" portion of the TV, much like most people that have a 3D TV don't watch 3D content as much as they watch 2D content. Apple just has to do what they do to continue with a 10% to 20% year to year growth rate because the days of 35% or more growth rate are pretty over for the time being. The sooner you get the concept out of your head that Apple is still in hyper growth mode, the better.
Edited by drblank - 5/24/14 at 4:29pm
post #97 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

um, per the article:


An article from Billboard. Last time i checked, they don't conver tech news. Plus it's only rumors.
post #98 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

An article from Billboard. Last time i checked, they don't conver tech news. Plus it's only rumors.
But one would assume Billboard is tuned in to Jimmy Iovine and Dre sine they're in the music business. Nothing about this deal seems very techie to me.
post #99 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post


1. OK, so Spotify has 2.5 million paid users paying $10 a month. That's about $300 Million a year GROSS REVENUE. What's their Net Profit? Are they even making a profit? If so, how much? How much does iTunes store make in Gross Revenue? I just read that Apple iTunes has about $2.4 Billion in revenue for the Q1 of '14. So, they are raking in around $10Billion a year from iTunes. Now, if Apple buys Beats, they will probably roll Beats Music into iTunes and therefor Beats Music as people know it will go bye bye and will become a non-issue. It makes ZERO sense for Apple to buy Beats Music and let them continue to run independently of iTunes. Then the Beats name will become worthless as the company would cease to exist. The problem is no one knows how many of the 800 Million Apple iTunes account holders will pay for a $10 a month subscription service for just music. 1%, 5%, 10%, 20%, etc. of these 800 Million account holders? And how many download sales will there be once someone signs on to the monthly subscription? I buy some content through Apple iTunes, but not that much. I don't know if I would pay $10 a month for subscription service for music and I don't know how many others will either. Time will tell how successful Apple will be, but they could do this without Dr. Dre and Iovine. They don't NEED them to do it is my point.

2. NEVER MIND.

3.. iTV? Apple has their current TV box and they are working with the TV stations (which Iovine and Dr. Dre have nothing to do with TV or Cable TV). As far as what the next replacement product is going to be is as much of a guess as anyone else. but it's the cable TV companies that don't want Apple taking control over the cable TV industry as a LOT of cable companies like Comcast, etc. stand to go out of business. Iovine and Dr. Dre couldn't do anything about that even if Dr. Dre got all of his gangster rappers to apply any gangster tactics against the CEOs. Both Iovine and Dre are USELESS in this area. Apple has to deal with the major networks to figure out how to distribute through whatever Apple has cooked up. I'm sure we'll find out soon. Beats doesn't do anything but music subscription and they are LOSING MONEY. Apple has to deal with people that are in the cable TV business. Why? I haven't a clue and iodine and Dre are useless in this area.

4. I could care less who owns what percentage of Beats.

5. Apple bought NeXT and through perseverance and coming up with the iPod, then the iPhone and iPad and continuing their improvements in Laptops and desktops, iTunes, Apple Stores, App Stores, etc. Apple eventually gained a lot of business, but in case you've been living under a rock, Apple's Gross Revenues and Net Profits are flattening out because they can't grow the company as fast as they once did. This happens to MOST companies. They have a lot of growth rate until things get saturated. I think Apple has more growth potential with focusing on OS X computers than playing the BS game behind iTunes. There are a LOT of frustrated Windows users that are getting ready to switch to OS X and Apple would be MUCH better off doing more to attract those people than playing around with content that's basically low margin business. Apple needs to obviously bring out larger screen iPhones, maybe a 12 inch iPad, continue making new laptops and desktops, and I think they could do well with a SmartTV, but the two BIGGEST problems with SmartTVs are actually two fold. 1. People don't replace TVs as often as computers/mobile devices and 2. The percentage of people that actually use their smartTV for more than just a TV is very small. Most people that buy a SmartTV don't actually use the "Smart" portion of the TV, much like most people that have a 3D TV don't watch 3D content as much as they watch 2D content. Apple just has to do what they do to continue with a 10% to 20% year to year growth rate because the days of 35% or more growth rate are pretty over for the time being. The sooner you get the concept out of your head that Apple is still in hyper growth mode, the better.

 

1.  OK.  Change that to 10 / 40 million and counting.

2.  -

3.  With the right model and some industry "Friends"  Apple could get cable companies globally to follow their lead.

4.  You should care because if media moguls are making money on something they are more likely to support it.

5.  iTunes and iPhones/iOS were the main game changers.  (The iOS api is a derivative of MacOS which is a derivative of NeXT Step)

 

I think you have been listening to the financial anal-ysts too long.  The best growth days of Apple are still ahead of it.  (Mobile Payments, Smart Wearables, Global Media anywhere).

post #100 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleSauce007 View Post
 

 

1.  OK.  Change that to 10 / 40 million and counting.

2.  -

3.  With the right model and some industry "Friends"  Apple could get cable companies globally to follow their lead.

4.  You should care because if media moguls are making money on something they are more likely to support it.

5.  iTunes and iPhones/iOS were the main game changers.  (The iOS api is a derivative of MacOS which is a derivative of NeXT Step)

 

I think you have been listening to the financial anal-ysts too long.  The best growth days of Apple are still ahead of it.  (Mobile Payments, Smart Wearables, Global Media anywhere).

 

1. OK, 10 Million paid subscribers.  The thing that EVERYONE seems to NOT talk about is PROFITS.  How much NET PROFIT ARE THEY MAKING?  Until we actually know if they are actually making a DECENT Net Profit on Gross Sales, then it's not a PROFITABLE business.

 

How would you like to be in business making $1 Trillion in gross sales, but not making any profit.  What happens when you don't make any profits?   What TYPICALLY happens to businesses when they don't make any profits?  Let's focus on figuring out how much NET PROFITS they make in comparison to Gross Sales. I'm talking about for the company.  Does anyone know this number?  The company has overhead that is taken out of the gross profits.  They charge X from the customer, they pay X to the record distributors, and they retain X and out of what they retain, they have to pay salaries, building leases, advertising, taxes (if profitable) and other costs to do business. I want to know how much they retain as a company per year/quarter in terms of NET PROFITS.  No one seems to talk about that?  Usually information is held back due to lack of something positive to talk about and since they are privately held companies, they are not required to release that information.

 

2. -

 

3.   If Apple could develop a box that would also be able to connect to a cable company so one could do both streaming of content over the internet, connect to a cable TV company AND also have DVR capabilities, that might be worth a lot of money, but the thing is ARE they planning on building such a box, if so, when are they planning on releasing it.  The current $99 box doesn't make much profit on the hardware and they are relying on people renting movies through the iTunes Movie service.  I'm not sure how much they actually make in profits to gross sales on the Apple TV box.

 

4.  The record industry is in the dumps.  They can't seem to figure out how to make serious amounts of money.  In Iovine's All Things Digital interview he covered how the music industry is sucking wind.  Partially due to people stealing music rather than buying it.  Also, because they can't seem to pump out enough content that sells.  Now, 24 Bit download market seems to be picking up steam as people PAY for it, they charge a lot of money per download, but their problem is getting enough content out since they can only pump out so much new 24 Bit versions a week.  They only have about 1,000 albums on 24 bit on places like HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds.  They are actually putting out a lot of vinyl, which is growing, but still not enough to increase sales for the record industry. 

 

5.  And?  But Apple is STILL not in their hyper growth mode as they kind of tanked last year and only doing marginally better this year.  Hopefully, they'll do well with the larger screen iPhones, which will help, but it's all about can they increase production by X amount year to year along with increased demand that is more than 15 to 20% year to year growth rate? If so, how long can they continue that trend?

 

Wearables I think is just incremental business, but not going to be a major contributor in terms of profits like the iPhone or the iPad are. I think they might do a few billion a year in gross revenues from wearables, but not tens of billions.  At least that's my gut feeling.

 

No, I don't listen to anyone other than look at the numbers, the growth rates, the profits, etc. and use some common sense.  Go look at the numbers and do your own calculations.  But remember, LOOK at the PROFITS and GROWTH RATES.  Stop looking at just the sales.  Sales doesn't tell the whole story.  With Spotify and Beats, they neglect to tell the whole story since they aren't publicly traded companies and since they probably don't make much in the way of profits, they hold back that information because the story told by the media wouldn't be the same story.


Edited by drblank - 5/24/14 at 5:30pm
post #101 of 215
I wonder how much of the delay is the result of Dre's big mouth. Loose lips sink deals in Apple world.
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
A.k.a. AppleHead on other forums.
Reply
post #102 of 215

The responses in defence of Apple's acquisition of Beats is becoming unbelievable (just like with Tesla).

 

Sure, there are benefits in acquiring Beats, but there are many, many, more acquisitions that Apple could be making (at the same time even), but they won't do it.

 

There are all sorts of great talent out there, and all sorts of great companies with great products, services, know-how, etc., but Apple must be able to assimilate them into their culture. Apple's priority is to maintain its 'One Apple' strategy which Microsoft and Sony are attempting to copy. 

 

The reason that Apple is in a state of chaos and hence it must make an acquisition is ridiculous.

 

Plus, Apple is not about the numbers (e.g. the sales and profits), its about a great product (and preventing theft of intellectual property)...

post #103 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I wonder how much of the delay is the result of Dre's big mouth. Loose lips sink deals in Apple world.

 

Probably 99% of the reason.

post #104 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

I wonder how much of the delay is the result of Dre's big mouth. Loose lips sink deals in Apple world.

 

Apple needs to kill the deal.

 

The very fact that there are so many threads on this rumor is proof that it should be killed, because it should never have been leaked in the first place.

post #105 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post


Tim Cook did hire John Browett. /s

Steve Jobs let Bill Gates & Eric Schmidt in.

post #106 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


"... If the article is to be believed"? Really? Some dingbat entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple does? Really?

Look, if you so badly want to 'win the argument' by stooping to such logical ridiculousness, be my guest.

 

Dingbat entertainment publication?

 

Hahahahaha

 

I'm sorry, Anan, but that's the silliest thing you have ever said.

 

You don't don't keep a magazine going for 120 years by being a bunch of dingbats.

 

A business trade magazine at that...

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #107 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post

Steve Jobs let Bill Gates & Eric Schmidt in.

 



I never really agreed with the concept of keeping your enemies closer BS that a lot of people THINK is how to do business. If you bring the enemies too close, they'll screw you over, that's why they are called enemies.

It's hard for some of these CEOs to figure out who the enemies are, especially since they'll lie to you because they are ENEMIES, you just have to realize it BEFORE it's too late.
post #108 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Splif View Post
 

Steve Jobs let Bill Gates & Eric Schmidt in.

 



I never really agreed with the concept of keeping your enemies closer BS that a lot of people THINK is how to do business. If you bring the enemies too close, they'll screw you over, that's why they are called enemies.

It's hard for some of these CEOs to figure out who the enemies are, especially since they'll lie to you because they are ENEMIES, you just have to realize it BEFORE it's too late.

Yes, Hindsight is 20/20. I was just trying to point out the lack of weight that the statement that Rofigan made about Tim Cook. I know he had the /S tag at the end of his statement, but from reading the rest of his posts it seems like he may have really meant what he said. I guess I could have added the /S to the end of my comment also.

post #109 of 215
You would think that they would have signed NDAs or something similar if they were worried about it being leaked too soon plus I thought Jay-Z was the first billionaire in Hip-hop.
post #110 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

Dingbat entertainment publication?

 

Hahahahaha

 

I'm sorry, Anan, but that's the silliest thing you have ever said.

 

You don't don't keep a magazine going for 120 years by being a bunch of dingbats.

 

A business trade magazine at that...

Fair enough, and thank you for pointing that out. I guess I should not have called them 'dingbat' in their domain of expertise.

 

So let me rephrase: "An entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple -- the company rumored to be carrying out the acquisition, and the most valuable publicly traded company in the world -- does? Really?"

 

What do you think?

post #111 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
 

Fair enough, and thank you for pointing that out. I guess I should not have called them 'dingbat' in their domain of expertise.

 

So let me rephrase: "An entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple -- the company rumored to be carrying out the acquisition, and the most valuable publicly traded company in the world -- does? Really?"

 

What do you think?

 

I would think that Billboard would have at least as good an idea of the valuation of a company whose primary business is music. Billboard would know a lot more about Iovine and Dre's contacts and contracts and what they are actually worth. The only thing that Billboard wouldn't know is what exactly Beats means to Apple personally because only Cook and Apple's Board can come up with that answer. Whether or not they ["they" meaning Cook and Company] are correct in their assessment is another matter all together.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #112 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

I would think that Billboard would have at least as good an idea of the valuation of a company whose primary business is music. Billboard would know a lot more about Iovine and Dre's contacts and contracts and what they are actually worth. The only thing that Billboard wouldn't know is what exactly Beats means to Apple personally because only Cook and Apple's Board can come up with that answer. Whether or not they ["they" meaning Cook and Company] are correct in their assessment is another matter all together.

 

Billboard? They don't normally hire people with a Finance background with regards to their journalists that write stories.   In order to put a valuation on a company that's privately held, you have to know what their gross sales, net profits, debt, what value you put on their IP, how much cash they have, long term/short term investments, etc. etc.   This stuff is not publicly released.  So how COULD they know what Beats is worth..

 

All Billboard really tracks is what albums, singles are selling and being played on the radio and things of that nature and then the industry news like what new albums are coming out, what changes in management, etc. etc. Billboard is not normally considered a source to gather financial data on a company, especially privately held.

 

They might know the valuation of Sony, Warner and Universal because they are publicly traded companies where the financials are released.  But a privately held company?  NOPE.  They have no clue unless they have someone with a finance background looking at their books writing an article, which doesn't happen.

post #113 of 215
post #114 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

 

Billboard? They don't normally hire people with a Finance background with regards to their journalists that write stories.   In order to put a valuation on a company that's privately held, you have to know what their gross sales, net profits, debt, what value you put on their IP, how much cash they have, long term/short term investments, etc. etc.   This stuff is not publicly released.  So how COULD they know what Beats is worth..

 

All Billboard really tracks is what albums, singles are selling and being played on the radio and things of that nature and then the industry news like what new albums are coming out, what changes in management, etc. etc. Billboard is not normally considered a source to gather financial data on a company, especially privately held.

 

They might know the valuation of Sony, Warner and Universal because they are publicly traded companies where the financials are released.  But a privately held company?  NOPE.  They have no clue unless they have someone with a finance background looking at their books writing an article, which doesn't happen.

 

Well, I'm glad to see we have someone from Billboard to help us assess what Billboard knows and doesn't know.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #115 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Well, I'm glad to see we have someone from Billboard to help us assess what Billboard knows and doesn't know.

 

I've read Billboard magazine since a LONG time ago. It's actually a very thin publication and not much in it except the latest charts on what's songs/albums get the most play/sales. It's not an in depth magazine by any stretch of the imagination on the inner workings of the music industry.

 

Go pick up a copy and read it.

post #116 of 215

Actually, the cables that Monster got famous for were based on patents they licensed from a person by the name of Bruce Brisson of MIT Cables, he's the actual brains behind the original Monster cables that Monster got their name and reputation, Lee just marketed the heck out of them to the higher end audio crowd and then he ventured off into other products and markets.  Here's MIT Cables History.  I've met Bruce Brisson and talked with him for about an hour many years ago.  The guy's a freakin genius as he helped HP develop one of the most precise measurement equipment (cost about $100K) to measure what's going on with audio cables because nothing existed when he set out to figure out why cables sound different.   He's actually considered the real father of the high end audio cable.  He's has about 16 patents and some of them were licensed to Monster Cable back as early as 1981.   But Monster doesn't want you knowing this since it doesn't sound as cool.

 

http://ww2.mitcables.com/history-of-mit-cables.html

post #117 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
 

 

I've read Billboard magazine since a LONG time ago. It's actually a very thin publication and not much in it except the latest charts on what's songs/albums get the most play/sales. It's not an in depth magazine by any stretch of the imagination on the inner workings of the music industry.

 

Go pick up a copy and read it.

 

Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?

 

Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.

 

There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business.  That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.

 

What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #118 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?

 

Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.

 

There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business.  That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.

 

What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?

Intangibles?  Like what specifically? 

 

Dr. Dre produces rap music, and? That's a niche in the entire music industry.

 

Iovine has certain credentials, and only has so much power in the industry.  I don't consider anyone that spends time as a mentor on American Idol to be someone that is anything more than just going after young, innocent and naive kids trying to make it in the pop industry.  BFD. so Iovine caters to teenage girls market that's looking for their next American Idol.  And?

 

A bunch of contracts?  Like what contracts that make lots of money?  You mean selling speakers to some of Chrysler's autos?  Harmon sells infinitely more auto speaker systems than just about anyone in the auto industry.  They are HUGE in that market. Absolutely HUGE.   they own JBL, Infinity, Blaupunkt, Becker, Harmon/Kardon, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, IOnRoad, Selenium that cater to the auto industry.  Beats is a gnat fart to Harmon International.  then you have Clarion.  I looked up some BOSE products that are installed in cars and found out that they were actually made by Becker, which is owned by Harmon.   Bose used to be big in the car stereo OEM world, but Harmon took over that business years ago.

 

Beats is puny in that market.  Who makes most of the navigation systems in cars these days?  Harmon.  There are a handful of players in the car audio industry as OEM suppliers and Beats is teeny tiny.

 

The streaming music business Beats Music was looking for $100 Million more since that side of the business was running out of cash.  Here's the article.  http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/21/5636704/beats-music-is-struggling

 

I didn't say that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what's going on.  But Billboard only posts superficial things when it comes to anything about the financials about a privately held company.  They don't have access to that information.  Billboard is NOT a place I would automatically go to in order to find out about financial aspects of a company like Beats.  I'm sure if Beats sent them a press release, Billboard would post it, but so does everyone else.   That's not their gig, so to speak to cover financial aspects of a privately held company if Billboard got the information, so would everyone else.  Billboard's major function in life is tracking what album and songs are selling and being played.  That's their sole purpose in life.  That's what people look at Billboard for.  Go pick up the magazine and read it.  It will take about 10 minutes to cruise their articles since there aren't many actually written and they are usually small articles that are about a couple of small paragraphs.  A lot of article they publish are based on PR they are given.  Plus they have some stupid articles like 65 Hot Celebrity Beach Bodies and other BS and gossip.  http://www.billboard.com/photos/428592/65-hot-celebrity-beach-bodies?i=500718  That's the kind of crap Billboard has.  They are just more of a rumor, PR regurgitation, gossip, and starry eyed fan site.  Check out Billboard.com and see the kind of articles they publish. Seriously, Billboard is more like People magazine than some serious financial news site.

 

What do you work for Beats? it sure sounds like it.

 

I just looked up Chrysler and they only offer the $1200 Beat option on SOME models, not all.  I'm sure Beats probably makes $100 of actual profit since it's been marked up by the dealer and auto mfg.  BFD.  That's nothing. I'm sure if you look at the Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and other foreign cars, they probably ship 80% with something from Harmon.  Lexus sells Mark Levinson car stereos and they integrate Lexicon technology in the Harmon and Mark Levinson systems for surround sound,  Harmon make just about all of the navigation systems for the european auto mfg.  They recently inked a long term deal with Mercedes to supply all of the navigation systems for them.  Harmon is going after a MAJOR portion of the OEM car industry.  I think Clarion is another big player for a lot of the Asian car mfg.  I think there's another player as well.  then you have small niche high end audio mfg starting to cater to the ultra high end auto car market like B&O, Meridian, Focal, and others, but those are $5000+ systems for high end cars that sell in much small quantity, but for them, it's still lucrative enough to do it.

 

Harmon installs their systems on probably a good 80% of the european cars as either standard or more expensive options, plus several other car mfg.  


Edited by drblank - 5/25/14 at 12:43am
post #119 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.

 

What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?

 

Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.

 

There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business.  That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.

 

What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?

Me being arrogant?  How about you try not to be so ignorant?  Maybe that's the REAL problem.

 

You sound like you buy into the hype of Beats/Iovine and Dr. Dre.  I don't.  I don't have much respect for them other than they were successful at marketing some crappy headphones to a bunch of kids that don't really listen to music that's created by real musical instruments.  Most of today's pop music the kids are listening aren't generated by recording musical instruments, but rather noises to represent music and it's so processed, they really don't know what an acoustic piano REALLY sounds like, or any musical instrument being played without a ton of signal processing. Heck, they don't even know what a real singer sounds like since most of today's pop music the singer's voice goes through Auto Tune and Melodyne software to alter their mistakes to make someone who can't sing sound like they can.  That's the kind of crap most kids are listening to. Artificial garbage. It's been like that for about 20+ years, but has really done downhill in the last 10.  probably thanks to Dr. Dre and Iovine.

post #120 of 215
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmurchison View Post
 

 

Dr. Dre owns a rumored 20-25% of Beats.  Iovine likely owns far more.   Dr. Dre did not start out in Hip-Hop.  He started out producing for The World Class Wrecking Cru.   He is is a producer not a Rapper/Hip-Hop artist. 

 

If there is a deal being made it's being hammered out.  Billboard and others are just trying to milk the Soap Opera.  

On World Class's 2  albums, he's credited with drum programming and voice. So what are you talking about he wasn't a rapper?  

 

He went on to join MWA which was credited as producing, but he also wrote the lyrics and performed on their albums as well.  So, was producing as well as rapping and writing the disgusting lyrics.  

 

Read the lyrics of the songs he produces.  It's pure garbage.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Apple's Beats acquisition reportedly delayed over Dre and Iovine roles, valuation, more