Wired thinks it's Apple's best idea since the iPad. Basically argue that Apple needs to get the "cool" factor back and this is the way to do it. :no: :no: :no:
They make crap headphones that fall apart with crazy markup prices.
Are they still affiliated with Monster Cable?
Look up that scumbag company.
No, Monster hasn't been involved in ages. They were squeezed out in a very ironic move a long time ago.
One of Iovine's many amazing talents is that he sold Interscope for huge sums and then bought it back for a fraction years later several times. He's kind of a genius at making something with a value of x be accepted as worth either 10 times x or 1/10 x.
PS: Chalk up those "reported" meetings in LA with corporate music industry during the Grammys as having happened.
The main reason Apple buys companies is to bring them in-house because the represent a critical component of an Apple product.
With Beats, Apple gets patented speaker technology and streaming audio. Beats may have also had other breakthroughs that no one knows about for all that money. I know that Apple spends every dollar as if it was their last.
This could enhance iTunes and iPhones, AppleTV, iPods, Macs, iPads
Wow... almost every single Apple product could be enhanced by Beats; not to mention iTV.
All I can say is that I trust Apple to spend their money wisely.
As others have indicated, the only conceivable reason for this acquisition that I can see would entail content and streaming rights, and perhaps some technology tied to creating curated playlists. By all accounts, the Beats radio service is a serious contender, and the curation seems better dialed into how listeners mix and match artists and genres. Some of the mergers and partnerships out there that on the surface do not make much sense, like the Dish/Blockbuster merger, will also include extensive content rights that the media misses.
Some of the oft-noted criticisms of iTunes Radio are that it might not create relevant playlists, it repeats a lot of songs, and might mismatch genres. With the Beats streaming service, they seem to have gotten a lot of things right from the outset, and Apple might be trying to tap into that. But, how would this tie into iTunes and the iOS ecosystem, given that many of the subscribers use Beats streaming on other platforms? Also, $3 billion is quite steep for what Beats offers.
I just can't see Apple though acquiring Beats for their headphone and Bluetooth speaker lines. While they are well-marketed and sell well with high margins, they also do not have a good reputation for performance and value. Also, Beats has diluted the brand by licensing it to HTC smartphones and HP PCs. Stuff like this would seem to cheapen Apple's brand image. Also, I thought that Beats Audio was a joint venture with Monster Cable (another company known for peddling high priced products with marginal quality) -- where are they in the discussion?
For my listenings, the Beats headphones are a mess. I much prefer the Grados, which sound great and are handmade in Brooklyn.
Comments
Right ... I forgot that ...
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/apple-beats-best-idea-since-ipad/
Wired thinks it's Apple's best idea since the iPad. Basically argue that Apple needs to get the "cool" factor back and this is the way to do it.
I think that this is the single worst rumor that I've ever read since joining this site.
No, Monster hasn't been involved in ages. They were squeezed out in a very ironic move a long time ago.
One of Iovine's many amazing talents is that he sold Interscope for huge sums and then bought it back for a fraction years later several times. He's kind of a genius at making something with a value of x be accepted as worth either 10 times x or 1/10 x.
PS: Chalk up those "reported" meetings in LA with corporate music industry during the Grammys as having happened.
I’d be fine with Apple buying it just to get it out of Facebook’s hands.
At least that would be worth it, since that tech is definitely going to be useful in the future.
After Apple locks up Beats they can snap up Monster Cable. These premium brands will really help Apple's image. \s
I believe their sales last year were $1.2B. What were Nest and WhatsApp sales last year?
As the Time article pointed out, Apple makes smaller company acquisitions. This would be "out of character" for Apple and it makes little sense.
Wired thinks it's Apple's best idea since the iPad. Basically argue that Apple needs to get the "cool" factor back and this is the way to do it.
http://www.wired.com/2014/05/apple-beats-best-idea-since-ipad/
They're not known for their business savvy.
Netflix: Not a chance. It's a money pit.
Yahoo: Never want to be an ISP
Beats: Doubt this one as well. Apple won't pay much over fair market valuation, never mind 3x.
Apple is building tools for Producers to create 3rd party products, in various markets.
Headphone market is not a big one.
The main reason Apple buys companies is to bring them in-house because the represent a critical component of an Apple product.
With Beats, Apple gets patented speaker technology and streaming audio. Beats may have also had other breakthroughs that no one knows about for all that money. I know that Apple spends every dollar as if it was their last.
This could enhance iTunes and iPhones, AppleTV, iPods, Macs, iPads
Wow... almost every single Apple product could be enhanced by Beats; not to mention iTV.
All I can say is that I trust Apple to spend their money wisely.
Time will tell.
People, Apple wants Beats for its MUSIC SUBSCRIPTION SERVICE.
It's an absolutely crucial purchase, and one that'll fast-track a much needed iTunes streaming music service.
Apple needs to get into the music streaming game quickly before Spotify takes over the market.
Beats' streaming system and curating service is something iTunes lacks, so I hope the seal happens.
Streaming service technology.
Seems like this is probably about "Daisy / MOG". Not about a pair of headphones.
http://www.thembj.org/2013/03/the-promise-of-daisy/
I am looking forward to referring to him as "Billionaire Dr. Dre."
As others have indicated, the only conceivable reason for this acquisition that I can see would entail content and streaming rights, and perhaps some technology tied to creating curated playlists. By all accounts, the Beats radio service is a serious contender, and the curation seems better dialed into how listeners mix and match artists and genres. Some of the mergers and partnerships out there that on the surface do not make much sense, like the Dish/Blockbuster merger, will also include extensive content rights that the media misses.
Some of the oft-noted criticisms of iTunes Radio are that it might not create relevant playlists, it repeats a lot of songs, and might mismatch genres. With the Beats streaming service, they seem to have gotten a lot of things right from the outset, and Apple might be trying to tap into that. But, how would this tie into iTunes and the iOS ecosystem, given that many of the subscribers use Beats streaming on other platforms? Also, $3 billion is quite steep for what Beats offers.
I just can't see Apple though acquiring Beats for their headphone and Bluetooth speaker lines. While they are well-marketed and sell well with high margins, they also do not have a good reputation for performance and value. Also, Beats has diluted the brand by licensing it to HTC smartphones and HP PCs. Stuff like this would seem to cheapen Apple's brand image. Also, I thought that Beats Audio was a joint venture with Monster Cable (another company known for peddling high priced products with marginal quality) -- where are they in the discussion?
For my listenings, the Beats headphones are a mess. I much prefer the Grados, which sound great and are handmade in Brooklyn.
Of course . iTunes in an $8 BILLION/year business. Streaming could drive that figure higher.
And that's worth $3B?
Of course . iTunes in an $8 BILLION/year business. Streaming could drive that figure higher.
What does Beats streaming have that Apple already doesn't have for streaming that is worth anything, much less $3.2 billion?
Wut? Makes no sense to me...