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.
I agree with your evaluation.
If this deal happens, there's more going on than meets the eye ...
What does Beats streaming have that Apple already doesn't have for streaming that is worth anything, much less $3.2 billion?
Apple doesn't have a proper streaming music service or associated label deals. iTunes and its Radio service are nowhere close to a robust streaming service.
Apple needs to completely overhaul iTunes to compete with the likes of Beats and especially Spotify - which is poised to overtake iTunes in a couple of years. iTunes is in dire need of better curating, better algorithms, a lightweight browser-based portal, and so much more to launch a streaming service that can compete with Spotify. And they need it FAST.
The Beats deal is perfect if it happens. Because beats offers a turnkey system that will allow Apple to jump into the game sooner than later.
Reading my twitter feed is really depressed me. I see a lot of tweets from tech journalists and Apple bloggers/pundits that think this rumored deal is Apple wanting the revenue stream from an overpriced, high margin accessory and wanting the Beats brand. And what depresses me is not that they're thinking it but that it could be the reason. Sigh.
Apple doesn't have a proper streaming music service or associated label deals. iTunes and its Radio service are nowhere close to a robust streaming service.
Apple needs to completely overhaul iTunes to compete with the likes of Beats and especially Spotify - which is poised to overtake iTunes in a couple of years. iTunes is in dire need of better curating, better algorithms, a lightweight browser-based portal, and so much more to launch a streaming service that can compete with Spotify. And they need it FAST.
The Beats deal is perfect if it happens. Because beats offers a turnkey system that will allow Apple to jump into the game sooner than later.
Not robust? No proper labels in place? Could you elaborate as why you believe such a thing?
What am I not understanding if iTunes Radio is not a music streaming service like Spotify?
Nothing like it. With Spotify I control what I listen to. Like a song? Listen to the whole album. Then listen to the band's whole catalogue. Then find a related artist and listen to thier catalogue. Download the lot into your phone. And it's only 3 days into the month.
You can't do anything like that on iTunes. Especially with radio.
Spotify is not competing with iTunes Radio. It's competing with iTunes music sales.
It's not the streaming, but the "rent all" rather than "buy one" model that Apple needs to catch up with.
With Spotify I rent everything for $15 a month.
With Apple I can buy 1 album a month for the same.
I don't like subscription models. Who does. But I'll go with renting everything.
iTunes should try to get to a stage where they can offer a subscription service with a rent to buy option: subscribe to buy. Pay $20/month to listen to anything you want, and get 30% discount if you want to buy the drm free version of something so you can own it for ever. I'd go $25 a month easy.
Nothing like it. With Spotify I control what I listen to. Like a song? Listen to the whole album. Then listen to the band's whole catalogue. Then find a related artist and listen to thier catalogue. Download the lot into your phone. And it's only 3 days into the month.
You can't do anything like that on iTunes. Especially with radio.
Spotify is not competing with iTunes Radio. It's competing with iTunes music sales.
It's not the streaming, but the "rent all" rather than "buy one" model that Apple needs to catch up with.
With Spotify I rent everything for $15 a month.
With Apple I can buy 1 album a month for the same.
I don't like subscription models. Who does. But I'll go with renting everything.
iTunes should try to get to a stage where they can offer a subscription service with a rent to buy option: subscribe to buy. Pay $20/month to listen to anything you want, and get 30% discount if you want to buy the drm free version of something so you can own it for ever. I'd go $25 a month easy.
$40/month if it covered movies?
You're conflating different things here as you start off saying that iTunes Radio (which you never properly write) doesn't have some of the features Spotify has and then you jump into this pay v rent model despite iTunes Radio having no pay model. It's entirely add supported unless you have iTunes Match in which case there are no ads.
You can also create personalized stations and stations based on songs or artists but you don't list any of that. No you can't simply listen to the entire album directly that the track is on which would be a benefit for Spotify Premium but that's because it's a musical rental service at that point, as opposed to the music streaming service, like Pandora, which is what I asked about. Is that a benefit? Sure, if one is willing to pay a monthly fee for music they don't own which is by far the biggest complaint against the ITunes Music Store since its inception and yet it has survived and all those music rental services from yesteryear have all died out. Steve Jobs has very good comments about that you should read.
Again, what does Beats have that is worth over $3 billion?
PS: I would never support Spotify after reading it's screwed artists, even if it wasn't a music rental service I had to pay monthly for to get what I want.
PS: I would never support Spotify after reading it's screwed artists, even if it wasn't a music rental service I had to pay monthly for to get what I want.
Okie doke. iTunes Radio doesn't have a paid version except for Match ... so I guess it does?
It's very simple. I'm paying for Match and I can listen to anything Apple feeds me. Why not let me chose what I listen to. Then I'll drop Spotify and come back to iTunes.
And I'm not alone.
Artists getting ripped off does sux, so great if apple can bring it back
And maybe get off your high horse. This is a Internet forum, chill.
That doesn't explain what is worth over $3 billion and what Apple already doesn't have with their streaming music service.
Well, I can't say what is or isn't worth 3b+ to Apple, but yeah seems like there is some tech avenues there that Apple doesn't have access to right now.
We'll see. (Certainly doesn't seem it would be about headphones though)
Beats Electronics boss and veteran music industry executive Jimmy Iovine is in talks to join Apple as a “special adviser” to Tim Cook on creative matters, two sources close to talks tell The Post.
Not really convince it makes sense to me, but if it turns out to be sure, I hope Apple have intention on following:
1. Unique human curated music streaming service. 2. Put aside Beats vs Bose or whatever argument, Apple might want it to be incorporated its speaker audio technology into iTV set to set apart with other TV set. Beats has reputation as trendy and higher end. 3. Apple earphone as part of high end iPhone (Pro) and IPad Pro. 4. Apple iCar Audio, combined with iOS, Carplay and audio system. 5, Incorporated audio tech into its Mac/iDevices.
Okie doke. iTunes Radio doesn't have a paid version except for Match ... so I guess it does?
So Apple raised the price of iTunes Match when they added iTunes Radio to it last year? No! They didn't! You comment is like saying that Pages for Mac costs $3,000 because you get it as a free Mac App Store download is you buy a $3k Mac Pro.
Jimmy Iovine is well connected in the music industry. Dre is Dre. I think the jewel that Apple wants is a turn key music subscription service they can roll out for iOS 8. The thing here is they could roll their own but the hard part would be
getting the curation thing down. Beats Music has all that setup the right way.
I could see Apple selling off the Hardware business since I'm doubtful they really want to push that
area forward.
People justified Google's acquisition of Next through Fadell's hiring. I see similarities here. It's about the product
and talent.
Why not hire Lovine for this expertise instead of making this the largest ever acquisition by Apple simply for the talent of a guy and some residual of IP that Apple already has under its belt?
Comments
I agree with your evaluation.
If this deal happens, there's more going on than meets the eye ...
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?
See my post above.
That doesn't explain what is worth over $3 billion and what Apple already doesn't have with their streaming music service.
What does Beats streaming have that Apple already doesn't have for streaming that is worth anything, much less $3.2 billion?
Apple doesn't have a proper streaming music service or associated label deals. iTunes and its Radio service are nowhere close to a robust streaming service.
Apple needs to completely overhaul iTunes to compete with the likes of Beats and especially Spotify - which is poised to overtake iTunes in a couple of years. iTunes is in dire need of better curating, better algorithms, a lightweight browser-based portal, and so much more to launch a streaming service that can compete with Spotify. And they need it FAST.
The Beats deal is perfect if it happens. Because beats offers a turnkey system that will allow Apple to jump into the game sooner than later.
Not robust? No proper labels in place? Could you elaborate as why you believe such a thing?
Nothing like it. With Spotify I control what I listen to. Like a song? Listen to the whole album. Then listen to the band's whole catalogue. Then find a related artist and listen to thier catalogue. Download the lot into your phone. And it's only 3 days into the month.
You can't do anything like that on iTunes. Especially with radio.
Spotify is not competing with iTunes Radio. It's competing with iTunes music sales.
It's not the streaming, but the "rent all" rather than "buy one" model that Apple needs to catch up with.
With Spotify I rent everything for $15 a month.
With Apple I can buy 1 album a month for the same.
I don't like subscription models. Who does. But I'll go with renting everything.
iTunes should try to get to a stage where they can offer a subscription service with a rent to buy option: subscribe to buy. Pay $20/month to listen to anything you want, and get 30% discount if you want to buy the drm free version of something so you can own it for ever. I'd go $25 a month easy.
$40/month if it covered movies?
You're conflating different things here as you start off saying that iTunes Radio (which you never properly write) doesn't have some of the features Spotify has and then you jump into this pay v rent model despite iTunes Radio having no pay model. It's entirely add supported unless you have iTunes Match in which case there are no ads.
You can also create personalized stations and stations based on songs or artists but you don't list any of that. No you can't simply listen to the entire album directly that the track is on which would be a benefit for Spotify Premium but that's because it's a musical rental service at that point, as opposed to the music streaming service, like Pandora, which is what I asked about. Is that a benefit? Sure, if one is willing to pay a monthly fee for music they don't own which is by far the biggest complaint against the ITunes Music Store since its inception and yet it has survived and all those music rental services from yesteryear have all died out. Steve Jobs has very good comments about that you should read.
Again, what does Beats have that is worth over $3 billion?
PS: I would never support Spotify after reading it's screwed artists, even if it wasn't a music rental service I had to pay monthly for to get what I want.
Beats acquisition? Maybe but I doubt it, especially at 3.2B.
Okie doke. iTunes Radio doesn't have a paid version except for Match ... so I guess it does?
It's very simple. I'm paying for Match and I can listen to anything Apple feeds me. Why not let me chose what I listen to. Then I'll drop Spotify and come back to iTunes.
And I'm not alone.
Artists getting ripped off does sux, so great if apple can bring it back
And maybe get off your high horse. This is a Internet forum, chill.
What's your name, btw.
After thinking about it...it makes perfect sense.
Jimmy Iovine is well connected in the music industry. Dre is Dre.
I think the jewel that Apple wants is a turn key music subscription service they
can roll out for iOS 8. The thing here is they could roll their own but the hard part would be
getting the curation thing down. Beats Music has all that setup the right way.
I could see Apple selling off the Hardware business since I'm doubtful they really want to push that
area forward.
People justified Google's acquisition of Next through Fadell's hiring. I see similarities here. It's about the product
and talent.
See my post above.
That doesn't explain what is worth over $3 billion and what Apple already doesn't have with their streaming music service.
Well, I can't say what is or isn't worth 3b+ to Apple, but yeah seems like there is some tech avenues there that Apple doesn't have access to right now.
We'll see. (Certainly doesn't seem it would be about headphones though)
edit: More. http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyowsinski/2013/07/10/can-beats-daisy-be-a-player-in-the-new-music-world/
http://nypost.com/2014/05/08/beats-electronics-boss-jimmy-iovine-is-in-talks-to-join-apple/
Beats Electronics boss and veteran music industry executive Jimmy Iovine is in talks to join Apple as a “special adviser” to Tim Cook on creative matters, two sources close to talks tell The Post.
1. Unique human curated music streaming service.
2. Put aside Beats vs Bose or whatever argument, Apple might want it to be incorporated its speaker audio technology into iTV set to set apart with other TV set. Beats has reputation as trendy and higher end.
3. Apple earphone as part of high end iPhone (Pro) and IPad Pro.
4. Apple iCar Audio, combined with iOS, Carplay and audio system.
5, Incorporated audio tech into its Mac/iDevices.
Any idea? (assumed Apple does buy it).
And that's worth $3B?
No. The entire industry of streaming, world-wide was just above $1 Billion in a saturated music market that has matured.
So Apple raised the price of iTunes Match when they added iTunes Radio to it last year? No! They didn't! You comment is like saying that Pages for Mac costs $3,000 because you get it as a free Mac App Store download is you buy a $3k Mac Pro.
Why not hire Lovine for this expertise instead of making this the largest ever acquisition by Apple simply for the talent of a guy and some residual of IP that Apple already has under its belt?