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.
Apple passes on Oculus and buys garbage headphones and a horrible streaming service instead.
Tim Cook really needs to go. AAPL stock is gonna take another battering just as it got close to $600 again. Ugh.
I'd like to see them buy Tesla so Musk can replace Cook.
Why would Apple want Oculus? VR is for tech nerds just like Google glass is. And what's garbage about Beats streaming music? From what I've heard they do a very good job at music curation and that's something Apple is not very good at.
Totally agree. Personally, I think apple should be acquiring Bang&Olufsen instead. The brand has valuable expertise in building high-end speakers, headphones and TVs with beautiful design and decent quality.
Can you listen to any song, any artist, any album at any time with no commercials and unlimited skips?
What songs aren't available?
What artists aren't available?
What albums aren't available?
Both services are supported by ads with their free versions.
Both services have limited skips with their free versions.
If you want to pay $180 a year for unlimited skips go right ahead. No one is saying that option isn't worth $180 a year unlimited skips for you but I personally like to not have to skip music which is why I like to own my music which is why I'll never pay for a music rental service.
On the surface, this doesn’t make much sense to me. I can’t see Apple keeping the “Beats” brand around for headphones. If Apple wanted to sell expensive high-end headphones, they don’t need to spend $3 billion. The Beats streaming service is interesting, but can’t Apple do that on its own, as an expansion of the iTunes Music Store and iTunes Radio? And it’s not like Beats Music is even popular (at least yet) — Peter Kafka reports they only have 200,000 subscribers.
Nothing from Beats looks like Apple. Not the brand, not the hardware. If this report is true, and Apple keeps the brand, how does that work? When is the last time Apple sold anything that wasn’t under its own brand? Filemaker is the only thing that comes to mind, and the origins of that arrangement are downright prehistoric. And if Apple doesn’t keep the Beats brand, what are they paying for?
I don’t get it.
The only thing that makes sense is Apple wants to shake up iTunes and they're going to use Beats executives to do it. But I still don't get how that's worth $3B.
What songs aren't available?
What artists aren't available?
What albums aren't available?
Both services are supported by ads with their free versions.
Both services have limited skips with their free versions.
If you want to pay $180 a year for unlimited skips go right ahead. No one is saying that option isn't worth $180 a year unlimited skips for you, but I personally like to not have to skip music which is why I like to own my music which is why I'll never pay for a music rental service.
You can't listen to any song you want on demand with iTunes. That's why I pay $10/mo for Spotify.
Aside from this being zero about headphones, it's also probably barely about streaming or technology. Iovine is a magician on a level that Apple has no one to compare, though they used to. He's not only constantly ahead of the curve but he's been practically printing his own money for decades. Does Apple really need his product? No. Do they need him? Not as much as they want to prevent him from turning another company with deep pockets into the hot music go-to site. Iovine creates for a music public the way Jobs did for a consumer computer one. The whole path of Interscope and Beats has been a story that only he could have manuvered, and he's probably worth more than almost anyone at any company. He's one of the few people who could truly create for whatever he ends up in what Jobs did for Apple.
You can't listen to any song you want on demand with iTunes. That's why I pay $10/mo for Spotify.
Right, that's because it's a music rental service, not a streaming service like Pandora or ITunes Radio. Nothing wrong with you wanting to rent your music but the question still remains why people think Spotify is something Apple can't possibly comprehend unless it buys another music rental service?
Let's not forget that many years ago the music labels tried to force Apple to go that route and Steve Jobs brilliantly told them why it would fail. Apple hasn't simply gotten lucky all these years so this notion that Apple can't understand a music rental service model is ridiculous.
This would be an absolutely dumb move on Apple's part, especially at this price.
I don't think this will come to pass. Cook is too smart and disciplined for something like this.
What does music online service have to do with a company who started off building headphones (HW)? Nothing, right? Well, bam.. out of nowhere a Headphones (HW) company get into the music services ("Cloud" w/ client SW development) business. There is obviously more to Beats than a bunch of guys who want to compete in headphones biz. We have no idea what Beats showed Apple to justify such a high price, was it just what we have seen thus for or did they show them something which has not yet come to market (yet to be announced)?.
No one knows. However, if anyone thinks Apple goes around easily over spending money on acquisitions they have not been paying attention.
Doubt anyone has enough inside info right to characterize this are good deal or bad. However, everything we know about Apple thus far indicates they value their cash.
What songs aren't available?
What artists aren't available?
What albums aren't available?
Both services are supported by ads with their free versions.
Both services have limited skips with their free versions.
If you want to pay $180 a year for unlimited skips go right ahead. No one is saying that option isn't worth $180 a year unlimited skips for you but I personally like to not have to skip music which is why I like to own my music which is why I'll never pay for a music rental service.
That's the point of the Beats streaming service. To listen to whatever you want. I don't know where you got $180 per year as pay slightly less than $100 for Google Music All Access.
I don't want to spend $10-$15 for one album when I can spend $8 per month for everything.
Comments
God, Cook is ruining Apple!
Thanks for the stupid comment. We can't have a thread go without one.
What are they?
Apple passes on Oculus and buys garbage headphones and a horrible streaming service instead.
Tim Cook really needs to go. AAPL stock is gonna take another battering just as it got close to $600 again. Ugh.
I'd like to see them buy Tesla so Musk can replace Cook.
Dwight Schrute’s ears perked up, I’ll bet.
Thanks for the stupid comment. We can't have a thread go without one.
That’s it. I’m assembling a list of taglines I’d like to see randomly cycle at the top of each page.
Beats acquisition? Maybe but I doubt it, especially at 3.2B.
USA Today has confirmed through their own sources that this is not a rumor.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/08/report-apple-to-acquire-beats/8868913/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/08/report-apple-to-acquire-beats/8868913/
…could be…
…not authorized to speak about it…
…could represent…
Should the acquisition go through…
What’s “not a rumor” about it, exactly?
Totally agree. Personally, I think apple should be acquiring Bang&Olufsen instead. The brand has valuable expertise in building high-end speakers, headphones and TVs with beautiful design and decent quality.
pic.twitter.com/uBIbTjLpqJ
Beats has reputation as trendy and higher end.
It might be trendy with the tone deaf hip hop crowd, but I wouldn't say that it's high end.
Beats Audio was even included on some Android phones, that's hardly high end.
Apple is high end, and I don't view Beats as high end at all. I believe that it would tarnish the Apple brand.
Can you listen to any song, any artist, any album at any time with no commercials and unlimited skips?
What songs aren't available?
What artists aren't available?
What albums aren't available?
Both services are supported by ads with their free versions.
Both services have limited skips with their free versions.
If you want to pay $180 a year for unlimited skips go right ahead. No one is saying that option isn't worth $180 a year unlimited skips for you but I personally like to not have to skip music which is why I like to own my music which is why I'll never pay for a music rental service.
This would be an absolutely dumb move on Apple's part, especially at this price.
I don't think this will come to pass. Cook is too smart and disciplined for something like this.
http://daringfireball.net
The only thing that makes sense is Apple wants to shake up iTunes and they're going to use Beats executives to do it. But I still don't get how that's worth $3B.
Right, that's because it's a music rental service, not a streaming service like Pandora or ITunes Radio. Nothing wrong with you wanting to rent your music but the question still remains why people think Spotify is something Apple can't possibly comprehend unless it buys another music rental service?
Let's not forget that many years ago the music labels tried to force Apple to go that route and Steve Jobs brilliantly told them why it would fail. Apple hasn't simply gotten lucky all these years so this notion that Apple can't understand a music rental service model is ridiculous.
This would be an absolutely dumb move on Apple's part, especially at this price.
I don't think this will come to pass. Cook is too smart and disciplined for something like this.
What does music online service have to do with a company who started off building headphones (HW)? Nothing, right? Well, bam.. out of nowhere a Headphones (HW) company get into the music services ("Cloud" w/ client SW development) business. There is obviously more to Beats than a bunch of guys who want to compete in headphones biz. We have no idea what Beats showed Apple to justify such a high price, was it just what we have seen thus for or did they show them something which has not yet come to market (yet to be announced)?.
No one knows. However, if anyone thinks Apple goes around easily over spending money on acquisitions they have not been paying attention.
Doubt anyone has enough inside info right to characterize this are good deal or bad. However, everything we know about Apple thus far indicates they value their cash.
That's the point of the Beats streaming service. To listen to whatever you want. I don't know where you got $180 per year as pay slightly less than $100 for Google Music All Access.
I don't want to spend $10-$15 for one album when I can spend $8 per month for everything.