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.
Well you tell us why they want Beats then. I can't believe its because they want to get into the overpriced headphones accessories business.
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.
You never answer my questions.
What songs aren't available?
What artists aren't available?
What albums aren't available?
You ignored the comments about Spotify being irrily similar to the streaming music model with their free service.
Both services are supported by ads with their free versions.
Both services have limited skips with their free versions.
The $180 is based on previous comments of $15 per month and now i'm reading $10 and $8. Either way, why do I want to pay $96-180 per year for a music rental model when I am not paying that per year on purchasing CDs or tracks? Again, no one is saying that model is a dandy for you and your ilk but don't insinuate it's the best model for everyone.
Finally, and once again, what does Beats offer Apple in terms of music rental that it can't already do on its own? You previously suggested Apple doesn't have access to the right artists, albums and songs to make that happen. You want to elaborate on that?
Well you tell us why they want Beats then. I can't believe its because they want to get into the overpriced headphones accessories business.
That's a serious question? If so, then WTF?! I've been asking how this rumour could possibly be true and now you're suggesting that if I can't prove to you that the rumour must be true it nullifies any point I might have about its validity thereby making it true? Talk about an argumentative fallacy.
After all this news about Beats and about Beats chief Jimmy Iovine joining Apple, I'm pretty sure that Cook is Apple's Ballmer. He will screw this company harder than Ballmer did Microsoft. We can only hope that board fires Cook and doesn't wait for too long like Microsoft's board did.
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.
Oh, please. Not for more than $3 billion. Ain't gonna happen.
That's a serious question? If so, then WTF?! I've been asking how this rumour could possibly be true and now you're suggesting that if I can't prove to you that the rumour must be true it nullifies any point I might have about its validity thereby making it true? Talk about an argumentative fallacy.
No, I'm just saying I think the only reason this deal makes any sense is streaming music aspect. Maybe Jimmy Iovine will come on board and be tasked to reimagine iTunes. But iI still consider it a head scratcher. Obviously the rumor is legit otherwise Apple would have denied it by now,
Om Malik was pretty scathing in his opinion of the deal.
Buying Beats is a good sign that Apple is pretty much out of ideas and unable to come up with an anti-Spotify strategy,” tweeted Om Malik, veteran tech writer turned venture-capital investor, damning Beats’ products as “bad headphones and a junk-service from music promoters”.
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.
What are they?
The things that are talked about in the two articles.
I could imagine merging these things with Siri technologies for an extremely compelling curated music experience. Unlike what others (or Apple) offer today.
I’ll never understand this. $8 a month for all eternity makes more sense than buying what you want?
Because I have a vast taste for different types of music. If I bought everything I wanted to listen to or do listen to over the course of my day to day life, I would end up spending thousands of dollars.
When I run/workout it's a different type when I clean or I'm relaxing or have friends over or so on and so on. Also, when someone talks about something I haven't heard of before, I can now listen to it right then and there and the entire catalog.
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.
You're overarching. No one is saying they can't. No one is saying they need to buy Beats so they can.
More comments to file under "WTF?!" We get rumours about Apple every day. This is a fucking website that mostly deals with Apple rumours and you're trying to tell us that Apple has issued a statement to every single one of these BS rumours? :no:
Beats offers nothing to Apple, the brand images are nearly polar, and their "technology" is nothing Apple couldn't create in house. Their music streaming service is weak and has little market share.
Buying would be an utter failure, especially at 3.2 B.
For sake...don't these rumors get filtered?
The brand images are nowhere near on opposite ends of the spectrum. They're extremely similar and I think that Apple buying Beats would make perfect sense and be a good fit. Apple products and Beats headphones are both marketed to the premium, fashion forward, consumer market. They are both extremely popular and I suspect both have high profit margins on their hardware (we know Apple does, I suspect Beats does as well). I agree that it's is nothing that Apple couldn't create in house, but as mentioned, they wouldn't be getting those licensing deals for streaming and there's the fact that they wouldnt need to create a competitor if they can buy an already established and successful brand. It's possible that they can even make a few changes and release new Beats headphones with "cochlea sound" (to go with their retina display). Granted that marketing phrase isn't as catchy, but I'm not a marketing guy. Surely Apple can come up with a catchier term then me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub
I thought HTC owned a bit of BEATS? Or is this old news?
I only read about the history behind Monster Inc and Beats and how they are not an entity.
Comments
I’ll never understand this. $8 a month for all eternity makes more sense than buying what you want?
You never answer my questions.
You ignored the comments about Spotify being irrily similar to the streaming music model with their free service.
The $180 is based on previous comments of $15 per month and now i'm reading $10 and $8. Either way, why do I want to pay $96-180 per year for a music rental model when I am not paying that per year on purchasing CDs or tracks? Again, no one is saying that model is a dandy for you and your ilk but don't insinuate it's the best model for everyone.
Finally, and once again, what does Beats offer Apple in terms of music rental that it can't already do on its own? You previously suggested Apple doesn't have access to the right artists, albums and songs to make that happen. You want to elaborate on that?
That's a serious question? If so, then WTF?! I've been asking how this rumour could possibly be true and now you're suggesting that if I can't prove to you that the rumour must be true it nullifies any point I might have about its validity thereby making it true? Talk about an argumentative fallacy.
After all this news about Beats and about Beats chief Jimmy Iovine joining Apple, I'm pretty sure that Cook is Apple's Ballmer. He will screw this company harder than Ballmer did Microsoft. We can only hope that board fires Cook and doesn't wait for too long like Microsoft's board did.
Oh, please. Not for more than $3 billion. Ain't gonna happen.
I thought HTC owned a bit of BEATS? Or is this old news?
I only read about the history behind Monster Inc and Beats and how they are not an entity.
http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world
Om Malik was pretty scathing in his opinion of the deal.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/030d08f4-d70e-11e3-b95e-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz31BWhKd7i
Buying Beats is a good sign that Apple is pretty much out of ideas and unable to come up with an anti-Spotify strategy,” tweeted Om Malik, veteran tech writer turned venture-capital investor, damning Beats’ products as “bad headphones and a junk-service from music promoters”.
Ouch.
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.
What are they?
The things that are talked about in the two articles.
I could imagine merging these things with Siri technologies for an extremely compelling curated music experience. Unlike what others (or Apple) offer today.
Because I have a vast taste for different types of music. If I bought everything I wanted to listen to or do listen to over the course of my day to day life, I would end up spending thousands of dollars.
When I run/workout it's a different type when I clean or I'm relaxing or have friends over or so on and so on. Also, when someone talks about something I haven't heard of before, I can now listen to it right then and there and the entire catalog.
If I keep buying albums for all eternity, then the renting option would be much cheaper.
Every month, for the rest of my life, I can pay $8 to listen to anything I want.
Or, every month, for the rest of my life, I can spend $80 buying new albums.
Depends if you want to listen to lots of new music
I'd prefer to own. Coz one day dotify will end and my subscription downloads will error.
But renting is heaps heaps cheaper for me.
So yes I'd like iTunes Radio to improve do I can chose the music it plays. Let me be my own dj.
More likely, it is a BS rumor.
You're overarching. No one is saying they can't. No one is saying they need to buy Beats so they can.
We're just saying they don't, and they should.
Do you think they’d comment to the negative on anything they weren’t doing short of developing antimatter warheads?
More comments to file under "WTF?!" We get rumours about Apple every day. This is a fucking website that mostly deals with Apple rumours and you're trying to tell us that Apple has issued a statement to every single one of these BS rumours? :no:
What?! This rumor is clearly false.
Beats offers nothing to Apple, the brand images are nearly polar, and their "technology" is nothing Apple couldn't create in house. Their music streaming service is weak and has little market share.
Buying would be an utter failure, especially at 3.2 B.
For sake...don't these rumors get filtered?
The brand images are nowhere near on opposite ends of the spectrum. They're extremely similar and I think that Apple buying Beats would make perfect sense and be a good fit. Apple products and Beats headphones are both marketed to the premium, fashion forward, consumer market. They are both extremely popular and I suspect both have high profit margins on their hardware (we know Apple does, I suspect Beats does as well). I agree that it's is nothing that Apple couldn't create in house, but as mentioned, they wouldn't be getting those licensing deals for streaming and there's the fact that they wouldnt need to create a competitor if they can buy an already established and successful brand. It's possible that they can even make a few changes and release new Beats headphones with "cochlea sound" (to go with their retina display). Granted that marketing phrase isn't as catchy, but I'm not a marketing guy. Surely Apple can come up with a catchier term then me.
I thought HTC owned a bit of BEATS? Or is this old news?
I only read about the history behind Monster Inc and Beats and how they are not an entity.
http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world
HTC and Beats parted ways awhile back. HTC sold all their shares back to Beats last fall.