Rumor: Beats CEO in talks to join Apple as 'special advisor' to Tim Cook

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 73
    bandman999bandman999 Posts: 24member
    Wouldn't acquiring Beats infringe on Apple's promise to Apple Records not to impede in their business?
  • Reply 62 of 73
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    A lot of people like Beats Audio including myself although I am a Sennheiser fan.  
    They currently have over 50% of the premium market and it's not just because of fashion, the headphones sound good.
    More importantly, the contracts for Beats Music are worth a fortune and are not easy to get even if you have the money.

    There are a few things companies like Apple gladly pay for if it fits their need:
    1.  Cost savings   (How much would it cost to do from scratch)
    2.  Regulatory / Legal hurdles  (How hard would it be to negotiate the contracts if at all possible)
    3.  Current Major Business initiative alignment  (Does it fit their current initiative to revamp iTunes / iOS)

    If you think about it, Beats covers all 3 of these categories for Apple and that makes it a no brainer.
    Not to mention, time is money and Beats is already successful and very well connected.
    You lost me at "the headphones sound good". The future is the cloud yet Apple is buying a company that makes overpriced plastic headphones, a company whose value is all brand/marketing and little valuable technology IP. When CNBC says it's all about the headphones that signals to me Cook is looking for an easy way to add a cash cow to Apple's portfolio.
  • Reply 63 of 73
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

     

    Oh, give me a fucking break with all the sensationalism. I don't think many people really give a shit how "cool" Apple's execs are, as long as they're the best for the job and develop great products. "Dull as dirt"? Not quite. The products have always been the star of the show, and Apple keynotes are still by FAR the most exciting in tech. Apple's execs arent the most charismatic people on the planet, but they certainly dont "stink" as far as tech execs go- They're still more charismatic and sincere than most. 




      But here's the thing:  What we love about Apple and how wildly successful their successes are is clear.  But their music service(s) are not the Gorilla In The Room that we assumed a decade ago they'd be now.  In fact, quite the opposite.  From having two daughters (and jillions more at work) I'm around lots of young people and their music and iTunes is, regardless of what any numbers say, is not regarded as being cool and current.  Forget about how it compares feature-wise, they're not using it to obtain their music nearly as much as the hipper seeming services.  Seriously, I see use splintered among all the popular streaming/renting/discovery services and iTunes barely pokes its head through.  Again, there may be numbers that show its popularity, but if you asked 100 people on the street what they use you'd get everything but iTunes.  This is just an area where it's not that Apple needs someone else's technology, it's just that other people have come along and done it better, or done a better twist on it.  

     

    Apple is excellent at looking amazing to us, its devotees.  But to kids Apple is the fogey and the others are the new thing.   

     

      One of my favorite Jimmy Iovine quotes about music producing (he produced great Springsteen, Petty, Stevie Nicks, Dire Straits albums among many, many others)  though I can't quote it so I'll paraphrase, is "I don't produce for myself.  I don't make things I want to buy.  I make records for the people who spend their money on records."   He is completely tapped into the market of who has been spending music dollars for the past decade.  Apple is not.  Apple's market is the whole world and everybody, and as a result they lost the certain sector of kids and young adults who want something they feel speaks to them.

  • Reply 64 of 73
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    snova wrote: »
    Then wouldn't it be prudent to not say so in your post?   again, looks like more and more like you are trying to gracefully back away from eating crow.

    Im done.  For a guy you tries very hard to look open minded, you failed today.   Very uncharacteristic of you and surprising.  I'm very surprised.

    I'm also rather surprised... because I (very!) highly respect Soli as one of the best commentators here at AI... or any website for that matter... and why I many times take the necessary time to go through the comments in the first place.
  • Reply 65 of 73
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    philboogie wrote: »
    (just trying to lighten the thread up, if that's possible)
    Great¡ Now I hear Sheena Eastons' Sugar Walls in my head...
    Good point. Concise. I like it.

    Thanks a lot Phil ¡... now I got Bootylicious swirling around in mine....! :smokey:
  • Reply 66 of 73
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,671member
    Thanks a lot Phil ¡... now I got Bootylicious swirling around in mine....! :smokey:

    From Destiny's Child? YT gives me nothing, as I don't have Flash installed. I'll check it out on my iPad later...
  • Reply 67 of 73
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    jlandd wrote: »

      But here's the thing:  What we love about Apple and how wildly successful their successes are is clear.  But their music service(s) are not the Gorilla In The Room that we assumed a decade ago they'd be now.  In fact, quite the opposite.  From having two daughters (and jillions more at work) I'm around lots of young people and their music and iTunes is, regardless of what any numbers say, is not regarded as being cool and current.  Forget about how it compares feature-wise, they're not using it to obtain their music nearly as much as the hipper seeming services.  Seriously, I see use splintered among all the popular streaming/renting/discovery services and iTunes barely pokes its head through.  Again, there may be numbers that show its popularity, but if you asked 100 people on the street what they use you'd get everything but iTunes.  This is just an area where it's not that Apple needs someone else's technology, it's just that other people have come along and done it better, or done a better twist on it.  

    Apple is excellent at looking amazing to us, its devotees.  But to kids Apple is the fogey and the others are the new thing.   

      One of my favorite Jimmy Iovine quotes about music producing (he produced great Springsteen, Petty, Stevie Nicks, Dire Straits albums among many, many others)  though I can't quote it so I'll paraphrase, is "I don't produce for myself.  I don't make things I want to buy.  I make records for the people who spend their money on records."   He is completely tapped into the market of who has been spending music dollars for the past decade.  Apple is not.  Apple's market is the whole world and everybody, and as a result they lost the certain sector of kids and young adults who want something they feel speaks to them.

    Gotta say: this is a very nice post!

    Especially as it relates and speaks to the younger generation of Apple fans, who BTW are growing up almost from Day 1 with Apple devices like iPhones and iPads.
  • Reply 68 of 73
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Let's see...
    Spotify is worth $4 B...
    Pandora is worth $5.4 B...

    $3.2 B for Beats is not so crazy at all...  Plus they have hardware patents that are licensed globally and strong media industry connections...

    I predict that this deal will happen and will be a huge success.

    iTunes is becoming Apple's biggest money maker.

    What hardware patents? Design patents? You don't pay billions for design patents. Doing so would be a rebuke of Jony Ive and Apple's design team.
  • Reply 69 of 73
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    [@]AppleSauce007[/@],

    Your comments are first I've read — despite asking repeatedly — that paints a decent picture as to why Apple would find it beneficial to purchase Beats. Some of your pros seem only superficially plausible, especially considering how long Apple's been distributing music and making headphones compared to Beats existence, but you've intrigued me.
  • Reply 70 of 73
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     



      But here's the thing:  What we love about Apple and how wildly successful their successes are is clear.  But their music service(s) are not the Gorilla In The Room that we assumed a decade ago they'd be now.  In fact, quite the opposite.  From having two daughters (and jillions more at work) I'm around lots of young people and their music and iTunes is, regardless of what any numbers say, is not regarded as being cool and current.  Forget about how it compares feature-wise, they're not using it to obtain their music nearly as much as the hipper seeming services.  Seriously, I see use splintered among all the popular streaming/renting/discovery services and iTunes barely pokes its head through.  Again, there may be numbers that show its popularity, but if you asked 100 people on the street what they use you'd get everything but iTunes.  This is just an area where it's not that Apple needs someone else's technology, it's just that other people have come along and done it better, or done a better twist on it.  

     

    Apple is excellent at looking amazing to us, its devotees.  But to kids Apple is the fogey and the others are the new thing.   

     

      One of my favorite Jimmy Iovine quotes about music producing (he produced great Springsteen, Petty, Stevie Nicks, Dire Straits albums among many, many others)  though I can't quote it so I'll paraphrase, is "I don't produce for myself.  I don't make things I want to buy.  I make records for the people who spend their money on records."   He is completely tapped into the market of who has been spending music dollars for the past decade.  Apple is not.  Apple's market is the whole world and everybody, and as a result they lost the certain sector of kids and young adults who want something they feel speaks to them.


     

    I don't buy this at all.

     

    If your market share is growing it doesn't matter from which sector it comes. Why trip over dollars to pick up dimes.

     

    Streaming services are Apple's big threat to iTunes. Being hip and cool is irrelevant, as long as your share and revenues/profits are increasing.

     

    All digital music services are being threatened by streaming services.

  • Reply 71 of 73
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member
    I'll believe all of this when the sources aren't the NY Post and Financial Times
  • Reply 72 of 73
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    snova wrote: »
    Makes even more sense if Apple buys Beats as a wholly owned subsidiary.   keeps licenses and successful brand in place, while Apple pulls the puppet strings in their favor. 

    Why does this cost over $3 billion?
    For all those doubters, all I got to say, is evidence continues to mount from different media sources.

    What evidence? More articles about a rumour is not evidence.
    Still think its an absurd rumor? 

    I said it's unsubstantiated and that I would like an explanation as what Apple would get for that purchase that it can't do it itself. So far no one has been able to even begin to answer that question and looking at what HTC paid for it over a 50% share, what HTC was paid to give up all it's shares, and knowledge of Apple's history of mergers and acquisitions it would be a unique occurrence in their history if Apple were to buy Beats for $3.2 billion dollars.

    You answered that, yourself, in the earlier thread:

    Creative understanding of the music business -- and 40 plus years of experience, connections, contacts -- plus the streaming licenses with the record companies -- something Apple, Jobs, Cook, Cue, et al have never been able to accomplish. Iovine, himself, is an executive of a record company!

    In the words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy ..."
  • Reply 73 of 73
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    You answered that, yourself, in the earlier thread:

    Creative understanding of the music business -- and 40 plus years of experience, connections, contacts -- plus the streaming licenses with the record companies -- something Apple, Jobs, Cook, Cue, et al have never been able to accomplish. Iovine, himself, is an executive of a record company!

    In the words of Pogo: "We have met the enemy ..."

    That was from last night before the new information was posted and is exactly the type of information I was asking for which weirdly made [@]snova[/@] upset that anyone would inquire as to "why" instead of blindly accepting something as factual solely on the basis of his excitement level.

    I still don't see how that curation process is worth over $3 billion but at least we finally have information about what Beats can offer Apple that Apple may find impossible to build itself in a reasonable amount of time.
Sign In or Register to comment.