Apple's rumored Beats buyout baffles pundits & analysts alike

1246789

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 162
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I know, it's crazy... right?
    Apple spending $3.2B for a brand is crazy. Especially a brand that a lot of people consider to be overpriced crap. Must have been some snow job by Jimmy Iovine and Dr Dre.
  • Reply 62 of 162
    gprovidagprovida Posts: 258member
    Eddy Cue is very media savy. Therefore, I suspect there is a lot more to this than currently reported.
  • Reply 63 of 162
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    Apple spending $3.2B for a brand is crazy. Especially a brand that a lot of people consider to be overpriced crap. Must have been some snow job by Jimmy Iovine and Dr Dre.

     

    ... because Apple's brand needs rescuing.

  • Reply 64 of 162
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    ... because Apple's brand needs rescuing.
    And Beats is the company to do it? :no:
  • Reply 65 of 162
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    ... because Apple's brand needs rescuing.

    Where's the "s/"?
  • Reply 66 of 162
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,874member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RalphMouth View Post

     

    First impression: worst deal by Tim Cook ever.

     

    I don't really see the synergy between Apple and Beats. Apple is known for producing quality hardware and Beats has second rate headphones. If Apple is after their streaming music service, John Gruber claims the licenses aren't transferable. Maybe he is wrong. Beats is certainly being overvalued in this deal and is not worth $3 Billion.

     

    I need to seriously consider unloading my positions in AAPL now.


     

    Why? Google and Microsoft make dumb deals like this everyday, and I think buying Beats is a utter waste of money if true. No different than Apple buying Twitter, Netflix, Box or Dropbox. Spending money on any company where you already have the capacity in house is a waste.

  • Reply 67 of 162
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    And Beats is the company to do it? image

     

    LOL!

     

    You know I was joking, right?

  • Reply 68 of 162
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    Where's the "s/"?

     

    There are some statements that don't require an /s tag. They are so ludicrous that even if the person is serious it is still ridiculous.

  • Reply 69 of 162
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,874member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gprovida View Post



    Eddy Cue is very media savy. Therefore, I suspect there is a lot more to this than currently reported.

     

    Eddy Cue isn't media savvy that's the problem, streaming radio within iTunes is a joke. Preset radio stations that you can't get rid of and if someone knows please tell.

  • Reply 70 of 162
    sog35 wrote: »
    Samsung spends $14B a year on advertising and marketing.Also, the politics of the Beats brand sustainability runs counter to apples brand message.

    think about that and what the Beats line will do for Apple's image with urban youth

    Urban youth who can afford beats are most likely buying or desire to buy apple products.
    Plus, beats brand strength stems from its constant, conspicuous association with basketball and hip hop stars. It would be nearly impassible for apple to psychologically merge the beats brand audience w theirs unless apple continues to make marketing deals with NBA and hip hop.
  • Reply 71 of 162
    island hermitisland hermit Posts: 6,217member

    By the way, I read that Beats' contracts are not expected to be transferred in the deal.

  • Reply 72 of 162
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member

    All the armchair quarterbacks are out in force to comment on this RUMOR. Analysts are falling all over themselves to explain, condemn, tout, or reverse engineer the RUMOR. When it turns out to be just a RUMOR then we’ll see the same goon squad writing screeds as to why the RUMORED deal fell through, how Apple once again screwed something up and is doomed.

     

    Does that about sum it up as to what’s going on here? Oh, and this thread is quite humorous in its pontificating bloviation. 

  • Reply 73 of 162
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by nathanimal View Post



    Just want to point out that no deal has been officially announced...

     

    That’s because there is no deal to be announced.

  • Reply 74 of 162
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,874member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

     

     

    Then Tim Cook has lost his mind... imho.


     

    He must have, I still have the Apple Hi Fi, and it still works and sounds great I still can't get rid it because it won't die, use the people in house who designed the (Apple Hi Fi) to built headphones for 100 million dollars.

  • Reply 75 of 162
    danoxdanox Posts: 2,874member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

    All the armchair quarterbacks are out in force to comment on this RUMOR. Analysts are falling all over themselves to explain, condemn, tout, or reverse engineer the RUMOR. When it turns out to be just a RUMOR then we’ll see the same goon squad writing screeds as to why the RUMORED deal fell through, how Apple once again screwed something up and is doomed.

     

    Does that about sum it up as to what’s going on here? Oh, and this thread is quite humorous in its pontificating bloviation. 


     

    Because it is a UTTER WASTE OF RESOURCES.

  • Reply 76 of 162
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member

    Anyone else having flashbacks to when AI members were in a tizzy because Apple would never make a gold colored iPhone?  And then Apple did make a gold colored iPhone and it became the best selling phone in the lineup?

  • Reply 77 of 162
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    droidftw wrote: »
    Anyone else having flashbacks to when AI members were in a tizzy because Apple would never make a gold colored iPhone?  And then Apple did make a gold colored iPhone and it became the best selling phone in the lineup?

    Not quite the same thing, really.
  • Reply 78 of 162
    e1618978e1618978 Posts: 6,075member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AWilliams87 View Post

     

    Apple doesn't buy patents to "prevent" other companies from doing something.




    Yes they do - why do you think that they (and others) bought the Nortel patents?

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Danox View Post

     

    Because it is a UTTER WASTE OF RESOURCES.


     

    Who cares?  $3 billion is three weeks earnings for Apple, not a huge deal.



    What is the P/E for Beats Audio?  I have heard revenue numbers but not earnings.



     

  • Reply 79 of 162
    awilliams87awilliams87 Posts: 264member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by e1618978 View Post

     



    Yes they do - why do you think that they (and others) bought the Nortel patents?

     

     


    The case of the Nortel patents was about the Google/android OEM litigations. It wasn't done to "prevent" companies from doing something. Apple does not, and has not, gone out of their way to stop others from creating things.

  • Reply 80 of 162
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    e1618978 wrote: »

    Yes they do - why do you think that they (and others) bought the Nortel patents?


    Throwing away money on what looks like a dumb deal is bad, no matter how much money is in the bank.
Sign In or Register to comment.