Beats headphones are amongst a handful of the very worst sounding. Apple will get slated if they sell these rubbish headphones. First, Apple use poorer quality D-A chips in their flagship iPod Classics, now they expect us to take the acquisition of the company behind the worst headphones as a good move for music reproduction.
Jonathan Ive, you visited my company in London back in the 80's when you were just starting out. Please, please don't fall for the hype surrounding these awful headphones.
Apple has lost considerable value under Cook and I've been critical of him for that. But I think this may be a corporate magic trick, a case of brilliant misdirection. I can't believe Apple will actually purchase Beats for $3.2B. It has to be total BS or there's an aspect to the story nobody publicly knows. It's a square peg in a round hole, simply doesn't fit!
Apple has lost considerable value under Cook and I've been critical of him for that. But I think this may be a corporate magic trick, a case of brilliant misdirection. I can't believe Apple will actually purchase Beats for $3.2B. It has to be total BS or there's an aspect to the story nobody publicly knows. It's a square peg in a round hole, simply doesn't fit!
Why would Dr. Dre and his actor buddy post that video that was subsequently removed? I think something happened.
Completely missed in the discussions- biometrics and the ear as opposed to biometrics and the wrist! I think Apple is very slick and forward thinking. Watch out!
Several weeks ago, I suggested that the ear was possibly key to Apple's wearables, not the iWatch.
The negative press on Apple is incredible! They were criticized for having so much cash and not returning it back to investors. Then they were punished for losing marketshare due to expensive phones. Next they are ridiculed for releasing cheap phones made of plastic. Then there was an uproar on financial engineering to boost stock price. I think shortly thereafter they were criticized for not taking chances and making big purchases like Facebook and google. So today there is an uproar because they spent 3 weeks worth of earnings to buy beats headphones. It's funny to hear people say that apple has tarnished their brand by associating with beats when they have been selling the beats headphones online and in their stores for a while now. They have 160 billion and will make another 10 this quarter. Why are people outraged over this?? We have seen celebrities, athletes, musicians showcase those headphones for years and I have never heard the media attack the brand until Apple got involved. I don't know who they have crossed but this company is public enemy number one!
I was reading a report online recently that said that Beats started to sell well when a majority of the people that bought iPods threw away Apple's included $1 earphones and bought Beats products. Dr. Dre said he was unhappy because he tried to create great hip hop, but Apple's headphones destroyed the experience he was trying to pass on to his fans. So he started Beats, and Beats thanks Apple for those crap earphones, which is what helped to boost the Beats brand originally. Now people aren't only using Beats products with iPods, but also with iPhones. And we know how big a market that is.
I would guess that Apple's marketing space overlaps about 80% of Beats marketing space, but a huge majority of Beats users buy music through iTunes.
Music audiophiles have always complained about digitally compressed music, and they want "clear" sound from their headphones, which they get with Koss, AKG, Audio-Technica etc. They want audiophile recordings, and expensive branded gear. This is why all the analysts fail to understand what is going down with this deal, because most of them live in this world. They don't want to hear music with bass unless it's coming from a cello, double bass, or a saxophone.
Youngsters, many who have probably never heard music that wasn't compressed or wasn't created with Autotune, don't know that music can sound better than that, and they certainly don't want "clear" music. They buy most of the music that is sold today, and they want a heavy bass beat, and they get that by buying music with iTunes, and listening through Beats products. For this crowd, Apple and Beats are like peanut butter and jam. Each of these is good by itself, but they go together naturally, and create a completely different taste, a taste that many can't live without. That is a lifestyle marketer's dream, and both these companies are experts when it comes to this kind of marketing.
It was a joke about the printers... so I guess I was being sarcastic. I'm just not sure if it's for the same reason attributed by you.
I took it as sarcasm, because back in the day, the Apple LW's were some great stable printers. It took quite a long time after Apple stopped producing them to find one on the market that was just as reliable and printed as well.
Beats was in pursuit of spreading 24/96 audio as the new standard, something Apple was recently rumored as doing. It does seem like a lot of $$ to get a competitor out of that space though.
When Bob Lefsetz rumored it back on April 1st I figured it was an April Fool's joke...maybe not?
It does seem like a lot of money to pay for a Brand. If it's a licensing thing, maybe there's more to it.
As for 24/96 or 24/192, there is some significance from a mixing point of view, but like the upgrade from VHS (200 lines) to SVHS (400 lines) to SD (480i) to HD (720p) and beyond people don't know something is better until they experience it. If we paid as much attention to audio as we did to video, we would have a "HD" version of earbuds by now.
Most headphones below 30$ are ultra-cheap 20hz to 20,000hz frequency response, which are garbage. The best earbuds you can get currently 8hz to 24,000hz and cost 30$ or more. But they're still connected with analog connectors. Even Expensive USB connected headphones require software in the USB device (eg laptop) to enable anything beyond stereo.
Like, what is really needed is to standardize on mini-Toslink for the data connection and then power the headphones from the analog signal.
Beats was in pursuit of spreading 24/96 audio as the new standard, something Apple was recently rumored as doing. It does seem like a lot of $$ to get a competitor out of that space though.
When Bob Lefsetz rumored it back on April 1st I figured it was an April Fool's joke...maybe not?
It does seem like a lot of money to pay for a Brand. If it's a licensing thing, maybe there's more to it.
As for 24/96 or 24/192, there is some significance from a mixing point of view, but like the upgrade from VHS (200 lines) to SVHS (400 lines) to SD (480i) to HD (720p) and beyond people don't know something is better until they experience it. If we paid as much attention to audio as we did to video, we would have a "HD" version of earbuds by now.
Most headphones below 30$ are ultra-cheap 20hz to 20,000hz frequency response, which are garbage. The best earbuds you can get currently 8hz to 24,000hz and cost 30$ or more. But they're still connected with analog connectors. Even Expensive USB connected headphones require software in the USB device (eg laptop) to enable anything beyond stereo.
Like, what is really needed is to standardize on mini-Toslink for the data connection and then power the headphones from the analog signal.
I've watched HD. SD is fine for me—it's generally cheaper on iTunes. If it's a good film, it won't make any difference.
Most people are happy with their headphones, and would notice little or no difference with more expensive ones.
John Gruber doesn't know jack sheet. Same guy who said Samdung was going to destroy Apple 12 months ago.
you must be mistaken -- Gruber has never, ever said that Samsung would destroy Apple. he's apple's biggest support.
also, he's updated his stance on this deal:
Quote:
If anything, as Micah Singleton argues at The Daily Dot, Beats’s brand stature among black Americans might help explain why this deal makes sense for Apple: 73 percent of black smartphone owners in the U.S. are on Android. Beats has brand appeal that Apple does not.
The other thing Beats has that Apple wants: its relationships in the entertainment industry. $3.2 billion? I still don’t know about that. But I’m no longer confused about what Beats has that Apple would want.
I took it as sarcasm, because back in the day, the Apple LW's were some great stable printers. It took quite a long time after Apple stopped producing them to find one on the market that was just as reliable and printed as well.
So what's your reason?
Apple used to make some damn good printers but near the end, around 98/99 Apple's laser printers were just not cutting it. Totally not up to the rest of the market. I have always pictured Jobs touring and coming across this laser printer factory and asking, "We still make laser printers?"... and the next day they were gone.
It does seem like a lot of money to pay for a Brand. If it's a licensing thing, maybe there's more to it.
As for 24/96 or 24/192, there is some significance from a mixing point of view, but like the upgrade from VHS (200 lines) to SVHS (400 lines) to SD (480i) to HD (720p) and beyond people don't know something is better until they experience it. If we paid as much attention to audio as we did to video, we would have a "HD" version of earbuds by now.
Most headphones below 30$ are ultra-cheap 20hz to 20,000hz frequency response, which are garbage. The best earbuds you can get currently 8hz to 24,000hz and cost 30$ or more. But they're still connected with analog connectors. Even Expensive USB connected headphones require software in the USB device (eg laptop) to enable anything beyond stereo.
Like, what is really needed is to standardize on mini-Toslink for the data connection and then power the headphones from the analog signal.
not compared to Facebook overpaying for whatsapp, that purchase must be classed as the worst purchase ever made by that zuckerberg megalomaniac. sugar mountain hmmm i wonder if he does that drug, might explain a thing or two
not compared to Facebook overpaying for whatsapp, that purchase must be classed as the worst purchase ever made by that zuckerberg megalomaniac. sugar mountain hmmm i wonder if he does that drug, might explain a thing or two
this is peanuts in comparison
It really is apples to oranges. Facebook paid a lot, but they paid in overpriced Facebook stock so maybe it balances out. Apple will be paying cash for a business that will probably pay for itself in just a few years via earnings.
Comments
Beats headphones are amongst a handful of the very worst sounding. Apple will get slated if they sell these rubbish headphones. First, Apple use poorer quality D-A chips in their flagship iPod Classics, now they expect us to take the acquisition of the company behind the worst headphones as a good move for music reproduction.
Jonathan Ive, you visited my company in London back in the 80's when you were just starting out. Please, please don't fall for the hype surrounding these awful headphones.
Sound quality is a lot easier to improve than market share or branding is.
Apple has lost considerable value under Cook and I've been critical of him for that. But I think this may be a corporate magic trick, a case of brilliant misdirection. I can't believe Apple will actually purchase Beats for $3.2B. It has to be total BS or there's an aspect to the story nobody publicly knows. It's a square peg in a round hole, simply doesn't fit!
Apple has lost considerable value under Cook and I've been critical of him for that. But I think this may be a corporate magic trick, a case of brilliant misdirection. I can't believe Apple will actually purchase Beats for $3.2B. It has to be total BS or there's an aspect to the story nobody publicly knows. It's a square peg in a round hole, simply doesn't fit!
Why would Dr. Dre and his actor buddy post that video that was subsequently removed? I think something happened.
Several weeks ago, I suggested that the ear was possibly key to Apple's wearables, not the iWatch.
Some people just can't stand success if they aren't involved. Let them be pissed. It makes laughing at them all the more fun.
This makes perfect sense to me.
I was reading a report online recently that said that Beats started to sell well when a majority of the people that bought iPods threw away Apple's included $1 earphones and bought Beats products. Dr. Dre said he was unhappy because he tried to create great hip hop, but Apple's headphones destroyed the experience he was trying to pass on to his fans. So he started Beats, and Beats thanks Apple for those crap earphones, which is what helped to boost the Beats brand originally. Now people aren't only using Beats products with iPods, but also with iPhones. And we know how big a market that is.
I would guess that Apple's marketing space overlaps about 80% of Beats marketing space, but a huge majority of Beats users buy music through iTunes.
Music audiophiles have always complained about digitally compressed music, and they want "clear" sound from their headphones, which they get with Koss, AKG, Audio-Technica etc. They want audiophile recordings, and expensive branded gear. This is why all the analysts fail to understand what is going down with this deal, because most of them live in this world. They don't want to hear music with bass unless it's coming from a cello, double bass, or a saxophone.
Youngsters, many who have probably never heard music that wasn't compressed or wasn't created with Autotune, don't know that music can sound better than that, and they certainly don't want "clear" music. They buy most of the music that is sold today, and they want a heavy bass beat, and they get that by buying music with iTunes, and listening through Beats products. For this crowd, Apple and Beats are like peanut butter and jam. Each of these is good by itself, but they go together naturally, and create a completely different taste, a taste that many can't live without. That is a lifestyle marketer's dream, and both these companies are experts when it comes to this kind of marketing.
I took it as sarcasm, because back in the day, the Apple LW's were some great stable printers. It took quite a long time after Apple stopped producing them to find one on the market that was just as reliable and printed as well.
So what's your reason?
It does seem like a lot of money to pay for a Brand. If it's a licensing thing, maybe there's more to it.
As for 24/96 or 24/192, there is some significance from a mixing point of view, but like the upgrade from VHS (200 lines) to SVHS (400 lines) to SD (480i) to HD (720p) and beyond people don't know something is better until they experience it. If we paid as much attention to audio as we did to video, we would have a "HD" version of earbuds by now.
Most headphones below 30$ are ultra-cheap 20hz to 20,000hz frequency response, which are garbage. The best earbuds you can get currently 8hz to 24,000hz and cost 30$ or more. But they're still connected with analog connectors. Even Expensive USB connected headphones require software in the USB device (eg laptop) to enable anything beyond stereo.
Like, what is really needed is to standardize on mini-Toslink for the data connection and then power the headphones from the analog signal.
I've watched HD. SD is fine for me—it's generally cheaper on iTunes. If it's a good film, it won't make any difference.
Most people are happy with their headphones, and would notice little or no difference with more expensive ones.
John Gruber doesn't know jack sheet. Same guy who said Samdung was going to destroy Apple 12 months ago.
you must be mistaken -- Gruber has never, ever said that Samsung would destroy Apple. he's apple's biggest support.
also, he's updated his stance on this deal:
If anything, as Micah Singleton argues at The Daily Dot, Beats’s brand stature among black Americans might help explain why this deal makes sense for Apple: 73 percent of black smartphone owners in the U.S. are on Android. Beats has brand appeal that Apple does not.
The other thing Beats has that Apple wants: its relationships in the entertainment industry. $3.2 billion? I still don’t know about that. But I’m no longer confused about what Beats has that Apple would want.
I took it as sarcasm, because back in the day, the Apple LW's were some great stable printers. It took quite a long time after Apple stopped producing them to find one on the market that was just as reliable and printed as well.
So what's your reason?
Apple used to make some damn good printers but near the end, around 98/99 Apple's laser printers were just not cutting it. Totally not up to the rest of the market. I have always pictured Jobs touring and coming across this laser printer factory and asking, "We still make laser printers?"... and the next day they were gone.
When did JOHN GRUBER ever say something like that!?!? I think you're thinking of the wrong person......
Apple has lost considerable value under Cook
You need to go fact check this - Apple stock was $326 when Cook took over as CEO.
It does seem like a lot of money to pay for a Brand. If it's a licensing thing, maybe there's more to it.
As for 24/96 or 24/192, there is some significance from a mixing point of view, but like the upgrade from VHS (200 lines) to SVHS (400 lines) to SD (480i) to HD (720p) and beyond people don't know something is better until they experience it. If we paid as much attention to audio as we did to video, we would have a "HD" version of earbuds by now.
Most headphones below 30$ are ultra-cheap 20hz to 20,000hz frequency response, which are garbage. The best earbuds you can get currently 8hz to 24,000hz and cost 30$ or more. But they're still connected with analog connectors. Even Expensive USB connected headphones require software in the USB device (eg laptop) to enable anything beyond stereo.
Like, what is really needed is to standardize on mini-Toslink for the data connection and then power the headphones from the analog signal.
not compared to Facebook overpaying for whatsapp, that purchase must be classed as the worst purchase ever made by that zuckerberg megalomaniac. sugar mountain hmmm i wonder if he does that drug, might explain a thing or two
this is peanuts in comparison
not compared to Facebook overpaying for whatsapp, that purchase must be classed as the worst purchase ever made by that zuckerberg megalomaniac. sugar mountain hmmm i wonder if he does that drug, might explain a thing or two
this is peanuts in comparison
It really is apples to oranges. Facebook paid a lot, but they paid in overpriced Facebook stock so maybe it balances out. Apple will be paying cash for a business that will probably pay for itself in just a few years via earnings.
No matter what really happens at this point, one has to admit Apple just got hundreds of millions of dollars worth of free press coverage.