I prefer the tight bass response and balanced sound of closed, over-ear studio monitors.
I agree somewhat but I prefer to use semi-open, over-ear studio monitor headphones. They create a realism, that for me at least, recreates the acoustics of listening to studio monitor speakers. More so than the closed variety.
No, sorry, it was a an inside joke, he'd suggested I leave the USA for one of my comments ... I should have resisted. That said I'm not sure your choice of words is necessary.
IMO Apple headphones are OK but not great in terms of sound quality.
I can't stand Apple's free headphones. Frankly they hurt my ears to wear so I can't even opine about the sound quality. The new EarPods are better than the old style but not by much.
I used to buy expensive headphones but I end up eventually breaking them (snagging them on door handles and whatnot too many times) so now I just buy Apple's in-ear phones. They aren't great but they aren't bad, except when it comes to bass, but for the price they are decent. However, the reason I buy them is they are protected under my iPhone/iPad/Mac warranty. I break them they release them for free. I lose a rubber ear grommet they give me new ones. I appreciate that.
Also, with Shure et al. the length of the cord is about a 11-13" longer than Apple's headphones. That extra length is what causes me to snag those far too often. With Apple's that rarely happens. If Apple made quality, $500 headphones that had all the benefits previously mentioned I would buy likely them.
I used to buy expensive headphones but I end up eventually breaking them (snagging them on door handles and whatnot too many times) so now I just buy Apple's in-ear phones. They aren't great but they aren't bad, except when it comes to bass, but for the price they are decent. However, the reason I buy them is they are protected under my iPhone/iPad/Mac warranty. I break them they release them for free. I lose a rubber ear grommet they give me new ones. I appreciate that.
Also, with Shure et al. the length of the cord is about a 11-13" longer than Apple's headphones. That extra length is what causes me to snag those far too often. With Apple's that rarely happens. If Apple made quality, $500 headphones that had all the benefits previously mentioned I would buy likely them.
I prefer the tight bass response and balanced sound of closed, over-ear studio monitors.
I agree somewhat but I prefer to use semi-open, over-ear studio monitor headphones. They create a realism, that for me at least, recreates the acoustics of listening to studio monitor speakers. More so than the closed variety.
At my age, I'm losing my eyesight and my hearing -- but I still can smell ... Boy, do I smell ...
Again prejudice means = PRE JUDGE. Making a judgement before having complete information.
Funny we didn't get the same kind of hate when Apple bought the fingerprint company for $300M. Even thought that company was barely making profits. Yet when they buy Beats which makes $1.5B in revenue and is dominating its sector ( 70% of high end consumer headphones) we got this hate. And how much of the profits of the 5S can we attribute to the fingerprint scanner? Yet we don't hear any hate about that transaction.
I'm not black. But I can see prejudice from a mile away.
1) I agree with you, partially. I do think a lot of the dislike of the rumour of a purchase is because people don't like rap and therefore don't like the headphone company that is associated to the hip hop culture. I don't think most have even tried their range of headphones before saying they are too bassy and poorly made.
2) I agree with your pre-judge comment and unfortunately there is (as always) way too much of that on the internet.
3) I think the $1.4 billion in revenue and $300 million in profits for 2013 is still just a rumour, but if true, and if they are growing and do own the headphone market the way Apple owns the PMP market then I do think that a $3.2 billion purchase is very reasonable. That's even before considering their rental music service, the humanized algorithms, potential for music license carryover, and Iovine, Dre et al. as working to make iTunes music better.
4) No need to say if you're "black" or whatever; your point stands on its own. Racism is, ironically, colourblind.
If they want them that much, just pay the $X per year and see if it works. Dropping $3.2Billion for these guys, who have created absolutely terrible headphone/earphone products, is unwise. My kids have them and I can't even get replacement screws to fix the headbands - after a boat load of calls and website visits. Their whole show could not be more un-aapl.
I don't disagree. I was merely offering a potential reason for the deal in response to someone else's question. Iovine and Dre might have needed some incentive as well. Paying $X/year might not have been appealing. A $3.2 billion acquisition, PLUS, $X/year...that's better!
After a bit of thinking, and a lot of reading (500+ posts!) this is starting to make a lot of sense. Financially it seems like a no-brainer. Beats will likely easily pay for itself in negotiations with the record companies with the threat, or creation, of an iTunes record label. Cue is undoubtedly fantastic at what he does, but doesn't have the time, or the music industry credibility, influence, and personality to work with artists and develop a label. However, with Jimmy and Dre, Apple now has the fuse to arm their iTunes cannon, while the record labels are holding slingshots. And of course, with $1.4B and growing revenue, Beats will pay for itself in the not too distant future.
Aside from being a great financial move, there are several other HUGE potential benefits to this deal:
-Improving iTunes/iTunes Radio: Personally, I feel the music curation alone would be worth the $3B. For a company that revolutionized the integration of humanities and technology for consumer electronics, iTunes has a surprising lack of human touch, and IMHO terrible music curation. I've been playing with the Beats Music app since yesterday, and for me it's already WAY better than iTunes radio. The aesthetics are great too.
-Starting point for iTunes subscription service.
-Apple gets credibility in a demographic that will likely see the acquisition as an acknowledgment of the merits of that culture, and Apple will be rewarded with loyalty (purchases, word of mouth, social media attention). Beats' significant influence amongst younger people, respected celebrities, and hip-hop culture has proven it to be much more than a fad.
-With its minimalist aesthetic, Apple is bound to have to deal with the issue of style eventually. The austerity and lack of style and branding is one of the reasons why I love Apple products. But people, particularly young people, like to use style as a way to express themselves, and Beats allows Apple to do this without tainting the core brand.
-Dedicated set of audio/product engineers that can help Apple in wearables, and the inevitable transition to bluetooth wireless as a standard that will replace the headphone jack in the not too distant future. A (good) Apple bluetooth headset might be able to mitigate one of the "compromises" Apple refused to make in delaying the introduction of a larger screen iPhone.
-Potential ideas in the pipeline?
This is probably the most well articulated analysis to Apple's purchase of Beats, that I have read so far. Most of the posting are clueless, and find it incredulous that two successful heavyweights in the music industry have anything to offer Apple. Get a clue folks, Apple is not buying Beats because it is a DARPA equivalent. With that said, Beats headphones suck.
No, sorry, it was a an inside joke, he'd suggested I leave the USA for one of my comments ... I should have resisted. That said I'm not sure your choice of words is necessary.
And even more hilarious is that a lot of the customers who actually buy and listen to their music are suburban white wiggers, and those wiggers go around using the N word all of the time. I hear it all of the time. A bunch of schoolkids walking by me, none of them are black, and they're all calling each other N.ggas. Absolutely hilarious." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
It's all about trying to belong to what they think is the IN crowd.
I would laugh my ass off if Tim Cook introduced Dr. Dre as "My Nigga bitch", but something tells me he won't.
It's reprehensible to call anyone that is skeptical about this deal (or Dre becoming an Apple exec) a close minded bigot. I said earlier in this thread if it was rumored that Cook was bringing on Dave Grohl as a special advisor I would feel the same way and I am a huge Foo Fighters fan. No supporter or so-called "open minded" person in this thread has been able to come up with any special technology or IP Beats has that is worth $3B. Surely Apple has designers and engineers that could produce a better headphone if they really wanted to. And I doubt that would cost $3B either. Go read Jon Fortt's (from CNBC) twitter feed. He is incredibly skeptical about this deal. Are you going to call him a bigot too?
I can call a person IGNORANT and a BIGOT because you have incomplete information and are jumping to conclusions. That is the DEFINITION of PREJUDICE. You know PRE - JUDGE????
No way to justify $3B?
How about $1.5B in yearly revenue? Estimated $300-$500M net income a year?
Heres a quote from this article showing the impressive potential of this deal
"Furthermore, Apple would likely not be interested in consummating this transaction if it did not believe that significant upside exists. Gartner projects that by the end of 2014, Apple will have an installed base of 682 million iOS and Mac devices. As shown in the table below, if Apple is able to achieve an average selling price of $150 and a 5% penetration of its installed base annually, the Beats line would generate $5 billion in sales. With an assumption of a $250 ASP and a 10% penetration rate, the annual sales jump to over $17 billion. While both numbers are relatively small by Apple's standards, the $5 billion figure would create a 2013 Fortune 500 company, while the $17 billion figure would rank 169 on a stand-alone basis. Moreover, at $5 billion in revenue and assuming the same net margin and P/E ratio as above, the market cap impact would be over $16 billion, yielding a 5X return on the reported purchase price of $3.2 billion."
music industry ties.
Great brand name with youth and urban areas.
Steaming music curation.
Who knows what Beats has in R&D
Wearables possibilites
$3.2B is not a ridiculous price.
Again you don't have all the information. So again you are PRE - JUDGING. That makes you prejudice. You won't be able to make a judgement till 5 years from now.
Your condemnation is wildly over the top. We are all making observations, judgments if you like, based on the available information. It's not a crime to disagree.
I don't know how right sog35's figures are, but I think there's a valuable point in there generally - which is to say that, frankly, Apple aren't stupid.
Those people who are sitting there and saying that the purchase price is "too much" are talking out of their hats, and I think they would have to acknowledge that (as I would in my own case!)
One reason why I don't have an opinion on the purchase price is because I know that the way acquisitions are managed involves a pretty lengthy and complex process of due diligence. I'm sure Apple is very good at this; I am also sure that they wouldn't pay a ridiculously inflated price.
We can't judge the cost based only the fact that the amount sounds like a lot, or is a lot relative to other Apple purchases; that's not how it works.
Dr. Dre is going to replace Tim Cook as Apple's CEO. I heard it through the grapevine.
Dr Dre is NOT going to be the face of Apple. His namesake was taken off most products more than a year ago. Actually I wouldn't mind seeing lovine doing the iPhone reveals. Reminds me a little of A more hip Jobs. Cook is just so dorky, he has no enthusiasm. Cook is a businessman, not a salesman.
Good god I hope this isn't the case. That's something I would expect Samsung to do, not Apple.
Why would you hope it's not. Apple is not going to pay Snoop Dog to promote the iPhone, but Beats can pay hundreds of celebrities to endorse Beats, on a much larger scale than they already do. Beats has created a multi-billion $ headphone company within 5 years by doing what? Marketing a good looking product that they can sell at 20 times the cost of production.
If Apple pioneered the modern smartphone, then Beats pioneered the modern headphones. Beats' hardware alone warrants the $3b purchase price.
How did Samsung catch Apple? They copied Apple and also spent $100's of millions on marketing and celebrity endorsements. Apple has realized how Samsung got to where they are, and now Apple gets to copy Samsung's business model. Kinda ironic to me.
Brilliant move by Cook, just absolutely brilliant. Hardware sales alone will cover the purchase price within a few years.
I think they'll include Beats earbuds standard with all iPhone and iPad purchases, with the option to upgrade to a premium Beats offering at a 50% discount off retail. If nothing else, this acquisition should persuade quite a few youth to purchase an iPhone rather than a Galaxy device.
The latest iteration of Beats Studio is much improved and obviously will soon get much much better with Apple in the picture now.
Apple has realized how Samsung got to where they are, and now Apple gets to copy Samsung's business model. Kinda ironic to me.
I don't think Apple are copying Samsung's business model...at all.
They certainly don't need Samsung to tell them how to develop the cool cache; something that they already have in spades.
Although I've just finished pointing out how armchair analysis of this stuff is generally problematic, I would suggest that Apple aren't buying $3bn worth of "cool factor" or "celebrity endorsement". That's not what this is about; I think we can be sure of that much.
I suspect - although have no way of knowing - that Beats factors into Apple's product strategy on a much deeper level. I suspect that the results of some of that work may not be known for a long time.
Reminds me of when Apple first bought Siri, and Steve Jobs kept being asked "why would you buy a search company?! Are you getting into search now?!" and he kept calmly replying "No, Siri is an AI company" - and left it at that.
I don't think Apple are copying Samsung's business model...at all.
They certainly don't need Samsung to tell them how to develop the cool cache; something that they already have in spades.
Although I've just finished pointing out how armchair analysis of this stuff is generally problematic, I would suggest that Apple aren't buying $3bn worth of "cool factor" or "celebrity endorsement". That's not what this is about; I think we can be sure of that much.
I suspect - although have no way of knowing - that Beats factors into Apple's product strategy on a much deeper level. I suspect that the results of some of that work may not be known for a long time.
Reminds me of when Apple first bought Siri, and Steve Jobs kept being asked "why would you buy a search company?! Are you getting into search now?!" and he kept calmly replying "No, Siri is an AI company" - and left it at that.
Search is one of the most important aspects of what we do on a daily basis. We search for information. It's just a matter of what content we are searching for and what app we use. Websites that have lots of information have search boxes to search within the website. Internet searches is what we do when we are looking for information on the internet. Siri is more like a front end for it, but the searches are a lot of times different than why we would use Google, Yahoo or Bing search. to me, siri is more defined by what we are asking for and what it's good at returning. I've used Siri where I thought it was good and sometimes it was horrible. Same thing with Google's Now product. They both were about 50/50 and I didn't really use them anymore because they BOTH weren't that reliable. I still have a tough time asking my tablet for information when I'm sitting down using my tablet. I'm sure if I was driving in my car and needed directions, that's a useful type of search. But if I wanted to see information about a subject where I was looking for documents I could go to, then Siri is kind of useless for that search and that is more suited for me to use the traditional internet search.
I think if Apple wanted to get into what Bing, Google and Yahoo! have, it might be worthwhile for Apple to buy Yahoo!. I see some value in that if they can make it so it's profitable on some level. Yahoo just needs work on their front end and their email system is horrible and I just simply get WAY too much spam on my Yahoo! account, which is more than frustrating. I'm thinking about getting a new name/email address on Yahoo! and try to figure out how NOT to get spam. Plus Yahoo! customer service is HORRIBLE. I get no assistance in trying to get these spam ads to stop. Nothing worse than having to deal with 200 spam emails daily. It's worse than junk mail, which I now get VERY little in my physical mail box. Interesting change in some ways for the better and some ways for the worse.
Comments
I agree somewhat but I prefer to use semi-open, over-ear studio monitor headphones. They create a realism, that for me at least, recreates the acoustics of listening to studio monitor speakers. More so than the closed variety.
Ah, now I get your comment.
I can't stand Apple's free headphones. Frankly they hurt my ears to wear so I can't even opine about the sound quality. The new EarPods are better than the old style but not by much.
I used to buy expensive headphones but I end up eventually breaking them (snagging them on door handles and whatnot too many times) so now I just buy Apple's in-ear phones. They aren't great but they aren't bad, except when it comes to bass, but for the price they are decent. However, the reason I buy them is they are protected under my iPhone/iPad/Mac warranty. I break them they release them for free. I lose a rubber ear grommet they give me new ones. I appreciate that.
Also, with Shure et al. the length of the cord is about a 11-13" longer than Apple's headphones. That extra length is what causes me to snag those far too often. With Apple's that rarely happens. If Apple made quality, $500 headphones that had all the benefits previously mentioned I would buy likely them.
I agree 100% and had given up on cans over the new earbuds but they hurt me too after a while. However, with Logic Pro X coming out and a renewed interest in mixing, I found a need again for cans as I am working on a transatlantic project with an old friend and started searching for something that didn't kill my ears after several hours. I came across these on sale and they are astounding and so comfortable I forget they are on. http://www.amazon.com/Technica-ATH-AD700-Open-air-Audiophile-Headphones/dp/B000CMS0XU/ref=sr_1_1?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1399906618&sr=1-1&keywords=Audio+Technica+ATH-AD700+Open-air+Dynamic+Audiophile+Headphones
BTW, tie up the extra length you don't want with twisties or duct tape.
I'm glad Cook isn't as close minded as some of you here.
The level of ignorance, prejudice, and bigotry, is shocking. I hope this forum is not a representation of the typical Apple user.
Way to stop the debate. Some people don't like hip hop, but most of the arguments have been against the actual company and it's products.
At my age, I'm losing my eyesight and my hearing -- but I still can smell ... Boy, do I smell ...
1) I agree with you, partially. I do think a lot of the dislike of the rumour of a purchase is because people don't like rap and therefore don't like the headphone company that is associated to the hip hop culture. I don't think most have even tried their range of headphones before saying they are too bassy and poorly made.
2) I agree with your pre-judge comment and unfortunately there is (as always) way too much of that on the internet.
3) I think the $1.4 billion in revenue and $300 million in profits for 2013 is still just a rumour, but if true, and if they are growing and do own the headphone market the way Apple owns the PMP market then I do think that a $3.2 billion purchase is very reasonable. That's even before considering their rental music service, the humanized algorithms, potential for music license carryover, and Iovine, Dre et al. as working to make iTunes music better.
4) No need to say if you're "black" or whatever; your point stands on its own. Racism is, ironically, colourblind.
If they want them that much, just pay the $X per year and see if it works. Dropping $3.2Billion for these guys, who have created absolutely terrible headphone/earphone products, is unwise. My kids have them and I can't even get replacement screws to fix the headbands - after a boat load of calls and website visits. Their whole show could not be more un-aapl.
I don't disagree. I was merely offering a potential reason for the deal in response to someone else's question. Iovine and Dre might have needed some incentive as well. Paying $X/year might not have been appealing. A $3.2 billion acquisition, PLUS, $X/year...that's better!
This is probably the most well articulated analysis to Apple's purchase of Beats, that I have read so far. Most of the posting are clueless, and find it incredulous that two successful heavyweights in the music industry have anything to offer Apple. Get a clue folks, Apple is not buying Beats because it is a DARPA equivalent. With that said, Beats headphones suck.
That plan of attack would finally get Apple into the position of owning content, instead of just selling someone else's content.
Please let us keep off politics!
OK, let's
Ewe ....
For some reason that made me think of Peter Seller's type humor ... as in ... "Does your dog bite?"
No, sorry, it was a an inside joke, he'd suggested I leave the USA for one of my comments ... I should have resisted. That said I'm not sure your choice of words is necessary.
My apologies then, I was not aware of that.
That's not a dog, it's a Minkey... in a rit of felous jage ...
And even more hilarious is that a lot of the customers who actually buy and listen to their music are suburban white wiggers, and those wiggers go around using the N word all of the time. I hear it all of the time. A bunch of schoolkids walking by me, none of them are black, and they're all calling each other N.ggas. Absolutely hilarious.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
It's all about trying to belong to what they think is the IN crowd.
I would laugh my ass off if Tim Cook introduced Dr. Dre as "My Nigga bitch", but something tells me he won't.
Accepted, thank you.
It's reprehensible to call anyone that is skeptical about this deal (or Dre becoming an Apple exec) a close minded bigot. I said earlier in this thread if it was rumored that Cook was bringing on Dave Grohl as a special advisor I would feel the same way and I am a huge Foo Fighters fan. No supporter or so-called "open minded" person in this thread has been able to come up with any special technology or IP Beats has that is worth $3B. Surely Apple has designers and engineers that could produce a better headphone if they really wanted to. And I doubt that would cost $3B either. Go read Jon Fortt's (from CNBC) twitter feed. He is incredibly skeptical about this deal. Are you going to call him a bigot too?
I can call a person IGNORANT and a BIGOT because you have incomplete information and are jumping to conclusions. That is the DEFINITION of PREJUDICE. You know PRE - JUDGE????
No way to justify $3B?
How about $1.5B in yearly revenue? Estimated $300-$500M net income a year?
Heres a quote from this article showing the impressive potential of this deal
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2211543-why-buying-beats-audio-is-a-good-deal-for-apple
"Furthermore, Apple would likely not be interested in consummating this transaction if it did not believe that significant upside exists. Gartner projects that by the end of 2014, Apple will have an installed base of 682 million iOS and Mac devices. As shown in the table below, if Apple is able to achieve an average selling price of $150 and a 5% penetration of its installed base annually, the Beats line would generate $5 billion in sales. With an assumption of a $250 ASP and a 10% penetration rate, the annual sales jump to over $17 billion. While both numbers are relatively small by Apple's standards, the $5 billion figure would create a 2013 Fortune 500 company, while the $17 billion figure would rank 169 on a stand-alone basis. Moreover, at $5 billion in revenue and assuming the same net margin and P/E ratio as above, the market cap impact would be over $16 billion, yielding a 5X return on the reported purchase price of $3.2 billion."
music industry ties.
Great brand name with youth and urban areas.
Steaming music curation.
Who knows what Beats has in R&D
Wearables possibilites
$3.2B is not a ridiculous price.
Again you don't have all the information. So again you are PRE - JUDGING. That makes you prejudice. You won't be able to make a judgement till 5 years from now.
Your condemnation is wildly over the top. We are all making observations, judgments if you like, based on the available information. It's not a crime to disagree.
I don't know how right sog35's figures are, but I think there's a valuable point in there generally - which is to say that, frankly, Apple aren't stupid.
Those people who are sitting there and saying that the purchase price is "too much" are talking out of their hats, and I think they would have to acknowledge that (as I would in my own case!)
One reason why I don't have an opinion on the purchase price is because I know that the way acquisitions are managed involves a pretty lengthy and complex process of due diligence. I'm sure Apple is very good at this; I am also sure that they wouldn't pay a ridiculously inflated price.
We can't judge the cost based only the fact that the amount sounds like a lot, or is a lot relative to other Apple purchases; that's not how it works.
Dr Dre is NOT going to be the face of Apple. His namesake was taken off most products more than a year ago. Actually I wouldn't mind seeing lovine doing the iPhone reveals. Reminds me a little of A more hip Jobs. Cook is just so dorky, he has no enthusiasm. Cook is a businessman, not a salesman.
Why would you hope it's not. Apple is not going to pay Snoop Dog to promote the iPhone, but Beats can pay hundreds of celebrities to endorse Beats, on a much larger scale than they already do. Beats has created a multi-billion $ headphone company within 5 years by doing what? Marketing a good looking product that they can sell at 20 times the cost of production.
If Apple pioneered the modern smartphone, then Beats pioneered the modern headphones. Beats' hardware alone warrants the $3b purchase price.
How did Samsung catch Apple? They copied Apple and also spent $100's of millions on marketing and celebrity endorsements. Apple has realized how Samsung got to where they are, and now Apple gets to copy Samsung's business model. Kinda ironic to me.
Brilliant move by Cook, just absolutely brilliant. Hardware sales alone will cover the purchase price within a few years.
I think they'll include Beats earbuds standard with all iPhone and iPad purchases, with the option to upgrade to a premium Beats offering at a 50% discount off retail. If nothing else, this acquisition should persuade quite a few youth to purchase an iPhone rather than a Galaxy device.
The latest iteration of Beats Studio is much improved and obviously will soon get much much better with Apple in the picture now.
Apple has realized how Samsung got to where they are, and now Apple gets to copy Samsung's business model. Kinda ironic to me.
I don't think Apple are copying Samsung's business model...at all.
They certainly don't need Samsung to tell them how to develop the cool cache; something that they already have in spades.
Although I've just finished pointing out how armchair analysis of this stuff is generally problematic, I would suggest that Apple aren't buying $3bn worth of "cool factor" or "celebrity endorsement". That's not what this is about; I think we can be sure of that much.
I suspect - although have no way of knowing - that Beats factors into Apple's product strategy on a much deeper level. I suspect that the results of some of that work may not be known for a long time.
Reminds me of when Apple first bought Siri, and Steve Jobs kept being asked "why would you buy a search company?! Are you getting into search now?!" and he kept calmly replying "No, Siri is an AI company" - and left it at that.
I don't think Apple are copying Samsung's business model...at all.
They certainly don't need Samsung to tell them how to develop the cool cache; something that they already have in spades.
Although I've just finished pointing out how armchair analysis of this stuff is generally problematic, I would suggest that Apple aren't buying $3bn worth of "cool factor" or "celebrity endorsement". That's not what this is about; I think we can be sure of that much.
I suspect - although have no way of knowing - that Beats factors into Apple's product strategy on a much deeper level. I suspect that the results of some of that work may not be known for a long time.
Reminds me of when Apple first bought Siri, and Steve Jobs kept being asked "why would you buy a search company?! Are you getting into search now?!" and he kept calmly replying "No, Siri is an AI company" - and left it at that.
Search is one of the most important aspects of what we do on a daily basis. We search for information. It's just a matter of what content we are searching for and what app we use. Websites that have lots of information have search boxes to search within the website. Internet searches is what we do when we are looking for information on the internet. Siri is more like a front end for it, but the searches are a lot of times different than why we would use Google, Yahoo or Bing search. to me, siri is more defined by what we are asking for and what it's good at returning. I've used Siri where I thought it was good and sometimes it was horrible. Same thing with Google's Now product. They both were about 50/50 and I didn't really use them anymore because they BOTH weren't that reliable. I still have a tough time asking my tablet for information when I'm sitting down using my tablet. I'm sure if I was driving in my car and needed directions, that's a useful type of search. But if I wanted to see information about a subject where I was looking for documents I could go to, then Siri is kind of useless for that search and that is more suited for me to use the traditional internet search.
I think if Apple wanted to get into what Bing, Google and Yahoo! have, it might be worthwhile for Apple to buy Yahoo!. I see some value in that if they can make it so it's profitable on some level. Yahoo just needs work on their front end and their email system is horrible and I just simply get WAY too much spam on my Yahoo! account, which is more than frustrating. I'm thinking about getting a new name/email address on Yahoo! and try to figure out how NOT to get spam. Plus Yahoo! customer service is HORRIBLE. I get no assistance in trying to get these spam ads to stop. Nothing worse than having to deal with 200 spam emails daily. It's worse than junk mail, which I now get VERY little in my physical mail box. Interesting change in some ways for the better and some ways for the worse.