I don't think you folks get it. Those guys can provide inside connections to the music industry. Also, someone like Dr Dre will help Apple "keep it realz".
Yes, as a businessman. Not an innovator, an inventor, a thinker, a pusher, nor even potentially the type of businessmen desired (or lacking, if any) at Apple, is all. Just as a businessman. Many shades of that.
For a position dealing with their music side of business I don't see Dre as being a bad choice by any measure. Remember that exclusive Beyoncé album that launched last year? Perhaps Apple wants more of that.
With what we know there seems to be zero upside. All we can hope for is that either there's a lot we don't know and Apple has big plans that will surprise us or they never go through with the deal.
Beats only has $350 Million in revenue. I wouldn't value this company at $3.2 Billion. What's their profitability on their music subscription service? Probably not much.
If Beats makes 10% Net Profits to Gross Revenue, then they would be bringing in around $35 Million after tax profit. And Apple would be stupid enough to pay $3.2 Billion for that? Cook has to be completely out of his mind to pay 91 times earnings. Please don't tell me that Cook & Co. is THAT stupid.
Beats only has $350 Million in revenue. I wouldn't value this company at $3.2 Billion. What's their profitability on their music subscription service? Probably not much.
That was 2011. They were projected to have $1.4 billion in 2013, and some poster here claimed with $250-300 million in net profits. If that is true and their growth rate from 2011 is still in action then $3.2 billion isn't unreasonable.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">His wealth is a direct result of his capability as a business man, and from a very young age that is not unlike Steve Job and other exceptional leaders.</span>
Yes, as a businessman. Not an innovator, an inventor, a thinker, a pusher, nor even potentially the type of businessmen desired (or lacking, if any) at Apple, is all. Just as a businessman. Many shades of that.
@TS Jimmy is a creative -- a talent that many here, including me, do not understand -- but they prototype what the public buys ..,
This whole thing is much likely to be a "partnership program" much like the Apple-Nike one, designed to give Beats early access to Apple Tech, in exchange for exclusive products and ecosystem integration. Apple buys IP and integrated technologies, not companies like Beats, it prefers to make allies and work with them.... as long as they don't steal their ideas (aka Microsoft, Samsung, Google.....)
That was 2011. They were projected to have $1.4 billion in 2013, and some poster here claimed with $250-300 million in net profits. If that is true and their growth rate from 2011 is still in action then $3.2 billion isn't unreasonable.
I just went to a CrunchBase site and they listed them as being acquired, so according to CrunchBase (I have no knowledge of how reliable they are) lists the deal as a done deal. http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/beats-by-dr-dre
As far as their sales/profits for 2013, I did read they are on track to do $1.4 Billion in gross sales for 2013, but it didn't mention anything about making $250 to $350 Million in profit.
Tim Cook, in my book, has just dropped a point for this kind of purchase.
The fact we've gone a day and a half with dead silence from Apple pretty much tells me this is a done deal. I'm just venting right now because I think it's a stupid idea. Especially the notion that Apple needs the Beats brand to become cool with teenagers. Or that someone like Dr Dre would become an Apple executive. I'm still hoping its just a bad dream and I'll wake up to hear Apple played us all.
First, Apple typically doesn't respond to rumors and second do you have any proof whatsoever that Apple initiated any of these rumors? IMO this whole beats thing is all pure BS, as find it hard to fathom that Apple would spend 3.2B on a beats acquisition.
What about the iTunes app finally melting away (as people here have been wanting) and in its place we get a Beats app that is solely focused on music?
Finally an interesting thought amongst all the alarmist knee jerking. Maybe the purchase signals a wholesale change in the way Apple handles music and other media. I get the feeling most people here represent the 'old' way of doing business. My kids and their friends use iPhones, Macs and iPads, but the only time they use iTunes is to rent the odd movie.
Here's the reason. Apple needs to own a cheaper label (much like the fashion houses do) where they can release products without tarnishing the Apple name, yet taking business away from their competitors. A "Beats Phone" with iOS on it will take away much of Samsungs market yet increase users of the Apple ecosystem. Buying Beats gives Apple freedom to do things and profit from the lower end of the market without tarnishing the brand. Iovine is a great asset and Beats streaming tech will help iTunes.
In the next installment of this series of rumors building upon rumors, these two rumored Apple co-CEOs will be picking out their furniture for their rumored offices in the mother ship.
I predict a TMZ will report a struggle between the Iovine/Dre/Tyrese camp and the Ahrendts/Ive/Schiller camp for control of the floundering Apple, when the board asks CEO Tim Cook to step down after Apple fails to keep up with the Samsungs as the Galaxy S9 reaches 11 inches, while Apple is stuck in the past at 6 inches with the iPhone 8S. Ive is quoted as refusing to abandon the principle of two handed elegance you can fit in your coat pocket, while Dre is said to want a "phat phablet" clocking in at 12-inches. When asked why, Dre is reported to have said that Apple needed to "come correct" when going up against Samsung, and oneupmanship was how Apple could reestablish "street cred." The two camps also fought over Iovine's proposal for Apple to acquire the Marc Ecko brand. Ahrendts was quoted as saying "eww" threatening to resign if Apple did. The Ecko deal fell through in late 2018, however.
Here's the reason. Apple needs to own a cheaper label (much like the fashion houses do) where they can release products without tarnishing the Apple name, yet taking business away from their competitors. A "Beats Phone" with iOS on it will take away much of Samsungs market yet increase users of the Apple ecosystem. Buying Beats gives Apple freedom to do things and profit from the lower end of the market without tarnishing the brand. Iovine is a great asset and Beats streaming tech will help iTunes.
Except Beats headphones are not cheap price wise. So using the Beats brand to sell cheap phones doesn't make sense. I don't get why Apple would need to spend $3B to create downmarket branded products.
I don't see Dr. Dre taking an active role in Apple management -- any more than AlGore or the head of the Apple db Filemaker nee Nutshell does (can't even remember the name).
Randy Ubillos does a pretty good job of overseeing FCPX and iMovie without disrupting Apple's overall plans.
For the umpteenth time it's not about headphones, rather it is a strategic move to gain a pre-eminate
position in media streaming ...
I may be old, but I'm open minded...
Beats make most of their money from headphones. Apple doesn't need to buy another company to go into audio streaming, they already do this, they just have to do a subscription service.
First, Apple typically doesn't respond to rumors and second do you have any proof whatsoever that Apple initiated any of these rumors? IMO this whole beats thing is all pure BS, as find it hard to fathom that Apple would spend 3.2B on a beats acquisition.
I never suggested Apple initiated these rumors. Also just because it's a head scratcher doesn't mean it's BS. If it really was BS Apple wouldn't let everyone and their mother speculate on it for a day and a half. They'd deny it. There's a big difference between a rumor like this and most of the Apple rumors we see on a daily basis.
In the next installment of this series of rumors building upon rumors, these two rumored Apple co-CEOs will be picking out their furniture for their rumored offices in the mother ship.
I predict a TMZ will report a struggle between the Iovine/Dre/Tyrese camp and the Ahrendts/Ive/Schiller camp for control of the floundering Apple, when the board asks CEO Tim Cook to step down after Apple fails to keep up with the Samsungs as the Galaxy S9 reaches 11 inches, while Apple is stuck in the past at 6 inches with the iPhone 8S. Ive is quoted as refusing to abandon the principle of two handed elegance you can fit in your coat pocket, while Dre is said to want a "phat phablet" clocking in at 12-inches. When asked why, Dre is reported to have said that Apple needed to "come correct" when going up against Samsung, and oneupmanship was how Apple could reestablish "street cred." The two camps also fought over Iovine's proposal for Apple to acquire the Marc Ecko brand. Ahrendts was quoted as saying "eww" threatening to resign if Apple did. The Ecko deal fell through in late 2018, however.
I don't see Dr. Dre taking an active role in Apple management -- any more than AlGore or the head of the Apple db Filemaker nee Nutshell does (can't even remember the name).
Randy Ubillos does a pretty good job of overseeing FCPX and iMovie without disrupting Apple's overall plans.
For the umpteenth time it's not about headphones, rather it is a strategic move to gain a pre-eminate
position in media streaming ...
I may be old, but I'm open minded...
Beats make most of their money from headphones. Apple doesn't need to buy another company to go into audio streaming, they already do this, they just have to do a subscription service.
Loll
Nicely put ... Forget the fucking headphones -- this is about Internet streaming for the next 10 years.
Dr Dre is going to be an Apple executive. Cook has lost his fucking mind.
Steve Jobs was an Apple executive, why not Dr. Dre ?
It is remarkable how weak-minded some people on this board are.
They cannot comprehend anything that is not quantified in bits and bytes. This is really sad.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.
...While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.
Comments
For a position dealing with their music side of business I don't see Dre as being a bad choice by any measure. Remember that exclusive Beyoncé album that launched last year? Perhaps Apple wants more of that.
With what we know there seems to be zero upside. All we can hope for is that either there's a lot we don't know and Apple has big plans that will surprise us or they never go through with the deal.
Beats only has $350 Million in revenue. I wouldn't value this company at $3.2 Billion. What's their profitability on their music subscription service? Probably not much.
If Beats makes 10% Net Profits to Gross Revenue, then they would be bringing in around $35 Million after tax profit. And Apple would be stupid enough to pay $3.2 Billion for that? Cook has to be completely out of his mind to pay 91 times earnings. Please don't tell me that Cook & Co. is THAT stupid.
That was 2011. They were projected to have $1.4 billion in 2013, and some poster here claimed with $250-300 million in net profits. If that is true and their growth rate from 2011 is still in action then $3.2 billion isn't unreasonable.
@TS Jimmy is a creative -- a talent that many here, including me, do not understand -- but they prototype what the public buys ..,
Apple selling crappy headphones? There's no upside to that.
Apple already sells crappy headphones, they just don't charge $200 for them.
That was 2011. They were projected to have $1.4 billion in 2013, and some poster here claimed with $250-300 million in net profits. If that is true and their growth rate from 2011 is still in action then $3.2 billion isn't unreasonable.
I just went to a CrunchBase site and they listed them as being acquired, so according to CrunchBase (I have no knowledge of how reliable they are) lists the deal as a done deal. http://www.crunchbase.com/organization/beats-by-dr-dre
As far as their sales/profits for 2013, I did read they are on track to do $1.4 Billion in gross sales for 2013, but it didn't mention anything about making $250 to $350 Million in profit.
Tim Cook, in my book, has just dropped a point for this kind of purchase.
The fact we've gone a day and a half with dead silence from Apple pretty much tells me this is a done deal. I'm just venting right now because I think it's a stupid idea. Especially the notion that Apple needs the Beats brand to become cool with teenagers. Or that someone like Dr Dre would become an Apple executive. I'm still hoping its just a bad dream and I'll wake up to hear Apple played us all.
First, Apple typically doesn't respond to rumors and second do you have any proof whatsoever that Apple initiated any of these rumors? IMO this whole beats thing is all pure BS, as find it hard to fathom that Apple would spend 3.2B on a beats acquisition.
I predict a TMZ will report a struggle between the Iovine/Dre/Tyrese camp and the Ahrendts/Ive/Schiller camp for control of the floundering Apple, when the board asks CEO Tim Cook to step down after Apple fails to keep up with the Samsungs as the Galaxy S9 reaches 11 inches, while Apple is stuck in the past at 6 inches with the iPhone 8S. Ive is quoted as refusing to abandon the principle of two handed elegance you can fit in your coat pocket, while Dre is said to want a "phat phablet" clocking in at 12-inches. When asked why, Dre is reported to have said that Apple needed to "come correct" when going up against Samsung, and oneupmanship was how Apple could reestablish "street cred." The two camps also fought over Iovine's proposal for Apple to acquire the Marc Ecko brand. Ahrendts was quoted as saying "eww" threatening to resign if Apple did. The Ecko deal fell through in late 2018, however.
How's that for the sky is falling?
I don't see Dr. Dre taking an active role in Apple management -- any more than AlGore or the head of the Apple db Filemaker nee Nutshell does (can't even remember the name).
Randy Ubillos does a pretty good job of overseeing FCPX and iMovie without disrupting Apple's overall plans.
For the umpteenth time it's not about headphones, rather it is a strategic move to gain a pre-eminate
position in media streaming ...
I may be old, but I'm open minded...
Beats make most of their money from headphones. Apple doesn't need to buy another company to go into audio streaming, they already do this, they just have to do a subscription service.
Craziest thing I've heard so fR!
Nicely put ... Forget the fucking headphones -- this is about Internet streaming for the next 10 years.
Dr Dre is going to be an Apple executive. Cook has lost his fucking mind.
Steve Jobs was an Apple executive, why not Dr. Dre ?
It is remarkable how weak-minded some people on this board are.
They cannot comprehend anything that is not quantified in bits and bytes. This is really sad.
Here’s to the crazy ones. The misfits. The rebels. The troublemakers. The round pegs in the square holes.
...While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.