This one is a bit confusing to me, if this one does in fact play out, I guess we will have to wait and see how if plays into the larger picture. Some of Apple's acquisitions made sense immediately and others took time to understand the how it plays in the larger picture.
Beats is just a marketing machine, not much different than Apple, but Apple has great product behind them. Beats does not, as a person who has a 20 yrs old studio grade head set which still works great and I pay no where the price Beats headphone cost they are a far better product than Beats.
Headphone use to be rated on the ability to not distort sound, but to day it seems like people are willing to pay a lot more for something the actually distorts sound.
I am not sure if paying for Beats music subscribers if worth that kind of money. Look over the last 15 yrs how many music delivery systems that existed and how people keep jumping from one to another. Consumers have no sticking power with music delivery, because there is no cost to change.
I have a pair of Sony headphones that are 20 years old and which sound better than any Beats. The driver diaphragms have a layer of vapour deposited amorphous diamond for stiffness. The Headband has Nitinol memory alloy which allows them to be folded into a small volume for portability.
300,000 subscribers at 3B is $10,000 a head. Lol - don't think so. Good luck with even getting the purchase price back from this deal. It's another, though vastly more expensive, liquid metal purchase IMO. Still, Apple can afford to get it wrong if that's how it turns out.
If true- I look forward to seeing what theyd do also. Its definately unprecidented. Of course, with Next, they simply integrated it. Filemaker is the only seperately run company under the Apple umbrella. Honestly, I think if they made "Beats" headphones "Apple" headphones- it would be bad for sales. As much as I love apple, there is a large segment of people who "would never buy Apple". So this is a case where I would hope they'd integrate the music streaming service, and keep the hardware seperate. As a $300 mil profit company, $3.2b is still overpaying substantially. I'd like to see it for closer to $2b. We'll see.
I wonder if the HTC buy back has to be factored in to all this?
And for the Donald trump comparisons. The difference is that Donald was rich when he was born, Dre wasn't.
Regardless, I guess I'm just out of line for looking at what people have achieved in their lives, as opposed to how they act in public (when they just doubled their net worth and were celebrating)
Fine- Mark Cuban then. Or a dozen other eccentricwhite rich men who were self-made. Look- I like Cuban. And I like Dre. They are both extremely intelligent. But I don't want someone who is eccentric and volatile- and says "nigger", "shit", is publicly discriminatory towards gays, the list goes on and on and on- to be a senior executive or on the board of APPLE.
So instead of making empty claims- answer me this. When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify doctor Dre? Because it personifies Apple.
Fine- Mark Cuban then. Or a dozen other eccentricwhite rich men who were self-made. Look- I like Cuban. And I like Dre. They are both extremely intelligent. But I don't want someone who is eccentric and volatile- and says "nigger", "shit", is publicly discriminatory towards gays, the list goes on and on and on- to be a senior executive or on the board of APPLE.
So instead of making empty claims- answer me this. When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify doctor Dre? Because it personifies Apple.
Where does the idea Dre would sit on Apple's board come from?
When I hear elegant and classy I don't think about Steve jobs dropping acid and being a deadbeat dad either. I don't know why you think they are going to sell you dr Dre in bulk now. It's about the products they make, and didn't mark Cuban have something to do with HD TV? Don't count the eccentric white or black or Hispanic or Asian rich men out of anything. Dre won't be in charge of making the iwatch, he is only gonna handle music
Look at these and note what is happening toApple's content and services business categories. Especialy what is happening with Music vis a vis Services.
IMO. Apple understands that they need to do something to offset the decline in music revenues. I suspect, they think the Beats Streaming Service will goose the music revenues -- and is exactly what Apple needs for the next 5 years (or so).
Even to a company the size of the Fortune 130, the acquisition price is a reasonable amount.
If I'm understanding you correctly then I completely disagree with your conclusion. iTunes, the App Store, iCloud, while they may make money for the company, their number one reason is to support and make more valuable Apple Hardware. If Apple hardware didn't exist, none of those entities would either. There is no reason to possess a streaming music service for a company like Apple without hardware to which in can be streamed, so buying something as a revenue source that exists in a more agnostic device world doesn't make any sense - it's not a reason to buy this. It's not Apple, and if it happens it would signal a HUGE shift in how Apple views its portfolio, and events like that, although they sound easy on paper, almost never ever happen in the business world - it's one reason companies die, because they can't change who they are.
In my opinion Apple isn't about to place a new and big focus on non-hardware services as revenue streams. The non-hardware services can make money (and most if not all of Apple's do), but that's not the reason they exist and I don't see that changing.
Since none of us knows Apple's endgame (in fact, there's no absolute proof this is a done deal), I'll just reiterate what I've previously said... Apple should buy up the component manufacturers out from under Samsung. Start to own THEIR suppliers. Heck, even buy up the miners who dig up the metals to supply the suppliers! Want to own the whole enchilada? Buy the enchilada.
When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify doctor Dre? Because it personifies Apple.
I could ask: When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify Steve Jobs? Because it personifies Apple.
I'd say that personifies Tim Cook or Jony Ive a lot more than Steve Jobs. Frankly, I don't see those words being any different excel if they are used to fuel racism, homophobia and misogyny. I would think you could find actual pejorative uses of the words bitch and ho from Dre more readily. Are there any of him in interview where he's saying anything overtly offensive?
I see Beyoncé as strong, independent woman that wouldn't put up with a misogynist man but she married Jay-Z who has a song titled "99 Problems" where he raps about having 99 problems but a bitch ain't one. Does that mean he has a hatred of women? I don't think so. I also don't think Dre or Tupac fall into that category. Now Chris Brown and Mystical on the other hand are pieces of shit.
If I'm understanding you correctly then I completely disagree with your conclusion. iTunes, the App Store, iCloud, while they may make money for the company, their number one reason is to support and make more valuable Apple Hardware. If Apple hardware didn't exist, none of those entities would either. There is no reason to possess a streaming music service for a company like Apple without hardware to which in can be streamed, so buying something as a revenue source that exists in a more agnostic device world doesn't make any sense - it's not a reason to buy this. It's not Apple, and if it happens it would signal a HUGE shift in how Apple views its portfolio, and events like that, although they sound easy on paper, almost never ever happen in the business world - it's one reason companies die, because they can't change who they are.
In my opinion Apple isn't about to place a new and big focus on non-hardware services as revenue streams. The non-hardware services can make money (and most if not all of Apple's do), but that's not the reason they exist and I don't see that changing.
It's been suggested on several blogs there maybe tie-ins with Apple's rumored move into biometrics.
I could ask: When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify Steve Jobs? Because it personifies Apple.
I'd say that personifies Tim Cook or Jony Ive a lot more than Steve Jobs. Frankly, I don't see those words being any different excel if they are used to fuel racism, homophobia and misogyny. I would think you could find actual pejorative uses of the words bitch and ho from Dre more readily. Are there any of him in interview where he's saying anything overtly offensive?
I see Beyoncé as strong, independent woman that wouldn't put up with a misogynist man but she married Jay-Z who has a song titled "99 Problems" where he raps about having 99 problems but a bitch ain't one. Does that mean he has a hatred of women? I don't think so. I also don't think Dre or Tupac fall into that category. Now Chris Brown and Mystical on the other hand are pieces of shit.
It would be interesting to read, in a parallel universe, this same blog had Jimmy alone owned Beats, wouldn't it?
I could ask: When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify Steve Jobs? Because it personifies Apple.
I'd say that personifies Tim Cook or Jony Ive a lot more than Steve Jobs. Frankly, I don't see those words being any different excel if they are used to fuel racism, homophobia and misogyny. I would think you could find actual pejorative uses of the words bitch and ho from Dre more readily. Are there any of him in interview where he's saying anything overtly offensive?
I see Beyoncé as strong, independent woman that wouldn't put up with a misogynist man but she married Jay-Z who has a song titled "99 Problems" where he raps about having 99 problems but a bitch ain't one. Does that mean he has a hatred of women? I don't think so. I also don't think Dre or Tupac fall into that category. Now Chris Brown and Mystical on the other hand are pieces of shit.
First- you know nothing of the character or Beyonce or Jay-Z. He could be banging 2 chicks every night on tour- that's just the added perk to being a rock star. To think a celebrity marriage is going to work is laughable. Talk to me in 10 years.
And no, the words Elegant and Classy isn't used to fuel racism, homophobia, and misogyny. Oprah, Jan Adams, William Bailey, Kenneth Chenault, or Don Thomson are all extremely Elegant, Classy, and Black. And it's not because they "act white". Oprah is far from it. Not acting ignorant and offensive is a good place to start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
It would be interesting to read, in a parallel universe, this same blog had Jimmy alone owned Beats wouldn't it?
I'm ok with the acquisition because its Apple, but I, on the surface, don't think it's smart. If it's $3.2 billion, I think it's extremely overpriced because outside of a $30mil revenue stream through Beats Music, I don't see any overlap or synergistic business models. I think Beats would need to be marketed and run independently, which is fine- and I think Apple could grow it- but at ~$200-$260mil in profit, 3.2 billion is WAY overpriced. 2 Bil is reaching the upper limit. When I've bought companies or offered, I only go 3-5x EBITA. If there was a massive syngergistic relationship I could even see 10x. Of course, Ive never done a deal close to 3.2billion, so my numbers I run off of likely don't apply. But where there is no overlap, I just don't see it. I trust Apple, particularly with their acquisitions, so I will wait and see.
If I'm understanding you correctly then I completely disagree with your conclusion. iTunes, the App Store, iCloud, while they may make money for the company, their number one reason is to support and make more valuable Apple Hardware. If Apple hardware didn't exist, none of those entities would either. There is no reason to possess a streaming music service for a company like Apple without hardware to which in can be streamed, so buying something as a revenue source that exists in a more agnostic device world doesn't make any sense - it's not a reason to buy this. It's not Apple, and if it happens it would signal a HUGE shift in how Apple views its portfolio, and events like that, although they sound easy on paper, almost never ever happen in the business world - it's one reason companies die, because they can't change who they are.
In my opinion Apple isn't about to place a new and big focus on non-hardware services as revenue streams. The non-hardware services can make money (and most if not all of Apple's do), but that's not the reason they exist and I don't see that changing.
He's pointing out that even in a supporting role for their HW sales Apple's SW and expansive cloud-based services are exceptionally profitable. Anything that can add to that will help sell their devices and probably lead to one device category sale become a second device category sale (like an iPhone buyer then buying an iPad and/or Mac).
Since none of us knows Apple's endgame (in fact, there's no absolute proof this is a done deal), I'll just reiterate what I've previously said... Apple should buy up the component manufacturers out from under Samsung. Start to own THEIR suppliers. Heck, even buy up the miners who dig up the metals to supply the suppliers! Want to own the whole enchilada? Buy the enchilada.
I'm just remembering when Tim Cook said Apple was going to focus more on the cloud. I could see the various aspects of this deal as part of that goal.
Also consider that the iTunes arrived in 2001 and the iTunes Music Store in 2003. Since then it's changed a lot but in that 11 years since its inception it has become the primary source for music that many children now adults have known. (The official age is 13yo or older but I'm sure there are younger children using their caregiver's accounts) At some point the "cool factor" does wear thin. This seems especially true when it comes to music.
Now consider that iTunes recently had it's first reported drop ever. Could they finally be breaking out the music app from the admittedly bloated iTunes app and refreshing the whole service to appeal to a new generation. Personally, I don't want iTunes to be broken up on the Mac like it is on iDevices but I know that sentiment is commonly felt around here.
It's been suggested on several blogs there maybe tie-ins with Apple's rumored move into biometrics.
I've read (some of) those too, and that makes a lot more sense, but at $3B, there must be some IP they want very, very badly.
Does that also possibly imply that they weren't able to buy *only* the stuff they wanted, that it was all or nothing, so they're going to be stuck with crap they didn't want, which might mean a sale at a convenient time (or simply a shut down of those parts) after incorporating the rest of the (moderately) useable stuff in the sale??
First- you know nothing of the character or Beyonce or Jay-Z. He could be banging 2 chicks every night on tour- that's just the added perk to being a rock star. To think a celebrity marriage is going to work is laughable. Talk to me in 10 years.
Maybe he is, but I queried if you think Beyoncé would marry him if he hated women given what she signs about? I wouldn't think so but, as you note, I don't know them personally. (If Beyoncé ever gets a divorce I call dibs )
PS: I don't think the length of a marriage is any measure of how a couple feels about each other at the time.
And no, the words Elegant and Classy isn't used to fuel racism, homophobia, and misogyny. Oprah, Jan Adams, William Bailey, Kenneth Chenault, or Don Thomson are all extremely Elegant, Classy, and Black. And it's not because they "act white". Oprah is far from it. Not acting ignorant and offensive is a good place to start.
I didn't mean to suggest that and not sure how that was interpreted. My comments about elegant and classy were suggesting that is not some you should look for when there is a rumour about buying a company, especially considering how Steve Jobs lacked any traditional elegance, classiness and sophistication in how he dealt with people.
My comments about racism, homophobia, and misogyny were my attempts to form an argument from your position that I felt was more apt and could be better defended as a reason why Dre would be a choice as part of Apple's executive team, as some rumours seem to indicate.
i think Samsung's advertising stung Apple and the marketing department is worried that those ads dinged Apple's "cool" factor. And buying a trendy headphone maker that teenagers like might get some of that "cool" back.
He's pointing out that even in a supporting role for their HW sales Apple's SW and expansive cloud-based services are exceptionally profitable. Anything that can add to that will help sell their devices and probably lead to one device category sale become a second device category sale (like an iPhone buyer then buying an iPad and/or Mac).
I'm just remembering when Tim Cook said Apple was going to focus more on the cloud. I could see the various aspects of this deal as part of that goal.
Also consider that the iTunes arrived in 2001 and the iTunes Music Store in 2003. Since then it's changed a lot but in that 11 years since its inception it has become the primary source for music that many children now adults have known. (The official age is 13yo or older but I'm sure there are younger children using their caregiver's accounts) At some point the "cool factor" does wear thin. This seems especially true when it comes to music.
Now consider that iTunes recently had it's first reported drop ever. Could they finally be breaking out the music app from the admittedly bloated iTunes app and refreshing the whole service to appeal to a new generation. Personally, I don't want iTunes to be broken up on the Mac like it is on iDevices but I know that sentiment is commonly felt around here.
Anecdotal opinions from around the web seem to indicate that many younger people go to YouTube for their music listening now. Yes, listening, not for the videos. I've done my own research and find all kinds of obscure music on YouTube that has been ripped. And kids don't pay for music subscriptions. I wonder if both paid and subscription music services are a dead end and we're headed back to expectations of free music everywhere once again, a la Napster.
I'm actually happy that Apple doesn't plan to jettison the hardware line. People don't think of Apple as being a company with good audio chops but they are pretty good designers. The work they did with the 15" Retina MBP speakers was great as is the iMac speakers.
If Apple thinks they can improve the Beats headphones I think they should try. The streaming service also needs to have some special features that integrate nicely with iTunes. While subscriptions are likely going to dominate the future of music I don't think that Apple should shy away from promoting music sales. Some stuff is just too good not to own.
That would please the self-important tech pundits and Valley chinwags, but so would Apple making Android phablets. In other words, Apple's doesn't acquire companies to impress the pundits.
Comments
I'd like an automatic 1 week ban by the mods for all deliberate political comments that are likely to derail a thread on AI. That's my chill level ...
This one is a bit confusing to me, if this one does in fact play out, I guess we will have to wait and see how if plays into the larger picture. Some of Apple's acquisitions made sense immediately and others took time to understand the how it plays in the larger picture.
Beats is just a marketing machine, not much different than Apple, but Apple has great product behind them. Beats does not, as a person who has a 20 yrs old studio grade head set which still works great and I pay no where the price Beats headphone cost they are a far better product than Beats.
Headphone use to be rated on the ability to not distort sound, but to day it seems like people are willing to pay a lot more for something the actually distorts sound.
I am not sure if paying for Beats music subscribers if worth that kind of money. Look over the last 15 yrs how many music delivery systems that existed and how people keep jumping from one to another. Consumers have no sticking power with music delivery, because there is no cost to change.
I have a pair of Sony headphones that are 20 years old and which sound better than any Beats. The driver diaphragms have a layer of vapour deposited amorphous diamond for stiffness. The Headband has Nitinol memory alloy which allows them to be folded into a small volume for portability.
300,000 subscribers at 3B is $10,000 a head. Lol - don't think so. Good luck with even getting the purchase price back from this deal. It's another, though vastly more expensive, liquid metal purchase IMO. Still, Apple can afford to get it wrong if that's how it turns out.
I wonder if the HTC buy back has to be factored in to all this?
And for the Donald trump comparisons. The difference is that Donald was rich when he was born, Dre wasn't.
Regardless, I guess I'm just out of line for looking at what people have achieved in their lives, as opposed to how they act in public (when they just doubled their net worth and were celebrating)
Fine- Mark Cuban then. Or a dozen other eccentric white rich men who were self-made. Look- I like Cuban. And I like Dre. They are both extremely intelligent. But I don't want someone who is eccentric and volatile- and says "nigger", "shit", is publicly discriminatory towards gays, the list goes on and on and on- to be a senior executive or on the board of APPLE.
So instead of making empty claims- answer me this. When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify doctor Dre? Because it personifies Apple.
Where does the idea Dre would sit on Apple's board come from?
And that’s racism, is it? Representations of actual dialogue are racist now?
Uh oh! Guess I’m racist against YOU for quoting your post! Or maybe… maybe if I wrote…
“It did not take me long to find [evidence supporting my claim].”
OH NO THAT’S RACIST AGAINST YOU.
True. So you finally have proof that Apple has planned this, do you? Everyone’s acting like it’s true when we don’t yet know.
Here:
http://www.asymco.com/2014/02/10/fortune-130/
And, here:
http://www.asymco.com/2014/05/09/measuring-not-getting-the-cloud/#disqus_thread
Look at these and note what is happening toApple's content and services business categories. Especialy what is happening with Music vis a vis Services.
IMO. Apple understands that they need to do something to offset the decline in music revenues. I suspect, they think the Beats Streaming Service will goose the music revenues -- and is exactly what Apple needs for the next 5 years (or so).
Even to a company the size of the Fortune 130, the acquisition price is a reasonable amount.
If I'm understanding you correctly then I completely disagree with your conclusion. iTunes, the App Store, iCloud, while they may make money for the company, their number one reason is to support and make more valuable Apple Hardware. If Apple hardware didn't exist, none of those entities would either. There is no reason to possess a streaming music service for a company like Apple without hardware to which in can be streamed, so buying something as a revenue source that exists in a more agnostic device world doesn't make any sense - it's not a reason to buy this. It's not Apple, and if it happens it would signal a HUGE shift in how Apple views its portfolio, and events like that, although they sound easy on paper, almost never ever happen in the business world - it's one reason companies die, because they can't change who they are.
In my opinion Apple isn't about to place a new and big focus on non-hardware services as revenue streams. The non-hardware services can make money (and most if not all of Apple's do), but that's not the reason they exist and I don't see that changing.
I could ask: When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify Steve Jobs? Because it personifies Apple.
I'd say that personifies Tim Cook or Jony Ive a lot more than Steve Jobs. Frankly, I don't see those words being any different excel if they are used to fuel racism, homophobia and misogyny. I would think you could find actual pejorative uses of the words bitch and ho from Dre more readily. Are there any of him in interview where he's saying anything overtly offensive?
I see Beyoncé as strong, independent woman that wouldn't put up with a misogynist man but she married Jay-Z who has a song titled "99 Problems" where he raps about having 99 problems but a bitch ain't one. Does that mean he has a hatred of women? I don't think so. I also don't think Dre or Tupac fall into that category. Now Chris Brown and Mystical on the other hand are pieces of shit.
It's been suggested on several blogs there maybe tie-ins with Apple's rumored move into biometrics.
It would be interesting to read, in a parallel universe, this same blog had Jimmy alone owned Beats, wouldn't it?
I could ask: When you hear the words "Elegant and Classy"- does that personify Steve Jobs? Because it personifies Apple.
I'd say that personifies Tim Cook or Jony Ive a lot more than Steve Jobs. Frankly, I don't see those words being any different excel if they are used to fuel racism, homophobia and misogyny. I would think you could find actual pejorative uses of the words bitch and ho from Dre more readily. Are there any of him in interview where he's saying anything overtly offensive?
I see Beyoncé as strong, independent woman that wouldn't put up with a misogynist man but she married Jay-Z who has a song titled "99 Problems" where he raps about having 99 problems but a bitch ain't one. Does that mean he has a hatred of women? I don't think so. I also don't think Dre or Tupac fall into that category. Now Chris Brown and Mystical on the other hand are pieces of shit.
First- you know nothing of the character or Beyonce or Jay-Z. He could be banging 2 chicks every night on tour- that's just the added perk to being a rock star. To think a celebrity marriage is going to work is laughable. Talk to me in 10 years.
And no, the words Elegant and Classy isn't used to fuel racism, homophobia, and misogyny. Oprah, Jan Adams, William Bailey, Kenneth Chenault, or Don Thomson are all extremely Elegant, Classy, and Black. And it's not because they "act white". Oprah is far from it. Not acting ignorant and offensive is a good place to start.
It would be interesting to read, in a parallel universe, this same blog had Jimmy alone owned Beats wouldn't it?
He's pointing out that even in a supporting role for their HW sales Apple's SW and expansive cloud-based services are exceptionally profitable. Anything that can add to that will help sell their devices and probably lead to one device category sale become a second device category sale (like an iPhone buyer then buying an iPad and/or Mac).
I'm just remembering when Tim Cook said Apple was going to focus more on the cloud. I could see the various aspects of this deal as part of that goal.
Also consider that the iTunes arrived in 2001 and the iTunes Music Store in 2003. Since then it's changed a lot but in that 11 years since its inception it has become the primary source for music that many children now adults have known. (The official age is 13yo or older but I'm sure there are younger children using their caregiver's accounts) At some point the "cool factor" does wear thin. This seems especially true when it comes to music.
Now consider that iTunes recently had it's first reported drop ever. Could they finally be breaking out the music app from the admittedly bloated iTunes app and refreshing the whole service to appeal to a new generation. Personally, I don't want iTunes to be broken up on the Mac like it is on iDevices but I know that sentiment is commonly felt around here.
It's been suggested on several blogs there maybe tie-ins with Apple's rumored move into biometrics.
I've read (some of) those too, and that makes a lot more sense, but at $3B, there must be some IP they want very, very badly.
Does that also possibly imply that they weren't able to buy *only* the stuff they wanted, that it was all or nothing, so they're going to be stuck with crap they didn't want, which might mean a sale at a convenient time (or simply a shut down of those parts) after incorporating the rest of the (moderately) useable stuff in the sale??
Maybe he is, but I queried if you think Beyoncé would marry him if he hated women given what she signs about? I wouldn't think so but, as you note, I don't know them personally. (If Beyoncé ever gets a divorce I call dibs )
PS: I don't think the length of a marriage is any measure of how a couple feels about each other at the time.
I didn't mean to suggest that and not sure how that was interpreted. My comments about elegant and classy were suggesting that is not some you should look for when there is a rumour about buying a company, especially considering how Steve Jobs lacked any traditional elegance, classiness and sophistication in how he dealt with people.
My comments about racism, homophobia, and misogyny were my attempts to form an argument from your position that I felt was more apt and could be better defended as a reason why Dre would be a choice as part of Apple's executive team, as some rumours seem to indicate.
Anecdotal opinions from around the web seem to indicate that many younger people go to YouTube for their music listening now. Yes, listening, not for the videos. I've done my own research and find all kinds of obscure music on YouTube that has been ripped. And kids don't pay for music subscriptions. I wonder if both paid and subscription music services are a dead end and we're headed back to expectations of free music everywhere once again, a la Napster.
I'm actually happy that Apple doesn't plan to jettison the hardware line. People don't think of Apple as being a company with good audio chops but they are pretty good designers. The work they did with the 15" Retina MBP speakers was great as is the iMac speakers.
If Apple thinks they can improve the Beats headphones I think they should try. The streaming service also needs to have some special features that integrate nicely with iTunes. While subscriptions are likely going to dominate the future of music I don't think that Apple should shy away from promoting music sales. Some stuff is just too good not to own.
That would please the self-important tech pundits and Valley chinwags, but so would Apple making Android phablets. In other words, Apple's doesn't acquire companies to impress the pundits.