It's a terrible idea, when Jony Ive could just continue making things for the Apple brand, which is much more highly regarded than any Beats brand.
Not comprehending this means you probably have no idea what it is to be a creative person. Why do you think members of the Stones, U2, etc.. go off and do side musical projects? It's fun to have a place to express yourself without the stress and legacy that comes with creating for the main group. I bet Jony and his team will improve the existing headphones, make an inexpensive Beats phone that runs iOS, and design a bunch of other cool stuff. Think of it as Apple's "street label", younger and more rebellious.
No, actually you did nothing to sway my opinion, I'm familiar with those arguments, people have been making them for years, they've never been true before and there's no reason to believe that's going to change.
It stems from a basic misunderstanding of the purpose of iTunes as it relates to Apple, why it exists and what it means to the company. iTunes is an anomaly, it's like a "loss leader" but it makes money (quite a lot), and for some reason people assume that makes it a business that Apple will/does/should treat as a separate going concern regardless what happens to Apple's hardware business. What I mean is that people think that iTunes would remain around long after Apple stopped making hardware, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Yes, iTunes (the entire system) is a benefit to Apple customers, yes it's a reason people are willing to pay *more* for Apple products, yes it adds value to Apple's products, but no, it isn't the main reason Apple exists, and no it wouldn't continue as a business if there were no hardware for it to support, which is what it is, a support division that ends up making them money.
The business model of Apple's is exactly the opposite to that of Amazon's, which sells hardware (cheaply) through which it can sell its services (same with Google) which is where it makes all its money. Putting $3B into an ancillary service offering seems to me to be exactly backwards to Apple's business model, where it would make sense to do it if you were Amazon or Google, but not Apple, which is why people here (in this thread and elsewhere) believe there's more to this acquisition than an overpriced upgrade to what they already possess in their portfolio of offerings (ignoring the Beats headphones business).
Do I think it might attract more people to buy Apple products, yes, I think that's a safe assumption. Do I think it's possible to realise enough of those additional sales to warrant and justify this $3B investment? Absolutely not.
Rather than respond point by point -- I'll try to convince you on what Apple's goal is, IMO.
Within the next 5 years, a whole new breed of customers will enter the marketplace -- and the marketplace will be different than it is today:
instant gratification - buy what you want, how you want, where you want, when you want
automatic comparison shop for for the best value *
cashless/cardless transactions
continuous connectivity facilitated by ubiquitous, fast, inexpensive data connections
secure, opt-in tracking of location, preferences, purchases, etc.
increasing gain in the importance of services
* The key word here is value
I expect that the differences in hardware will be less important than what you can do with that hardware -- that means services.
Now, Apple has a growing iTunes iCloud services offering. I expect that they will continue to add stuff to those services -- maybe:
a generic subscription service -- where you can subscribe/unsubscribe to, say, Photoshop on an as-need basis
allow those 400-800 Million iTunes credit cards to buy things other than digital data -- a car, a meal ...
provide curated purchasing services, traveling services, marketing services ...
I can remember the days when there was no Internet, no cell phones, no personal computers without floppy disks -- no personal computers ...
Today we have devices with us at all times that are [mostly] capable of connecting us to the world at large -- on demand and at our option! The hardware is pretty-much already there; the software is getting there; the services are lagging ...
For example: Today's iPad, iOS and Apps are capable of delivering on-demand TV, music and movies to everyone -- at home, at play -- wherever, whenever ...
But what Steve hasn't, yet, cracked is a way to provide the connection and delivery of those services to tha customer -- at a price that provides value for the service.
Apple could leverage the existing carriers, cablecos, content providers ...
Or, Tim (chosen by Steve) could just say screw that -- we're not only going to sell you the hardware, but the connections and services that deliver the value at a good price **
I think the Best acquisition is the next big step to make that happen -- and it will further demonstrate that Apple is willing to pay to get what it wants.
** value at a good price is the definition of a bargain!
AAC files are actually quite good. A lot of people hve problems distinguishing high quality AAC from ALAC or FLAC. And bad sounding headphones don't start sounding good just because you change the equalizer settings.
But I just don't think Apple is buying Beats for the headphones.
Not comprehending this means you probably have no idea what it is to be a creative person. Why do you think members of the Stones, U2, etc.. go off and do side musical projects? It's fun to have a place to express yourself without the stress and legacy that comes with creating for the main group. I bet Jony and his team will improve the existing headphones, make an inexpensive Beats phone that runs iOS, and design a bunch of other cool stuff. Think of it as Apple's "street label", younger and more rebellious.
I'm not interested in any Apple "side projects". Apple is a corporation, not a band.
I also think that anybody who thinks that Apple needs to be more cool is simply buying into Samsung's propaganda.
Rather than respond point by point -- I'll try to convince you on what Apple's goal is, IMO.
Within the next 5 years, a whole new breed of customers will enter the marketplace -- and the marketplace will be different than it is today:
instant gratification - buy what you want, how you want, where you want, when you want
automatic comparison shop for for the best value *
cashless/cardless transactions
continuous connectivity facilitated by ubiquitous, fast, inexpensive data connections
secure, opt-in tracking of location, preferences, purchases, etc.
increasing gain in the importance of services
* The key word here is value
I expect that the differences in hardware will be less important than what you can do with that hardware -- that means services.
Now, Apple has a growing iTunes iCloud services offering. I expect that they will continue to add stuff to those services -- maybe:
a generic subscription service -- where you can subscribe/unsubscribe to, say, Photoshop on an as-need basis
allow those 400-800 Million iTunes credit cards to buy things other than digital data -- a car, a meal ...
provide curated purchasing services, traveling services, marketing services ...
I can remember the days when there was no Internet, no cell phones, no personal computers without floppy disks -- no personal computers ...
Today we have devices with us at all times that are [mostly] capable of connecting us to the world at large -- on demand and at our option! The hardware is pretty-much already there; the software is getting there; the services are lagging ...
For example: Today's iPad, iOS and Apps are capable of delivering on-demand TV, music and movies to everyone -- at home, at play -- wherever, whenever ...
But what Steve hasn't, yet, cracked is a way to provide the connection and delivery of those services to tha customer -- at a price that provides value for the service.
Apple could leverage the existing carriers, cablecos, content providers ...
Or, Tim (chosen by Steve) could just say screw that -- we're not only going to sell you the hardware, but the connections and services that deliver the value at a good price **
I think the Best acquisition is the next big step to make that happen -- and it will further demonstrate that Apple is willing to pay to get what it wants.
** value at a good price is the definition of a bargain!
Who better than Apple to make this happen?
Seriously? Not only is most of that there already - although other companies do it better for now - buying a headphone company isn't going to help.
Seriously? Not only is most of that there already - although other companies do it better for now - buying a headphone company isn't going to help.
It's not available from one company. The consumer by and large isn't into a la carte. Apple is poised to take many of these elements and package them nicely together at profit.
Buying Beats gets them infrastructure (Beats Music, Beats Electronics) and personnel (Young, Iovine and more)
And most importantly it's not a loss leader. Beats makes money.
Not comprehending this means you probably have no idea what it is to be a creative person. Why do you think members of the Stones, U2, etc.. go off and do side musical projects? It's fun to have a place to express yourself without the stress and legacy that comes with creating for the main group. I bet Jony and his team will improve the existing headphones, make an inexpensive Beats phone that runs iOS, and design a bunch of other cool stuff. Think of it as Apple's "street label", younger and more rebellious.
No need to take umbrage at his remarks, and let's also not forget about having a well defined and articulated business model and sticking to it. Apple is extremely good at staying focussed and being consistent in all their decisions, designing headphones for a 3rd party brand is not in Apple's future.
To put the Apple design team on an aftermarket accessories product runs counter to good business practice. Firstly, headphones are for all devices. How will that support the Apple brand and sell more Apple hardware (the accessories we're talking about here are a pittance to Apple's revenue)? In other words, how is that a good use of valuable resource to design products that won't even support the company's main products?
Apple stays out of the accessories market because, well, there are enough manufacturers who offer lots of great options for their products. Apple offers basic stuff and others do great aftermarket stuff. For Apple to start to put a focus on aftermarket accessories doesn't make any sense, regardless how it will purportedly promote the creative process for Apple designers. It would be a distraction, a defocusing from what Apple is all about.
I really can't imagine there's going to be a sub-brand, or "street label," that is Apple but for a different market segment. That smacks more of gimmick or dilution of brand at best, and protecting the world's most valuable brand at this point is what it's all about.
It's not available from one company. The consumer by and large isn't into a la carte. Apple is poised to take many of these elements and package them nicely together at profit.
Buying Beats gets them infrastructure (Beats Music, Beats Electronics) and personnel (Young, Iovine and more)
And most importantly it's not a loss leader. Beats makes money.
Buying beats gets them absolutely nothing like the list of items dick mentioned. Buying square would make more sense. What they get here is:
1) a music streaming service ( or more likely an algorithm) which they could just as easily licence.
2) a headphone producing company which might be making money but can't be brought in under apples brand nor can it be made to produce exclusively Apple products. Apple never buys like that.
3) they can hire the founders for a lot less than billions.
There is nothing here that Apple couldn't do or licence differently. If you are saying that Apple needs to buy companies willy nilly like google, hoping something sticks, well that's quite a change of attitude for AI.
Funny thing is I think they should be more acquisitive. Square. Yelp maybe. Some better voice technology.
IMO this is on Eddy Cue. He's been running iTunes since forever. Obviously the buck stops with Cook but Cue is the DRI (directly responsible individual) in Apple speak.
Agree. But it was Cue who met with Iovine and Dre in March '13 so it isn't a leap to say Cue also got the Beats ball rolling. I also give credit to Cook because this could be a disruptive deal.
No need to take umbrage at his remarks, and let's also not forget about having a well defined and articulated business model and sticking to it. Apple is extremely good at staying focussed and being consistent in all their decisions, designing headphones for a 3rd party brand is not in Apple's future.
To put the Apple design team on an aftermarket accessories product runs counter to good business practice. Firstly, headphones are for all devices. How will that support the Apple brand and sell more Apple hardware (the accessories we're talking about here are a pittance to Apple's revenue)? In other words, how is that a good use of valuable resource to design products that won't even support the company's main products?
Apple stays out of the accessories market because, well, there are enough manufacturers who offer lots of great options for their products. Apple offers basic stuff and others do great aftermarket stuff. For Apple to start to put a focus on aftermarket accessories doesn't make any sense, regardless how it will purportedly promote the creative process for Apple designers. It would be a distraction, a defocusing from what Apple is all about.
I really can't imagine there's going to be a sub-brand, or "street label," that is Apple but for a different market segment. That smacks more of gimmick or dilution of brand at best, and protecting the world's most valuable brand at this point is what it's all about.
All companies are in constant motion. There was once a time where many of us opined on these very boards about how Apple should make a phone only to have some respond "Nokia owns this market Apple doesn't stand a chance". Apple is very particular about their branding but they are well versed in wholly owned subsidiary and they have a few such as Filemaker, Braeburn Capital and Anobit. I see Beats Electronics as simply being another subsidiary with links into the Apple ecosystem.
The hardware is the main objective, it comes with a major sponsorship of athletes from baseball players to basketball players and many UFC fighters who wear these products in the public eye and within their events. No one wears apple headphones coming down for a fight in the UFC
BS. Apple doesn't pay people to use their products. People use the products because they are good products.
If a company has to pay people, the product is shit.
Rather than respond point by point -- I'll try to convince you on what Apple's goal is, IMO.
Within the next 5 years, a whole new breed of customers will enter the marketplace -- and the marketplace will be different than it is today:
instant gratification - buy what you want, how you want, where you want, when you want
automatic comparison shop for for the best value *
cashless/cardless transactions
continuous connectivity facilitated by ubiquitous, fast, inexpensive data connections
secure, opt-in tracking of location, preferences, purchases, etc.
increasing gain in the importance of services
* The key word here is value
I expect that the differences in hardware will be less important than what you can do with that hardware -- that means services.
Now, Apple has a growing iTunes iCloud services offering. I expect that they will continue to add stuff to those services -- maybe:
a generic subscription service -- where you can subscribe/unsubscribe to, say, Photoshop on an as-need basis
allow those 400-800 Million iTunes credit cards to buy things other than digital data -- a car, a meal ...
provide curated purchasing services, traveling services, marketing services ...
I can remember the days when there was no Internet, no cell phones, no personal computers without floppy disks -- no personal computers ...
Today we have devices with us at all times that are [mostly] capable of connecting us to the world at large -- on demand and at our option! The hardware is pretty-much already there; the software is getting there; the services are lagging ...
For example: Today's iPad, iOS and Apps are capable of delivering on-demand TV, music and movies to everyone -- at home, at play -- wherever, whenever ...
But what Steve hasn't, yet, cracked is a way to provide the connection and delivery of those services to tha customer -- at a price that provides value for the service.
Apple could leverage the existing carriers, cablecos, content providers ...
Or, Tim (chosen by Steve) could just say screw that -- we're not only going to sell you the hardware, but the connections and services that deliver the value at a good price **
I think the Best acquisition is the next big step to make that happen -- and it will further demonstrate that Apple is willing to pay to get what it wants.
** value at a good price is the definition of a bargain!
Who better than Apple to make this happen?
Seriously? Not only is most of that there already - although other companies do it better for now - buying a headphone company isn't going to help.
If that's true, why did my granddaughter recently need to open a checking account, get a debit card, and a credit card ... just so she can buy gas? Meals?
Last Monday was Ditch Day for the High School Seniors -- Most decided to go to Santa Cruz ... She and some classmates made reservations at a Holiday Inn -- on the phone giving her Debit card.
When they went to check in, the clerk would not accept the card because it didn't have her picture on it. They weren't carrying enough cash (in a resort town during spring break), and the ATM only allows $200 for each 24 hr period. She called her mother who called HI to put it on her credit card -- they wouldn't accept the info over the phone. HI emailed her a form which she had to print, fill in, camera-capture and email it back to them -- took about 2 hours, but they finally charged it to her Discover card ... twice ???
I know that's anecdotal, but what a shitty experience for several people, over several days -- just to buy a simple service.
If that's true, why did my granddaughter recently need to open a checking account, get a debit card, and a credit card ... just so she can buy gas? Meals?
Last Monday was Ditch Day for the High School Seniors -- Most decided to go to Santa Cruz ... She and some classmates made reservations at a Holiday Inn -- on the phone giving her Debit card.
When they went to check in, the clerk would not accept the card because it didn't have her picture on it. They weren't carrying enough cash (in a resort town during spring break), and the ATM only allows $200 for each 24 hr period. She called her mother who called HI to put it on her credit card -- they wouldn't accept the info over the phone. HI emailed her a form which she had to print, fill in, camera-capture and email it back to them -- took about 2 hours, but they finally charged it to her Discover card ... twice ???
I know that's anecdotal, but what a shitty experience for several people, over several days -- just to buy a simple service.
Apple has the potential to make buying painless!
And when they buy Square ( assuming they can't do this in house which they can - iTunes payments are apples most robust services) then I would agree with you.
You've taken an experience which Apple could do better than the existing vendors and credit card companies and posted it on a thread about the buying of a headphone company. For $3B.
I am not opposed to acquisitions. You can't make up fantasy stuff about any particular acquisitions. Buying a headphone company wouldn't help you granddaughter.
BS. Apple doesn't pay people to use their products. People use the products because they are good products.
If a company has to pay people, the product is shit.
Are you serious? I know you have to be kidding and I will take it that you have not done your research well my friend. Any product from apple that is used in any movie, tv show, and any star that is shown on the red carpet or televised event that is shown with an apple product is paid by apple. Any apple give away contest that is done on many news shows such pix 11 or fox 5 is paid for by apple and not the news station themselves.
So apple does indeed pay people to use their product my friend.
I have ad blocker and never see them, not sure everyone doesn't use it!
I sometimes see the ads on my iPad or iPhone. AppleInsider is quite literally suckling at Google's tit. It's no wonder they serve up so much Android/Samsung love.
It's not available from one company. The consumer by and large isn't into a la carte. Apple is poised to take many of these elements and package them nicely together at profit.
Buying Beats gets them infrastructure (Beats Music, Beats Electronics) and personnel (Young, Iovine and more)
And most importantly it's not a loss leader. Beats makes money.
Buying beats gets them absolutely nothing like the list of items dick mentioned. Buying square would make more sense. What they get here is:
1) a music streaming service ( or more likely an algorithm) which they could just as easily licence.
2) a headphone producing company which might be making money but can't be brought in under apples brand nor can it be made to produce exclusively Apple products. Apple never buys like that.
3) they can hire the founders for a lot less than billions.
There is nothing here that Apple couldn't do or licence differently. If you are saying that Apple needs to buy companies willy nilly like google, hoping something sticks, well that's quite a change of attitude for AI.
Funny thing is I think they should be more acquisitive. Square. Yelp maybe. Some better voice technology.
Big red headphones? Can't see it.
It's not just an algorithm, dammit! Its people who live and breathe music determining which song to play after the song that is playing. Its like having a stable of trained music experts deciding if you are listening to this artist's version of song A -- then the the next song should be that artists version of song B. It's based on your preferences -- and where you are, what you're doing, who you're with and your mood at that moment *
Rather than delivering Beer Barrel Polka followed by Beloved Wife or Gloomy Sunday, you get something chosen algorithmically from curated playlists which are created by music experts who know that B comes after A for this particular set of conditions.
* AFAIK, no other service even attempts to do that!
This is what they claim they can do, please read the quote carefully and watch the short video:
What if you could always have the perfect music for each moment, effortlessly ... Drives would be shorter ... Kisses deeper ... Inspiration would flow ... Memories would flood ... You'd fall in love -- every night ... And life would be infused with magic.
If you want to conjure that power for people ... You'd first have to respect it ... Be in awe of it ... And realize music is much more than just digital files ... It breathes and bleeds and feels ... And to do that, you'll need more inside your skull than a circuit board ... Because code can't hear the Bowie in a band's influences ... it doesn't know why The Stones seque perfectly into Aretha Franklin ... And if you're one perfect track away from getting some satisfaction ... You'd want more than software to deliver it ... You'd want brains and souls ... You'd want people driven by a passion for music ... Who know the only thing as important as the song you're hearing now -- is the song that comes next.
So, that's what we've done ... We've created an elegant, fun solution that integrates the best technology with friendly, trustworthy humanity ... That understands music as emotion and joy ... Culture and life.
This is a completely new way to experience music ... And the next step in the evolution that's taken us from 45s to CDs to streaming ... But the most important thing about it is that you'll be blown away by what happens when you hit play ... The right music ...Like magic!
[VIDEO]
If they can deliver that to an acceptable degree -- then Beats is a bargain, IMO.
Seriously, guys -- I can't learn-ya' the information ... It should be required reading/viewing for anyone posting to this thread intending to badmouth the process.
They claim they can do it -- why not give them the courtesy of your attention and the chance to prove it!
It's not just an algorithm, dammit! Its people who live and breathe music determining which song to play after the song that is playing. Its like having a stable of trained music experts deciding if you are listening to this artist's version of song A -- then the the next song should be that artists version of song B. It's based on your preferences -- and where you are, what you're doing, who you're with and your mood at that moment *
Rather than delivering Beer Barrel Polka followed by Beloved Wife or Gloomy Sunday, you get something chosen algorithmically from curated playlists which are created by music experts who know that B comes after A for this particular set of conditions.
* AFAIK, no other service even attempts to do that!
Wedding DJ's attempt to do this. Some are better then others, but they all aim for that goal. Beats music subscription service is certainly less expensive and more portable then wedding DJ's though.
P.S. I like the use of the Nine Inch Nails music in the video. Ghosts is a great set. As they're pitching a music service which emphasises track selection, it's appropriate that they've selected a great audio track to play during their advertisement.
It's not just an algorithm, dammit! Its people who live and breathe music determining which song to play after the song that is playing. Its like having a stable of trained music experts deciding if you are listening to this artist's version of song A -- then the the next song should be that artists version of song B. It's based on your preferences -- and where you are, what you're doing, who you're with and your mood at that moment *
Rather than delivering Beer Barrel Polka followed by Beloved Wife or Gloomy Sunday, you get something chosen algorithmically from curated playlists which are created by music experts who know that B comes after A for this particular set of conditions.
* AFAIK, no other service even attempts to do that!
This is what they claim they can do, please read the quote carefully and watch the short video:\
[VIDEO]
If they can deliver that to an acceptable degree -- then Beats is a bargain, IMO.
Seriously, guys -- I can't learn-ya' the information ... It should be required reading/viewing for posting to this thread, badmouthing the process.
They claim they can do it -- why not give them the courtesy of your attention and the chance to prove it!
Have we moved on from the bit where your granddaughter couldn't buy with her debit card and that was a good reason to buy beats? Ok. I'll take it you lost that argument.
So now you are taking beats press release about their human curated music recommendation algorithm, which it definitely is, seriously. And that's worth $3B? Didn't they buy it last year for a tiny fraction of that cost?
I doubt it. I'm not buying that dr Dre and jimmy Iovine are personally tweaking every possible song recommendation either, there's at best an army of underpaid workers in India, at worst it's a scam. Just think how much human input you would need to do this.
Buying beats gets them absolutely nothing like the list of items dick mentioned. Buying square would make more sense. What they get here is:
1) a music streaming service ( or more likely an algorithm) which they could just as easily licence.
2) a headphone producing company which might be making money but can't be brought in under apples brand nor can it be made to produce exclusively Apple products. Apple never buys like that.
3) they can hire the founders for a lot less than billions.
There is nothing here that Apple couldn't do or licence differently. If you are saying that Apple needs to buy companies willy nilly like google, hoping something sticks, well that's quite a change of attitude for AI.
Funny thing is I think they should be more acquisitive. Square. Yelp maybe. Some better voice technology.
Big red headphones? Can't see it.
I tend to think that Apple is slowly building up their payment processing. Passbook seems to be an early effort into developing an easy UI. Now you look and see Touch ID starting to spread throughout the line iBeacon support. The elements are coming together but consumers have been rocked lately with the Target breach and many other small ones. Consumers are gunshy about newfangled tech until it's proven to be safe.
I see the headphone as being an untapped area for better technology. In line mic/controls was a start but I think the Parrot Zik was a step in the right direction with its touch based shell that understands gestures. I think microphones need to improve as well as the ability to mix in external sound (when you're walking down the street and still want some of the environment to leak in) I know some apps do it but what if said feature was baked in the hardware?
Apple has sought to improve voice tech. They just acquired Novauris so improvements seem to be coming.
I see Audio and Video becoming very important for Apple. Video should take a leap forward with the next Apple TV. Audio Streaming is going to be very important. I tell you I use the hell out of iTunes Radio through my Apple TV. I'd like it even more if it was Beats Music.
Car Play is coming and Beats Radio is already supported. There are some big changes coming and Apple should not be ceding any ground to the Spotify of the world.
Comments
It's a terrible idea, when Jony Ive could just continue making things for the Apple brand, which is much more highly regarded than any Beats brand.
Not comprehending this means you probably have no idea what it is to be a creative person. Why do you think members of the Stones, U2, etc.. go off and do side musical projects? It's fun to have a place to express yourself without the stress and legacy that comes with creating for the main group. I bet Jony and his team will improve the existing headphones, make an inexpensive Beats phone that runs iOS, and design a bunch of other cool stuff. Think of it as Apple's "street label", younger and more rebellious.
Rather than respond point by point -- I'll try to convince you on what Apple's goal is, IMO.
Within the next 5 years, a whole new breed of customers will enter the marketplace -- and the marketplace will be different than it is today:
* The key word here is value
I expect that the differences in hardware will be less important than what you can do with that hardware -- that means services.
Now, Apple has a growing iTunes iCloud services offering. I expect that they will continue to add stuff to those services -- maybe:
I can remember the days when there was no Internet, no cell phones, no personal computers without floppy disks -- no personal computers ...
Today we have devices with us at all times that are [mostly] capable of connecting us to the world at large -- on demand and at our option! The hardware is pretty-much already there; the software is getting there; the services are lagging ...
For example: Today's iPad, iOS and Apps are capable of delivering on-demand TV, music and movies to everyone -- at home, at play -- wherever, whenever ...
But what Steve hasn't, yet, cracked is a way to provide the connection and delivery of those services to tha customer -- at a price that provides value for the service.
Apple could leverage the existing carriers, cablecos, content providers ...
Or, Tim (chosen by Steve) could just say screw that -- we're not only going to sell you the hardware, but the connections and services that deliver the value at a good price **
I think the Best acquisition is the next big step to make that happen -- and it will further demonstrate that Apple is willing to pay to get what it wants.
** value at a good price is the definition of a bargain!
Who better than Apple to make this happen?
AAC files are actually quite good. A lot of people hve problems distinguishing high quality AAC from ALAC or FLAC. And bad sounding headphones don't start sounding good just because you change the equalizer settings.
But I just don't think Apple is buying Beats for the headphones.
Not comprehending this means you probably have no idea what it is to be a creative person. Why do you think members of the Stones, U2, etc.. go off and do side musical projects? It's fun to have a place to express yourself without the stress and legacy that comes with creating for the main group. I bet Jony and his team will improve the existing headphones, make an inexpensive Beats phone that runs iOS, and design a bunch of other cool stuff. Think of it as Apple's "street label", younger and more rebellious.
I'm not interested in any Apple "side projects". Apple is a corporation, not a band.
I also think that anybody who thinks that Apple needs to be more cool is simply buying into Samsung's propaganda.
Seriously? Not only is most of that there already - although other companies do it better for now - buying a headphone company isn't going to help.
Seriously? Not only is most of that there already - although other companies do it better for now - buying a headphone company isn't going to help.
It's not available from one company. The consumer by and large isn't into a la carte. Apple is poised to take many of these elements and package them nicely together at profit.
Buying Beats gets them infrastructure (Beats Music, Beats Electronics) and personnel (Young, Iovine and more)
And most importantly it's not a loss leader. Beats makes money.
Oops ... Rum And Coca Cola just came up on my iBeats app
... Workin' for the Yankee dollah
Not comprehending this means you probably have no idea what it is to be a creative person. Why do you think members of the Stones, U2, etc.. go off and do side musical projects? It's fun to have a place to express yourself without the stress and legacy that comes with creating for the main group. I bet Jony and his team will improve the existing headphones, make an inexpensive Beats phone that runs iOS, and design a bunch of other cool stuff. Think of it as Apple's "street label", younger and more rebellious.
No need to take umbrage at his remarks, and let's also not forget about having a well defined and articulated business model and sticking to it. Apple is extremely good at staying focussed and being consistent in all their decisions, designing headphones for a 3rd party brand is not in Apple's future.
To put the Apple design team on an aftermarket accessories product runs counter to good business practice. Firstly, headphones are for all devices. How will that support the Apple brand and sell more Apple hardware (the accessories we're talking about here are a pittance to Apple's revenue)? In other words, how is that a good use of valuable resource to design products that won't even support the company's main products?
Apple stays out of the accessories market because, well, there are enough manufacturers who offer lots of great options for their products. Apple offers basic stuff and others do great aftermarket stuff. For Apple to start to put a focus on aftermarket accessories doesn't make any sense, regardless how it will purportedly promote the creative process for Apple designers. It would be a distraction, a defocusing from what Apple is all about.
I really can't imagine there's going to be a sub-brand, or "street label," that is Apple but for a different market segment. That smacks more of gimmick or dilution of brand at best, and protecting the world's most valuable brand at this point is what it's all about.
Buying beats gets them absolutely nothing like the list of items dick mentioned. Buying square would make more sense. What they get here is:
1) a music streaming service ( or more likely an algorithm) which they could just as easily licence.
2) a headphone producing company which might be making money but can't be brought in under apples brand nor can it be made to produce exclusively Apple products. Apple never buys like that.
3) they can hire the founders for a lot less than billions.
There is nothing here that Apple couldn't do or licence differently. If you are saying that Apple needs to buy companies willy nilly like google, hoping something sticks, well that's quite a change of attitude for AI.
Funny thing is I think they should be more acquisitive. Square. Yelp maybe. Some better voice technology.
Big red headphones? Can't see it.
IMO this is on Eddy Cue. He's been running iTunes since forever. Obviously the buck stops with Cook but Cue is the DRI (directly responsible individual) in Apple speak.
Agree. But it was Cue who met with Iovine and Dre in March '13 so it isn't a leap to say Cue also got the Beats ball rolling. I also give credit to Cook because this could be a disruptive deal.
No need to take umbrage at his remarks, and let's also not forget about having a well defined and articulated business model and sticking to it. Apple is extremely good at staying focussed and being consistent in all their decisions, designing headphones for a 3rd party brand is not in Apple's future.
To put the Apple design team on an aftermarket accessories product runs counter to good business practice. Firstly, headphones are for all devices. How will that support the Apple brand and sell more Apple hardware (the accessories we're talking about here are a pittance to Apple's revenue)? In other words, how is that a good use of valuable resource to design products that won't even support the company's main products?
Apple stays out of the accessories market because, well, there are enough manufacturers who offer lots of great options for their products. Apple offers basic stuff and others do great aftermarket stuff. For Apple to start to put a focus on aftermarket accessories doesn't make any sense, regardless how it will purportedly promote the creative process for Apple designers. It would be a distraction, a defocusing from what Apple is all about.
I really can't imagine there's going to be a sub-brand, or "street label," that is Apple but for a different market segment. That smacks more of gimmick or dilution of brand at best, and protecting the world's most valuable brand at this point is what it's all about.
All companies are in constant motion. There was once a time where many of us opined on these very boards about how Apple should make a phone only to have some respond "Nokia owns this market Apple doesn't stand a chance". Apple is very particular about their branding but they are well versed in wholly owned subsidiary and they have a few such as Filemaker, Braeburn Capital and Anobit. I see Beats Electronics as simply being another subsidiary with links into the Apple ecosystem.
The hardware is the main objective, it comes with a major sponsorship of athletes from baseball players to basketball players and many UFC fighters who wear these products in the public eye and within their events. No one wears apple headphones coming down for a fight in the UFC
BS. Apple doesn't pay people to use their products. People use the products because they are good products.
If a company has to pay people, the product is shit.
If that's true, why did my granddaughter recently need to open a checking account, get a debit card, and a credit card ... just so she can buy gas? Meals?
Last Monday was Ditch Day for the High School Seniors -- Most decided to go to Santa Cruz ... She and some classmates made reservations at a Holiday Inn -- on the phone giving her Debit card.
When they went to check in, the clerk would not accept the card because it didn't have her picture on it. They weren't carrying enough cash (in a resort town during spring break), and the ATM only allows $200 for each 24 hr period. She called her mother who called HI to put it on her credit card -- they wouldn't accept the info over the phone. HI emailed her a form which she had to print, fill in, camera-capture and email it back to them -- took about 2 hours, but they finally charged it to her Discover card ... twice ???
I know that's anecdotal, but what a shitty experience for several people, over several days -- just to buy a simple service.
Apple has the potential to make buying painless!
And when they buy Square ( assuming they can't do this in house which they can - iTunes payments are apples most robust services) then I would agree with you.
You've taken an experience which Apple could do better than the existing vendors and credit card companies and posted it on a thread about the buying of a headphone company. For $3B.
I am not opposed to acquisitions. You can't make up fantasy stuff about any particular acquisitions. Buying a headphone company wouldn't help you granddaughter.
Are you serious? I know you have to be kidding and I will take it that you have not done your research well my friend. Any product from apple that is used in any movie, tv show, and any star that is shown on the red carpet or televised event that is shown with an apple product is paid by apple. Any apple give away contest that is done on many news shows such pix 11 or fox 5 is paid for by apple and not the news station themselves.
So apple does indeed pay people to use their product my friend.
I sometimes see the ads on my iPad or iPhone. AppleInsider is quite literally suckling at Google's tit. It's no wonder they serve up so much Android/Samsung love.
It's not just an algorithm, dammit! Its people who live and breathe music determining which song to play after the song that is playing. Its like having a stable of trained music experts deciding if you are listening to this artist's version of song A -- then the the next song should be that artists version of song B. It's based on your preferences -- and where you are, what you're doing, who you're with and your mood at that moment *
Rather than delivering Beer Barrel Polka followed by Beloved Wife or Gloomy Sunday, you get something chosen algorithmically from curated playlists which are created by music experts who know that B comes after A for this particular set of conditions.
* AFAIK, no other service even attempts to do that!
This is what they claim they can do, please read the quote carefully and watch the short video:
[VIDEO]
If they can deliver that to an acceptable degree -- then Beats is a bargain, IMO.
Seriously, guys -- I can't learn-ya' the information ... It should be required reading/viewing for anyone posting to this thread intending to badmouth the process.
They claim they can do it -- why not give them the courtesy of your attention and the chance to prove it!
It's not just an algorithm, dammit! Its people who live and breathe music determining which song to play after the song that is playing. Its like having a stable of trained music experts deciding if you are listening to this artist's version of song A -- then the the next song should be that artists version of song B. It's based on your preferences -- and where you are, what you're doing, who you're with and your mood at that moment *
Rather than delivering Beer Barrel Polka followed by Beloved Wife or Gloomy Sunday, you get something chosen algorithmically from curated playlists which are created by music experts who know that B comes after A for this particular set of conditions.
* AFAIK, no other service even attempts to do that!
Wedding DJ's attempt to do this. Some are better then others, but they all aim for that goal. Beats music subscription service is certainly less expensive and more portable then wedding DJ's though.
P.S. I like the use of the Nine Inch Nails music in the video. Ghosts is a great set. As they're pitching a music service which emphasises track selection, it's appropriate that they've selected a great audio track to play during their advertisement.
Have we moved on from the bit where your granddaughter couldn't buy with her debit card and that was a good reason to buy beats? Ok. I'll take it you lost that argument.
So now you are taking beats press release about their human curated music recommendation algorithm, which it definitely is, seriously. And that's worth $3B? Didn't they buy it last year for a tiny fraction of that cost?
I doubt it. I'm not buying that dr Dre and jimmy Iovine are personally tweaking every possible song recommendation either, there's at best an army of underpaid workers in India, at worst it's a scam. Just think how much human input you would need to do this.
Buying beats gets them absolutely nothing like the list of items dick mentioned. Buying square would make more sense. What they get here is:
1) a music streaming service ( or more likely an algorithm) which they could just as easily licence.
2) a headphone producing company which might be making money but can't be brought in under apples brand nor can it be made to produce exclusively Apple products. Apple never buys like that.
3) they can hire the founders for a lot less than billions.
There is nothing here that Apple couldn't do or licence differently. If you are saying that Apple needs to buy companies willy nilly like google, hoping something sticks, well that's quite a change of attitude for AI.
Funny thing is I think they should be more acquisitive. Square. Yelp maybe. Some better voice technology.
Big red headphones? Can't see it.
I tend to think that Apple is slowly building up their payment processing. Passbook seems to be an early effort into developing an easy UI. Now you look and see Touch ID starting to spread throughout the line iBeacon support. The elements are coming together but consumers have been rocked lately with the Target breach and many other small ones. Consumers are gunshy about newfangled tech until it's proven to be safe.
I see the headphone as being an untapped area for better technology. In line mic/controls was a start but I think the Parrot Zik was a step in the right direction with its touch based shell that understands gestures. I think microphones need to improve as well as the ability to mix in external sound (when you're walking down the street and still want some of the environment to leak in) I know some apps do it but what if said feature was baked in the hardware?
Apple has sought to improve voice tech. They just acquired Novauris so improvements seem to be coming.
I see Audio and Video becoming very important for Apple. Video should take a leap forward with the next Apple TV. Audio Streaming is going to be very important. I tell you I use the hell out of iTunes Radio through my Apple TV. I'd like it even more if it was Beats Music.
Car Play is coming and Beats Radio is already supported. There are some big changes coming and Apple should not be ceding any ground to the Spotify of the world.