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.
"got the Beats ball rolling "... I like that -- kinda' rolls off the tongue ...
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.
Sorry to bore you with personal experiences that support the point I'm trying to make ... Also, that I choose to look for the best in people and give them the courtesy of listening to their claims, and giving them the chance to prove themselves.
To my knowledge, Iovine never claimed he or Dre were personally tweaking every possible song recommendation -- but I do believe both have the chops to select and train experts to do this. (I watched Iovine mentor on American Idol for 2 seasons -- he knows music, people and how to bring out the best in them.
@pazuzu. Dre was worth 800M before this deal. I hardly think he is spending his " cha ching" as you put it , from this deal on Ton Brady's mansion. Easy now...
@pazuzu. Dre was worth 800M before this deal. I hardly think he is spending his " cha ching" as you put it , from this deal on Ton Brady's mansion. Easy now...
It says, "Dre put an offer on the mansion as soon as it came on the market…"
So when did it come on the market? It seems unlikely that it came out on the market since this story broke a few days ago.
Also, as has already been points out to you, Dre is already rich (not simply wealthy) so buying this mansion is not dependent on any billion dollar buyout of Beats.
It say, "Dre put an offer on the mansion as soon as it came on the market…"
So when did it come on the market? It seems unlikely that it came out on the market since this story broke a few days ago.
Also, as has already been points out to you, Dre is already rich (not simply wealthy) so buying this mansion is not dependent on any billion dollar buyout of Beats.
I think you have it backwards. He's wealthy, not simply rich.
I think you have it backwards. He's wealthy, not simply rich.
Is that from a Chris Rock routine?
From my PoV I mean he's rich. I'm wealthy, but I am not by means what I consider to be rich. I can't reasonably buy a Learjet or a house in the 10s of millions. I don't have a fleet of people just working at my home every single day. That's what I consider rich.
If you have a better way of defining it I'm open to it.
edit: Not sure if that's your reasoning but that's what came to mind when you mentioned it.
[VIDEO]
I see Scrooge McDuck and Smaug money as being rich and being able to buy an $100k car as merely being wealthy. But I'lll gladly change these terms for clarity sake if I"m the odd man out.
edit 2: I found this. I will have to change my definitions and I don't fall into either of them. I guess well off is the category I would be in.
Solip- never saw a response- which you are great at normally. Did you read my previous post about it not being simply 5.3 years return even doubling the high-end profits?
That skit did come to mind. Rich has always seemed to be easily attainable. How many 'get rich quick' schemes did Ralph Kramden try? aka rags to riches.
Wealth is something that can't easily be lost. Families whose products have been household names for 100 yrs. Families like Heniz, Johnson & Johnson, etc....are wealthy. They'll weather any recession easily because we'll still buy their products.
Solip- never saw a response- which you are great at normally. Did you read my previous post about it not being simply 5.3 years return even doubling the high-end profits?
1) Yes, but I just checked it again and it looks like you added a lot more to it.
2) Where are you saying that $3.2 billion divided by $0.6 billion per year isn't 5.3 years?
3) Anyway, even based on previous $250-300 million in profits from revenue of $1.4 billion in 2013, plus all the other aspects of the company that have been cropping up (but mostly unverifiable) I think it's a great deal. Nest sold for $3.2 billion and the probably don't even do in revenue what Beats reportedly makes in profits. Beats, under Apple, could grow much faster, than I think a home thermostat and smoke/CO detector could. Square and Nintendol seem to be losing money, and Occulus is unproven. Of all the multi-billion dollar purchases we've seen from tech companies this appears to the lowest risk, highest gain, with the smallest profit to cost ratio. If you can think something better that has occurred more recently I'm all ears, but from all the available data, albeit most of it still just rumours, it looks like it would be a win for Apple.
Reposting your link to make sure I have the right one:
That skit did come to mind. Rich has always seemed to be easily attainable. How many 'get rich quick' schemes did Ralph Kramden try? aka rags to riches.
Wealth is something that can't easily be lost. Families whose products have been household names for 100 yrs. Families like Heniz, Johnson & Johnson, etc....are wealthy. They'll weather any recession easily because we'll still buy their products.
1) I'm going to have to make a concerted effort to use the terms in the accepted way but I must say it feels backwards to me.
2) I like the phrase form that article, "You're not wealthy until you own something money can't buy."
1) Yes, but I just checked it again and it looks like you added a lot more to it.
2) Where are you saying that $3.2 billion divided by $0.6 billion per year isn't 5.3 years?
3) Anyway, even based on previous $250-300 million in profits from revenue of $1.4 billion in 2013, plus all the other aspects of the company that have been cropping up (but mostly unverifiable) I think it's a great deal. Nest sold for $3.2 billion and the probably don't even do in revenue what Beats reportedly makes in profits. Beats, under Apple, could grow much faster, than I think a home thermostat and smoke/CO detector could. Square and Nintendol seem to be losing money, and Occulus is unproven. Of all the multi-billion dollar purchases we've seen from tech companies this appears to the lowest risk, highest gain, with the smallest profit to cost ratio. If you can think something better that has occurred more recently I'm all ears, but from all the available data, albeit most of it still just rumours, it looks like it would be a win for Apple.
Reposting your link to make sure I have the right one:
2- you're using $3.2 billion as a static number that doesn't grow. If you're spending 3.2 billion- then you aren't making compound interest on $3.2 bil. When you calculate that- it's decades before any money is recouped. As in 50 years. And that's doubling their business. Even if it's quadrupled it wouldn't be smart. There is way more than hardware here. We just don't know what it is. Or the purchase price is off.
Side note- I know people knock the stock buybacks, but what other investment is making what apple stock is annually? I think it's a brilliant use of their money.
3- I agree wholeheartedly- Beats would be a much wiser investment for the same $. I think the Nest purchase was awful though. This would be great for the right price with the data we have now. I just think there's more to the story or less to the price.
2- you're using $3.2 billion as a static number that doesn't grow. If you're spending 3.2 billion- then you aren't making compound interest on $3.2 bil. When you calculate that- it's decades before any money is recouped. As in 50 years. And that's doubling their business. Even if it's quadrupled it wouldn't be smart. There is way more than hardware here. We just don't know what it is. Or the purchase price is off.
Side note- I know people knock the stock buybacks, but what other investment is making what apple stock is annually? I think it's a brilliant use of their money.
How do you get 50 years. I didn't count any interest (which I think we've been told it's around 1% and therefore bad for Apple to be holding all this cash) but I also didn't count the growth rate of Beats. Everything we've been told over the last 4 days continually points to this being a great deal for Apple if they can get it.
I watch that and can't help but think, "6 gold bars on a tray would be too have for her to lift with such ease." But, yes, and I like the term opulence. I would say Dre already has plenty of opulence and, back on point, he could afford a $50 million house with or without any acquisition. But, hey, let's instead just say Dre is a guy who got lucky and is spending every dime on crap until he ends up in the poorhouse¡
edit: Apparently a standard bar of gold is 400 Troy ounces which is 12.4 Kg or 27.34 lbs which means 6 would be about 160 lbs, not including the tray, which also might be gold but then probably couldn't hold the weight of the bars, and the remote.
How do you get 50 years. I didn't count any interest (which I think we've been told it's around 1% and therefore bad for Apple to be holding all this cash) but I also didn't count the growth rate of Beats. Everything we've been told over the last 4 days continually points to this being a great deal for Apple if they can get it.
I was using a conservative 10%. Heck- they spent $44 billion last march when stocks were around 440-460. So that's a 33% jump. If you got 5.3yrs, you doubled the growth rate of beats and you didn't add any money made off 3.2b
Now, the genius of apple is that say the deal is laden with stocks instead of cash- they are getting 3.2b of 600 stock at a price apple only paid 450 for.
My whole point is people are ignoring that you make money on money. It ain't a wad of cash in a pickle jar.
Comments
"got the Beats ball rolling "... I like that -- kinda' rolls off the tongue ...
Like: Laissez les bons temps rouler
Sorry to bore you with personal experiences that support the point I'm trying to make ... Also, that I choose to look for the best in people and give them the courtesy of listening to their claims, and giving them the chance to prove themselves.
To my knowledge, Iovine never claimed he or Dre were personally tweaking every possible song recommendation -- but I do believe both have the chops to select and train experts to do this. (I watched Iovine mentor on American Idol for 2 seasons -- he knows music, people and how to bring out the best in them.
http://pagesix.com/2014/05/11/dr-dre-closes-on-tom-bradys-50m-mansion/
It says, "Dre put an offer on the mansion as soon as it came on the market…"
So when did it come on the market? It seems unlikely that it came out on the market since this story broke a few days ago.
Also, as has already been points out to you, Dre is already rich (not simply wealthy) so buying this mansion is not dependent on any billion dollar buyout of Beats.
They look like they could be related.
I thought Cook and the current-day Iovine look more closely related.
I think you have it backwards. He's wealthy, not simply rich.
Is that from a Chris Rock routine?
From my PoV I mean he's rich. I'm wealthy, but I am not by means what I consider to be rich. I can't reasonably buy a Learjet or a house in the 10s of millions. I don't have a fleet of people just working at my home every single day. That's what I consider rich.
If you have a better way of defining it I'm open to it.
edit: Not sure if that's your reasoning but that's what came to mind when you mentioned it.
[VIDEO]
I see Scrooge McDuck and Smaug money as being rich and being able to buy an $100k car as merely being wealthy. But I'lll gladly change these terms for clarity sake if I"m the odd man out.
edit 2: I found this. I will have to change my definitions and I don't fall into either of them. I guess well off is the category I would be in.
That skit did come to mind. Rich has always seemed to be easily attainable. How many 'get rich quick' schemes did Ralph Kramden try? aka rags to riches.
Wealth is something that can't easily be lost. Families whose products have been household names for 100 yrs. Families like Heniz, Johnson & Johnson, etc....are wealthy. They'll weather any recession easily because we'll still buy their products.
1) Yes, but I just checked it again and it looks like you added a lot more to it.
2) Where are you saying that $3.2 billion divided by $0.6 billion per year isn't 5.3 years?
3) Anyway, even based on previous $250-300 million in profits from revenue of $1.4 billion in 2013, plus all the other aspects of the company that have been cropping up (but mostly unverifiable) I think it's a great deal. Nest sold for $3.2 billion and the probably don't even do in revenue what Beats reportedly makes in profits. Beats, under Apple, could grow much faster, than I think a home thermostat and smoke/CO detector could. Square and Nintendol seem to be losing money, and Occulus is unproven. Of all the multi-billion dollar purchases we've seen from tech companies this appears to the lowest risk, highest gain, with the smallest profit to cost ratio. If you can think something better that has occurred more recently I'm all ears, but from all the available data, albeit most of it still just rumours, it looks like it would be a win for Apple.
Reposting your link to make sure I have the right one:
1) I'm going to have to make a concerted effort to use the terms in the accepted way but I must say it feels backwards to me.
2) I like the phrase form that article, "You're not wealthy until you own something money can't buy."
2- you're using $3.2 billion as a static number that doesn't grow. If you're spending 3.2 billion- then you aren't making compound interest on $3.2 bil. When you calculate that- it's decades before any money is recouped. As in 50 years. And that's doubling their business. Even if it's quadrupled it wouldn't be smart. There is way more than hardware here. We just don't know what it is. Or the purchase price is off.
Side note- I know people knock the stock buybacks, but what other investment is making what apple stock is annually? I think it's a brilliant use of their money.
3- I agree wholeheartedly- Beats would be a much wiser investment for the same $. I think the Nest purchase was awful though. This would be great for the right price with the data we have now. I just think there's more to the story or less to the price.
Like this guy?
How do you get 50 years. I didn't count any interest (which I think we've been told it's around 1% and therefore bad for Apple to be holding all this cash) but I also didn't count the growth rate of Beats. Everything we've been told over the last 4 days continually points to this being a great deal for Apple if they can get it.
I watch that and can't help but think, "6 gold bars on a tray would be too have for her to lift with such ease." But, yes, and I like the term opulence. I would say Dre already has plenty of opulence and, back on point, he could afford a $50 million house with or without any acquisition. But, hey, let's instead just say Dre is a guy who got lucky and is spending every dime on crap until he ends up in the poorhouse¡
edit: Apparently a standard bar of gold is 400 Troy ounces which is 12.4 Kg or 27.34 lbs which means 6 would be about 160 lbs, not including the tray, which also might be gold but then probably couldn't hold the weight of the bars, and the remote.
I was using a conservative 10%. Heck- they spent $44 billion last march when stocks were around 440-460. So that's a 33% jump. If you got 5.3yrs, you doubled the growth rate of beats and you didn't add any money made off 3.2b
Now, the genius of apple is that say the deal is laden with stocks instead of cash- they are getting 3.2b of 600 stock at a price apple only paid 450 for.
My whole point is people are ignoring that you make money on money. It ain't a wad of cash in a pickle jar.