And selling watch type device can't be sold to women like a Geek gadget, fashion will come into it, the so-called iWatch if released will be a hard sell. To the other half of the population. (good looks will be a factor).
I see it as a modern version of the Casio calculator watch, but with more functionality that people may actually use that will be a little more useful, but it still needs to have some classic styling to at least be something worth wearing. It's hard to make a pure fashion piece like a fashion watch. There are literally thousands of models that range from super cheap to super expensive and everything in between and Apple simply isn't a type of watch maker than can cover a wide range of bases here. I think it will be more like a Nike watch or something along those lines that may not necessarily be based on looks first, functionality second. It's just a matter of, how well it will catch on. I personally like the idea of potentially have some trick functionality, but I'm not sure if I really want it where I have to have it on my wrist 100% of the time. I still like having a nice watch to wear that looks nice that's simply, just a watch.
Did you try both Beats Music and Spotify? The thing I have a problem with is available content and for me, i use my computer that's connected to a decent stereo and I prefer high quality 24/96 or 24/192 AIFF files if I can, or at least 16 Bit uncompressed files because I can hear a difference on my system and these guys aren't doing that. Plus there's a matter with content. My tastes are fairly specific and I don't know if they really have the content I'm looking for.
I figure it this way, I can always get on YouTube and dial in a song and their is usually at least one version posted that's of decent quality for me to at least listen to and I'll but it if I really want my own copy in the highest quality format, but I know I'm more of a minority user with more specific tastes and preferences to sound quality.
Hey Doc if you are old enough did you buy VHS or Beta, Laser disk, component stereo systems, Mac's, Amiga's? I did most of the general population did not, Apple has to sell to a much larger market that simply does not care.
All of this means nothing. How many subscribers does Beats need to be profitable, is the music licenses transferable, and why can't Apple do this in house? Three billion is a lot of money.
Every other Apple-related site is telling exactly the opposite - that Beats's subscription service proves to be a failure with JUST some 100k subscribers; in other words, let's just hope THAT was not the reason Apple decided to spend 3 billion USD on Beats - so the million-dollar question is: why is AI spinning this story in a totally different way?
It is the tech behind MOG if the rumour about Beats is even true, and it doesn't hurt that Beats makes a profit too.
Hey Doc if you are old enough did you buy VHS or Beta, Laser disk, component stereo systems, Mac's, Amiga's? I did most of the general population did not, Apple has to sell to a much larger market that simply does not care.
I know, it''s called marketing to the masses. The masses are ignorant about quality. Plain and simple. That's why McDonalds sells billions of hamburgers, that's why Ford sells a bunch of their cheap cars, that's why Justin Bieber sells millions of records. It's plain ignorance, and they don't place much importance in their lives with something of high quality. The thing I was getting at between Apple users and non-Apple users is that Apple users are more likely to put quality higher up on the list than price when making the decision to buy an Apple product and there are a LOT of wealthy people that buy Apple products that do want high quality. If you went to these audio shows that show off the super expensive systems, what do you see? MacMinis being used as servers, iPads either streaming to their system or being used as a remote control, MacBookPros also being used as a server, so you will most likely see a LOT more Apple computers and mobile devices used with these ultra expensive systems, same goes with the high end home automation systems. The thing is, THIS is a growing market and THESE people have and spend LOTS of money. They spend LOTS of money on content and they are buying more and more high res content as it come out. So, saying the general population doesn't care is true, but a growing portion of the population is who spends the most money and guess what? THEY CARE. Many of them aren't not satisfied with "good enough". And since they got money and they plan on spending it, if Apple doesn't have something to offer, they'll go elsewhere and spend that money somewhere else and one of these wealthy people spends more money than probably 50 or more families that don't spend money. How many people that make $50K a year have $20 to $50K in record collections? probably none, but someone that makes a few million a year do. Didn't Bruce Willis when he was making that big stink of transferring his iTunes collection to his daughters had at the time about $25K worth of music. Imagine if he's now collecting the $20 to 30 a CD 24 bit stuff that's out now. These people spend GOBS of money on content when they have it. There are more millionaires being created every year.
I'm wondering how much the entire iTunes collection is worth if someone bought one of everything and stored it in their own Server. That would be interesting to know.
One thing to realize, back when CDs FIRST came out, they were typically bought by people with nicer stereo systems and it wasn't picked up by the masses for many years later. That SAME trend is starting to happen with high res downloads. Yeah, now your average person doesn't care, but once these kids growing start to earn a living (hopefully make some decent money), then they will WANT high res audio when they can afford it. Some are actually doing it right now as kids are actually starting to get into vinyl and high res, it's actually moving in that direction, but it will pick up speed as time moves forward, but now 16 bit digital audio for home theaters is the norm now, and now people are slowly moving away from DVDs to BluRay and it's picking up market share. Even on a fairly inexpensive system listening to a 24/96 is so far superior to 16/44, it's no contest and it's even better than the MP3 versions. It's not a matter of if they should do it, its a matter of WHEN and some time down the road 24/96 or 24/192 might become the new 16 Bit version and 16Bit will seem like what happened to the cassette tape. Remember those? That's what the masses used to use when the CD first hit for portable devices.
What if Apple started their own label or publishing company and Iovine and Dr. Dre ran it. But why limit it to just music. What if it's an entire entertainment company.
1. How feasible is this
2. What legal obstacles would be involved concerning Apple Corps
I'm not saying Apple would even think about this or if it's even possible. Just curious what you guys think. There has to be something else that Beats has yet to announce or something in the pipeline. Or maybe Apple wanted Iovine and the only way was through Beats. Either way, I'm very interested to know the details for the purchase if it indeed goes through.
What if Apple started their own label or publishing company and Iovine and Dr. Dre ran it. But why limit it to just music. What if it's an entire entertainment company.
1. How feasible is this
2. What legal obstacles would be involved concerning Apple Corps
I'm not saying Apple would even think about this or if it's even possible. Just curious what you guys think. There has to be something else that Beats has yet to announce or something in the pipeline. Or maybe Apple wanted Iovine and the only way was through Beats. Either way, I'm very interested to know the details for the purchase if it indeed goes through.
Nope, Pete Townsend from the Who had that crazy idea. The problems are just too massive and Apple doesn't know what they are doing in terms of a record label.
Record labels spend money finding talent. They give them either a recording contract or a development contract to see if they can produce something sellable, which is like a BS recording contract. They have to hire producers, they have to hire studios and the big labels have their own that they have to manage, they have to pay for advertising, promotion of each artist, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It's TOO much for Apple to even deal with.
For every 1 artist that sells tons of records and actually squeezes out some decent profits, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of smaller players that lose money or barely break even. It's a messed up system. What's been happening over the past few years is that a lot of these well established artists that consistently sell several hundred thousand units can actually manage their own record label and they can do what they want, when they want and its cheaper for them to do it since they have their own website that contacts their fan base, and every time they release a new CD, they pretty much know ahead of time, it's going to sell several hundred thousand units, which brings in enough money to pay for operating it and then they send the masters to be distributed through the major distribution companies like BMG, Sony, etc. and THEY get it on iTunes, print CDs and distribute, etc. So a lot of these guys that have been around and are established, they can do it on their own much cheaper. So, there are a lot of small record labels that focus on certain markets/genres of music that funnel content up to the larger companies or completely independently run by the artist. But for Apple to get involved with it at this point? I don't think they could do it unless they bought Sony Music, BMG, etc. which is pretty much NOT going to happen as far as I can tell. Never say never right? I just don't see that happening, but that's the only way they could do it. Maybe if Apple waved all of the money there are planning on using to buyback stock were to buy up BMG and Sony Music, they'd just do it that way, but there would just be WAY too much pressure for the sale to go through.
Beats future products? I've not heard of anything other than what they are doing now that's really anything to notice. I don't think they have anything that very special behind the scenes. It's just the headphone business and the BeatsMusic business and that's really all they have.
With everybody yelling doom and gloom because the iPod market is "dying", i.e.: leveling off as one of the few biggest businesses in the world (but never mind that, "growth" is all that matters!), why couldn't they start selling a line of "Beats iPods by Dr. Dre"? In fact, how do we know that these huge, too-thin "iPhone" prototypes aren't of a new "iPod Touch by Dr. Dre"?
With everybody yelling doom and gloom because the iPod market is "dying", i.e.: leveling off as one of the few biggest businesses in the world (but never mind that, "growth" is all that matters!), why couldn't they start selling a line of "Beats iPods by Dr. Dre"? In fact, how do we know that these huge, too-thin "iPhone" prototypes aren't of a new "iPod Touch by Dr. Dre"?
No, no, no. If Apple wants to keep the Beats/Beats by Dre brand, fine, but in no way shape or form should they incorporate Beats and/or Dre into Apple products. The last thing I want to see on an iDevice or a Mac is a Beats logo. That's what losers like HTC and HP do, not Apple. :no:
This would have been good advice to follow when you were arguing with drblank about the relative levels of achievement of mastering a musical instrument and programming a rap song into recording software.
1) I never argued with him about programming a rap song or mastering a musical instrument.
2) I was completely objective as noted by my use of examples and actual definitions from a cited dictionary that refute his claims that rap music isn't music, despite only getting back in return unverifiable statement that 1) he plays a musical instrument better than I do (even if he plays the same ones that I do how do you determine better?), 2) that he's been the only "white" person in the room full of "the blacks" which he concluded I would be too scared to do, and 3) that he's talked with "the blacks" he personally knows about rap music and they all agreed with him that it's not real music.
There is a lot of knee jerking going on around here based on very little information. The fact that Apple might be making a deal that on the surface is outside of the norm for Apple, and possibly way outside of its perceived comfort zone should be interesting and cause a pause for thinking instead of outright dismissal. Most of us here think that Apple generally speaking make very good, well considered decisions, and I am sure the more rational among us understand this alleged purchase was not an impulse buy. So far the only interesting reading I have done on the subject come from writers who are trying to figure out how this can be a good play by Apple. Hating Hip Hop, and specifically Dre, certainly ads nothing useful to the conversation. Reactions to the celebratory foulmouthed video are understandable, perhaps, but out of place. We all know that in so many ways Steve Jobs was the biggest prick around and yet we all forgive him because really, who cares?
We should be asking more questions but it seems if you aren't instantly for or against the deal you're in the minority. Much either to call Dr. Dre a thug and a loser than to what that if the rumour is true why would Apple want to make it.
Personally I think the headphones (insignificantly) came with the purchase and will continue under the Beats name - Beats by Apple.
Even if Apple doesn't want that every rumour says their HW sales and profits are overwhelmingly the significant and where I see Apple being able to make a hefty profit off the deal in the short term.
My kids never use iTunes (they use YouTube).
I wish Apple would have more web-based services. They had a movie trailer portal for many years (I think before there were iTunes but I'm not sure it that far back). I think the iCloud.com is very good and I'd like that brought to maps.apple.com and other services, including Apple's own video upload site now that you need a Google+ account just to use an account on YouTube.
With everybody yelling doom and gloom because the iPod market is "dying", i.e.: leveling off as one of the few biggest businesses in the world (but never mind that, "growth" is all that matters!), why couldn't they start selling a line of "Beats iPods by Dr. Dre"? In fact, how do we know that these huge, too-thin "iPhone" prototypes aren't of a new "iPod Touch by Dr. Dre"?
Why? They need to make the next generation iPod with 24 Bit DAC inside and release 24/96 and 24/192 AAC versions of songs on iTunes and maybe stick a 64 Bit processor inside and maybe have a couple of size screens for the gamers. Rumor is that they are going to start releasing 24 Bit AAC files on iTunes next month, so this would be a perfect product for that and leave Dr. Dre's name out of it. I wouldn't buy something with Dr. Dre's name and Apple doesn't need that type of branding. The name APPLE is FAR more powerful than Dr. Dre.
With everybody yelling doom and gloom because the iPod market is "dying", i.e.: leveling off as one of the few biggest businesses in the world (but never mind that, "growth" is all that matters!), why couldn't they start selling a line of "Beats iPods by Dr. Dre"? In fact, how do we know that these huge, too-thin "iPhone" prototypes aren't of a new "iPod Touch by Dr. Dre"?
Why? They need to make the next generation iPod with 24 Bit DAC inside and release 24/96 and 24/192 AAC versions of songs on iTunes and maybe stick a 64 Bit processor inside and maybe have a couple of size screens for the gamers. Rumor is that they are going to start releasing 24 Bit AAC files on iTunes next month, so this would be a perfect product for that and leave Dr. Dre's name out of it. I wouldn't buy something with Dr. Dre's name and Apple doesn't need that type of branding. The name APPLE is FAR more powerful than Dr. Dre.
Yeah, I know you've got a bug up your butt about this 24-bit audio that was suggested 10 or 15 years ago, to general apathy...as far as I know it doesn't exist, and wouldn't be usable except in an anechoic chamber—the bottom 8 or 10 bits are going to buried in ambient noise in the real world. There's certainly no reason for a higher sampling rate; anybody who thinks there is don't understand Shannon sampling theory.
In any case, Apple is the last company that would market such a thing—they are the ones who got people to pay actual money for excruciating 128,000 bps noise, so much so that most people won't even buy CDs any more, because their discrimination has been destroyed. 40 years ago, .1% THD was considered entry-level, now 9% is considered standard! IOW, CD-quality is as good as it needs to be—if you don't like the recording on one, blame the engineer, not the medium. What we need is a return to CD-quality, not some new bandwidth-wasting format that confers no advantage.
Yeah, I know you've got a bug up your butt about this 24-bit audio that was suggested 10 or 15 years ago, to general apathy...as far as I know it doesn't exist, and wouldn't be usable except in an anechoic chamber—the bottom 8 or 10 bits are going to buried in ambient noise in the real world. There's certainly no reason for a higher sampling rate; anybody who thinks there is don't understand Shannon sampling theory.
In any case, Apple is the last company that would market such a thing—they are the ones who got people to pay actual money for excruciating 128,000 bps noise, so much so that most people won't even buy CDs any more, because their discrimination has been destroyed. 40 years ago, .1% THD was considered entry-level, now 9% is considered standard! IOW, CD-quality is as good as it needs to be—if you don't like the recording on one, blame the engineer, not the medium. What we need is a return to CD-quality, not some new bandwidth-wasting format that confers no advantage.
Whatever. the case is that they are remastering at 24/88.2, 96, 176, 192 and if you have heard those recordings through a decent 24 bit dad on a decent stereo compared to the 16/44.2 CDs, they do sound better, because they can be played at higher SPL without crapping out. The problem is that 16 Bit DAC mfg are dying off, and 24 Bit DACs are getting cheap enough and that's where it's going. When they transfer analog tape recordings to 24/96 or better, and they don't jack around with audio compression, it sounds LOT more like the original masters than 16 Bit. The only 16 Bit DACs that REALLY sound great are too expensive and they just can't stick those in something that cheap enough. Nowadays it just makes more sense to do 24 bit. DSD 2x is coming out and for the recordings that were recorded at 2x, they sound closer to analog than anything else. So, that's also happening right now, but that's just for the real audio geeks and not something that Apple would get into because you would need an external DAC.
If I were you, I would wait until next month and see. All I can say is that Apple has been requesting the record labels to supply them with 24/96 and 24/192 for a while now and I read in audio related sites that this is what's coming out this year and that's what's supposed to be happening, whether you buy it or not is up to you.
Also, Mark Levinson started a new company not too long ago and he went public at CES this year and mentioned that he has a monitor/integrated DAC/PREAMP/AMP for a package price of $7,000 that's supposed to be coming out in October this year and it's supposed to be sold through Apple Store (and/or Apple Stores). I can dig up the video, but it's on YouTube in a video that was posted. So, maybe Apple might be starting to carry more high end audio equipment as a result of releasing 24 Bit AAC files.
And how much money did Nest make before it got bought out? 1 billion in sales for 3.2 billion is not expensive. Why are people so stuck on the price. And btw Beats sale is still growing. They have not lost their allure at all.
Nest opens the door for google to start selling products forhome automation.
I don't think it was a smart purchase at that price- don't get me wrong. But I think long-term it'd be better than a Beats deal with the current info we have. The headphone market is not one that Apple needs to be pursuing. What's next- speakers? If only they would have had a speaker system, it would have been such a hit. Oh wait...
It is not that I hate Beats so much, or Beats makes crap headphones. Its just the price. I dont want Apple giving me dividends which they did. Do they have too much money now that they dont know how to use?
The more I think about it, and the more I experiment with Beats Music, the more excited I am about this deal. I've always wondered why, despite Apple's unique ability to blend the humanities and technology in consumer electronics, iTunes (and now iTunes Radio) seems so sterile and poorly curated. I've only listened to the first part of Jimmy Iovine's All Things D interview, but so far he has talked about rekindling the emotional connection to music that has been lost in the digital age with the commoditization of music production and consumption (I think I just articulated it better than he did). He talks about how the sensation of music is more visceral than we get simply by isolating and reproducing waveforms, which he says was the main inspiration behind Beats Headphones, and likely their reputation to be "bassy." After listening to him, I understand why they got so popular, and I no longer dismiss them as "all style," which was my opinion until recently. I have no doubt that the audiophile crowd is a minuscule, and shrinking, minority of consumers, and I think that the focus on the emotional feeling we get from music is a better approach then perfectly reproducing sounds, even under the Apple brand. Although I think the Beats brand hardware should remain differentiated from core brand Apple hardware.
Beats Music so far for me has been fantastic (I'm listening to it now). The curation is excellent. The algorithm is actually effective. I told the app in the (Siri like) sentence format that I'm "Kicking Back," and it totally changed the feel of the music, while staying in the same genre. I assume that if I say I'm in a public place (e.g. work, party) that it will play more popular songs. Further, if I'm at "Work" I assume it will cut out the explicit tracks, whereas if I'm at a "Party" it'll leave them in. Whatever they're doing, it's working, and I'm really enjoying myself, and discovering a lot of new, great music.
Music is being increasingly consumed for free (legally this time), from Soundcloud, youtube, and various radio apps. A value add like the curation and experience offered by Beats Music will put Apple clearly at the top again, instead of just another option.
And just in case people still doubt this purchase, it will be worth it just for the ability to create an iTunes label, and in negotiations with the established labels. Oh, and Beats has $1B+ in yearly revenues.
IMO, this still rumored acquisition will have a twist somewhere... and the existing headphones and streaming business will be just icing on the cake.
4) What if the new predictive search algorithm could become as big or even better than Google/Stanford's for artificial intelligent devices including wearables with mood awareness? If I recall, Apple already has a patent for something similar.
Great idea. Biometric playlist adjustments is brilliant:
-Increased heart rate + increased galvanic skin response + deep breathing = working out -> Techno
Not sure if you're aware, but one of Apple's more recent hires (Nancy Dougherty) has some brilliant ideas about the "quantified self." IMO this video is worth a watch. In summary, she attached sensors to detect when she is smiling and analyzes the implications in social interaction and personal well being.
Comments
And selling watch type device can't be sold to women like a Geek gadget, fashion will come into it, the so-called iWatch if released will be a hard sell. To the other half of the population. (good looks will be a factor).
I see it as a modern version of the Casio calculator watch, but with more functionality that people may actually use that will be a little more useful, but it still needs to have some classic styling to at least be something worth wearing. It's hard to make a pure fashion piece like a fashion watch. There are literally thousands of models that range from super cheap to super expensive and everything in between and Apple simply isn't a type of watch maker than can cover a wide range of bases here. I think it will be more like a Nike watch or something along those lines that may not necessarily be based on looks first, functionality second. It's just a matter of, how well it will catch on. I personally like the idea of potentially have some trick functionality, but I'm not sure if I really want it where I have to have it on my wrist 100% of the time. I still like having a nice watch to wear that looks nice that's simply, just a watch.
Did you try both Beats Music and Spotify? The thing I have a problem with is available content and for me, i use my computer that's connected to a decent stereo and I prefer high quality 24/96 or 24/192 AIFF files if I can, or at least 16 Bit uncompressed files because I can hear a difference on my system and these guys aren't doing that. Plus there's a matter with content. My tastes are fairly specific and I don't know if they really have the content I'm looking for.
I figure it this way, I can always get on YouTube and dial in a song and their is usually at least one version posted that's of decent quality for me to at least listen to and I'll but it if I really want my own copy in the highest quality format, but I know I'm more of a minority user with more specific tastes and preferences to sound quality.
Hey Doc if you are old enough did you buy VHS or Beta, Laser disk, component stereo systems, Mac's, Amiga's? I did most of the general population did not, Apple has to sell to a much larger market that simply does not care.
All of this means nothing. How many subscribers does Beats need to be profitable, is the music licenses transferable, and why can't Apple do this in house? Three billion is a lot of money.
Every other Apple-related site is telling exactly the opposite - that Beats's subscription service proves to be a failure with JUST some 100k subscribers; in other words, let's just hope THAT was not the reason Apple decided to spend 3 billion USD on Beats - so the million-dollar question is: why is AI spinning this story in a totally different way?
It is the tech behind MOG if the rumour about Beats is even true, and it doesn't hurt that Beats makes a profit too.
Hey Doc if you are old enough did you buy VHS or Beta, Laser disk, component stereo systems, Mac's, Amiga's? I did most of the general population did not, Apple has to sell to a much larger market that simply does not care.
I know, it''s called marketing to the masses. The masses are ignorant about quality. Plain and simple. That's why McDonalds sells billions of hamburgers, that's why Ford sells a bunch of their cheap cars, that's why Justin Bieber sells millions of records. It's plain ignorance, and they don't place much importance in their lives with something of high quality. The thing I was getting at between Apple users and non-Apple users is that Apple users are more likely to put quality higher up on the list than price when making the decision to buy an Apple product and there are a LOT of wealthy people that buy Apple products that do want high quality. If you went to these audio shows that show off the super expensive systems, what do you see? MacMinis being used as servers, iPads either streaming to their system or being used as a remote control, MacBookPros also being used as a server, so you will most likely see a LOT more Apple computers and mobile devices used with these ultra expensive systems, same goes with the high end home automation systems. The thing is, THIS is a growing market and THESE people have and spend LOTS of money. They spend LOTS of money on content and they are buying more and more high res content as it come out. So, saying the general population doesn't care is true, but a growing portion of the population is who spends the most money and guess what? THEY CARE. Many of them aren't not satisfied with "good enough". And since they got money and they plan on spending it, if Apple doesn't have something to offer, they'll go elsewhere and spend that money somewhere else and one of these wealthy people spends more money than probably 50 or more families that don't spend money. How many people that make $50K a year have $20 to $50K in record collections? probably none, but someone that makes a few million a year do. Didn't Bruce Willis when he was making that big stink of transferring his iTunes collection to his daughters had at the time about $25K worth of music. Imagine if he's now collecting the $20 to 30 a CD 24 bit stuff that's out now. These people spend GOBS of money on content when they have it. There are more millionaires being created every year.
I'm wondering how much the entire iTunes collection is worth if someone bought one of everything and stored it in their own Server. That would be interesting to know.
One thing to realize, back when CDs FIRST came out, they were typically bought by people with nicer stereo systems and it wasn't picked up by the masses for many years later. That SAME trend is starting to happen with high res downloads. Yeah, now your average person doesn't care, but once these kids growing start to earn a living (hopefully make some decent money), then they will WANT high res audio when they can afford it. Some are actually doing it right now as kids are actually starting to get into vinyl and high res, it's actually moving in that direction, but it will pick up speed as time moves forward, but now 16 bit digital audio for home theaters is the norm now, and now people are slowly moving away from DVDs to BluRay and it's picking up market share. Even on a fairly inexpensive system listening to a 24/96 is so far superior to 16/44, it's no contest and it's even better than the MP3 versions. It's not a matter of if they should do it, its a matter of WHEN and some time down the road 24/96 or 24/192 might become the new 16 Bit version and 16Bit will seem like what happened to the cassette tape. Remember those? That's what the masses used to use when the CD first hit for portable devices.
What if Apple started their own label or publishing company and Iovine and Dr. Dre ran it. But why limit it to just music. What if it's an entire entertainment company.
1. How feasible is this
2. What legal obstacles would be involved concerning Apple Corps
I'm not saying Apple would even think about this or if it's even possible. Just curious what you guys think. There has to be something else that Beats has yet to announce or something in the pipeline. Or maybe Apple wanted Iovine and the only way was through Beats. Either way, I'm very interested to know the details for the purchase if it indeed goes through.
Here's a thought:
What if Apple started their own label or publishing company and Iovine and Dr. Dre ran it. But why limit it to just music. What if it's an entire entertainment company.
1. How feasible is this
2. What legal obstacles would be involved concerning Apple Corps
I'm not saying Apple would even think about this or if it's even possible. Just curious what you guys think. There has to be something else that Beats has yet to announce or something in the pipeline. Or maybe Apple wanted Iovine and the only way was through Beats. Either way, I'm very interested to know the details for the purchase if it indeed goes through.
Nope, Pete Townsend from the Who had that crazy idea. The problems are just too massive and Apple doesn't know what they are doing in terms of a record label.
Record labels spend money finding talent. They give them either a recording contract or a development contract to see if they can produce something sellable, which is like a BS recording contract. They have to hire producers, they have to hire studios and the big labels have their own that they have to manage, they have to pay for advertising, promotion of each artist, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. It's TOO much for Apple to even deal with.
For every 1 artist that sells tons of records and actually squeezes out some decent profits, there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of smaller players that lose money or barely break even. It's a messed up system. What's been happening over the past few years is that a lot of these well established artists that consistently sell several hundred thousand units can actually manage their own record label and they can do what they want, when they want and its cheaper for them to do it since they have their own website that contacts their fan base, and every time they release a new CD, they pretty much know ahead of time, it's going to sell several hundred thousand units, which brings in enough money to pay for operating it and then they send the masters to be distributed through the major distribution companies like BMG, Sony, etc. and THEY get it on iTunes, print CDs and distribute, etc. So a lot of these guys that have been around and are established, they can do it on their own much cheaper. So, there are a lot of small record labels that focus on certain markets/genres of music that funnel content up to the larger companies or completely independently run by the artist. But for Apple to get involved with it at this point? I don't think they could do it unless they bought Sony Music, BMG, etc. which is pretty much NOT going to happen as far as I can tell. Never say never right? I just don't see that happening, but that's the only way they could do it. Maybe if Apple waved all of the money there are planning on using to buyback stock were to buy up BMG and Sony Music, they'd just do it that way, but there would just be WAY too much pressure for the sale to go through.
Beats future products? I've not heard of anything other than what they are doing now that's really anything to notice. I don't think they have anything that very special behind the scenes. It's just the headphone business and the BeatsMusic business and that's really all they have.
1) I never argued with him about programming a rap song or mastering a musical instrument.
2) I was completely objective as noted by my use of examples and actual definitions from a cited dictionary that refute his claims that rap music isn't music, despite only getting back in return unverifiable statement that 1) he plays a musical instrument better than I do (even if he plays the same ones that I do how do you determine better?), 2) that he's been the only "white" person in the room full of "the blacks" which he concluded I would be too scared to do, and 3) that he's talked with "the blacks" he personally knows about rap music and they all agreed with him that it's not real music.
I saw this tweet today from Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
We should be asking more questions but it seems if you aren't instantly for or against the deal you're in the minority. Much either to call Dr. Dre a thug and a loser than to what that if the rumour is true why would Apple want to make it.
Even if Apple doesn't want that every rumour says their HW sales and profits are overwhelmingly the significant and where I see Apple being able to make a hefty profit off the deal in the short term.
I wish Apple would have more web-based services. They had a movie trailer portal for many years (I think before there were iTunes but I'm not sure it that far back). I think the iCloud.com is very good and I'd like that brought to maps.apple.com and other services, including Apple's own video upload site now that you need a Google+ account just to use an account on YouTube.
With everybody yelling doom and gloom because the iPod market is "dying", i.e.: leveling off as one of the few biggest businesses in the world (but never mind that, "growth" is all that matters!), why couldn't they start selling a line of "Beats iPods by Dr. Dre"? In fact, how do we know that these huge, too-thin "iPhone" prototypes aren't of a new "iPod Touch by Dr. Dre"?
Why? They need to make the next generation iPod with 24 Bit DAC inside and release 24/96 and 24/192 AAC versions of songs on iTunes and maybe stick a 64 Bit processor inside and maybe have a couple of size screens for the gamers. Rumor is that they are going to start releasing 24 Bit AAC files on iTunes next month, so this would be a perfect product for that and leave Dr. Dre's name out of it. I wouldn't buy something with Dr. Dre's name and Apple doesn't need that type of branding. The name APPLE is FAR more powerful than Dr. Dre.
Yeah, I know you've got a bug up your butt about this 24-bit audio that was suggested 10 or 15 years ago, to general apathy...as far as I know it doesn't exist, and wouldn't be usable except in an anechoic chamber—the bottom 8 or 10 bits are going to buried in ambient noise in the real world. There's certainly no reason for a higher sampling rate; anybody who thinks there is don't understand Shannon sampling theory.
In any case, Apple is the last company that would market such a thing—they are the ones who got people to pay actual money for excruciating 128,000 bps noise, so much so that most people won't even buy CDs any more, because their discrimination has been destroyed. 40 years ago, .1% THD was considered entry-level, now 9% is considered standard! IOW, CD-quality is as good as it needs to be—if you don't like the recording on one, blame the engineer, not the medium. What we need is a return to CD-quality, not some new bandwidth-wasting format that confers no advantage.
Yeah, I know you've got a bug up your butt about this 24-bit audio that was suggested 10 or 15 years ago, to general apathy...as far as I know it doesn't exist, and wouldn't be usable except in an anechoic chamber—the bottom 8 or 10 bits are going to buried in ambient noise in the real world. There's certainly no reason for a higher sampling rate; anybody who thinks there is don't understand Shannon sampling theory.
In any case, Apple is the last company that would market such a thing—they are the ones who got people to pay actual money for excruciating 128,000 bps noise, so much so that most people won't even buy CDs any more, because their discrimination has been destroyed. 40 years ago, .1% THD was considered entry-level, now 9% is considered standard! IOW, CD-quality is as good as it needs to be—if you don't like the recording on one, blame the engineer, not the medium. What we need is a return to CD-quality, not some new bandwidth-wasting format that confers no advantage.
Whatever. the case is that they are remastering at 24/88.2, 96, 176, 192 and if you have heard those recordings through a decent 24 bit dad on a decent stereo compared to the 16/44.2 CDs, they do sound better, because they can be played at higher SPL without crapping out. The problem is that 16 Bit DAC mfg are dying off, and 24 Bit DACs are getting cheap enough and that's where it's going. When they transfer analog tape recordings to 24/96 or better, and they don't jack around with audio compression, it sounds LOT more like the original masters than 16 Bit. The only 16 Bit DACs that REALLY sound great are too expensive and they just can't stick those in something that cheap enough. Nowadays it just makes more sense to do 24 bit. DSD 2x is coming out and for the recordings that were recorded at 2x, they sound closer to analog than anything else. So, that's also happening right now, but that's just for the real audio geeks and not something that Apple would get into because you would need an external DAC.
If I were you, I would wait until next month and see. All I can say is that Apple has been requesting the record labels to supply them with 24/96 and 24/192 for a while now and I read in audio related sites that this is what's coming out this year and that's what's supposed to be happening, whether you buy it or not is up to you.
Also, Mark Levinson started a new company not too long ago and he went public at CES this year and mentioned that he has a monitor/integrated DAC/PREAMP/AMP for a package price of $7,000 that's supposed to be coming out in October this year and it's supposed to be sold through Apple Store (and/or Apple Stores). I can dig up the video, but it's on YouTube in a video that was posted. So, maybe Apple might be starting to carry more high end audio equipment as a result of releasing 24 Bit AAC files.
Nest opens the door for google to start selling products forhome automation.
I don't think it was a smart purchase at that price- don't get me wrong. But I think long-term it'd be better than a Beats deal with the current info we have. The headphone market is not one that Apple needs to be pursuing. What's next- speakers? If only they would have had a speaker system, it would have been such a hit. Oh wait...
It is not that I hate Beats so much, or Beats makes crap headphones. Its just the price. I dont want Apple giving me dividends which they did. Do they have too much money now that they dont know how to use?
So ... is it official yet?
Since Beats isn't a public company, maybe they want to wait until WWDC to make the final announcement.
If they were publicly traded then they would have to make a formal announcement at the time of purchase.
IMO, this still rumored acquisition will have a twist somewhere... and the existing headphones and streaming business will be just icing on the cake.
4) What if the new predictive search algorithm could become as big or even better than Google/Stanford's for artificial intelligent devices including wearables with mood awareness? If I recall, Apple already has a patent for something similar.
Great idea. Biometric playlist adjustments is brilliant: