Wonder what the excuse will be next week if it doesn't pan out.
I said all along I don't mind the deal, I just believe 3.2 is way too high of a number and it should be around 2b. Which is still overvalued, but within reason. 3.2 isn't.
There will be analyst’s reports of how Apple screwed up the deal and is doomed.
I'm really hoping this deal goes through. After watching Iovine talk about Beats during his All Things D interview last year, it seems pretty obvious how much his vision of the future of music and music curation can improve iTunes; iTunes has always been surprisingly devoid of human touch/curation. This is one of the few things that Apple can't do in house. Clever algorithms are not enough. You need people that know about music and know people in music; Jimmy, Dre, and Trent certainly do. It's not just hype; since the rumors came out I've been playing with Beats Music and it's really great (I know, anecdotal). Also, if you pay attention in the video, Jimmy hints about working with Apple and incorporating info about your iTunes library into the service. Finally, all of this potential comes at very little risk (other than upsetting some Apple fans on forums, and providing fodder for the typical FUD makers in the media), as the hardware aspect of the business leaves minimal financial risk.
Exactly. I am a believer in 'curated'. It's always better. It provides context.
How come we're not hearing about other companies wanting to buy Beats? Surely companies like Facebook, Google and Microsoft also want to appeal to millennials (though I'm not convinced you have to buy Beats to do that).
I'm seeing in my Twitter feed that leaks came from one side (i.e. not Apple). And now there is speculation that Apple is putting the screws to Beats over price or that perhaps what gets announced won't be an acquisition, but something else. I don't think that Dre video (which got pulled) was a smart idea. And if these leaks came from Beats I can see where Apple would be pissed. I suppose it's possible that there were negotiations with nothing finalized but someone at Beats decided to leak it and perhaps Apple decided to
It the breaks on it. One can hope.:)
I'm sure there are many here that remember a certain Graphics card maker pre announcing a deal with Apple only to be frozen out by Apple as a punishment for the leaks. I couldn't help having a flash back on reading this rumor.
In the big scheme of all things Apple, this is pretty insignificant, in my opinion, and Apple should be concentrating on far more important and bigger things.
Yet Apple has become highly successful by concentrating on the little things, and getting them right. Will you guys ridicule each other when this turns into a smart move?
It may just coincidence, but the American Idol * Final 3 talents performed yesterday and the final 2 will be selected tonight, Next Tue/Wed will be the finals.
* Jimmy mentored on American Idol for 2 years (on the 2 shows per week Feb - May (about 16 shows, 32 appearances per year) American Idol has some tie-in with iTunes -- there's a free iTunes app and they always tell you to download the latest performances from iTunes
I think you're probably right, but that is only because we're only likely to think of companies that appeal to use or have enough mindshare to that we'd think of them even if they don't directly appeal to us. Nest? Bad buy. Moto? Bad buy. Oculus? Bad buy. Instagram? Bad buy. Twitter? Bad buy. LinkedIn? Bad buy. (All those buys are my opinions)
The right buy for Apple is likely to be something we don't expect as their history has been acquisitions we didn't expect so our not guessing that Apple would PA Semi or even understanding what kind of a lead that would give Apple is not something we should rebuke them for doing.
If this rumour turns out to be true you should ask yourself what you're not seeing, not ask why Apple is so stupid or why the board hasn't fired Tim Cook yet.
I for one would have mentioned at least one streaming service as a good acquisition and I'm sure a lot of people would have also added a streaming service to their acquisition list. Beats wouldn't have been one of them because of the added baggage of the hardware... whether it's making big bucks or not.
I for one would have mentioned at least one streaming service as a good acquisition and I'm sure a lot of people would have also added a streaming service to their acquisition list. Beats wouldn't have been one of them because of the added baggage of the hardware... whether it's making big bucks or not.
1) I don't add any because I don't know of any streaming service that has been recently acquired by another company at a highly inflated price that doesn't like up with minimal profits or losses. What are Pandora and Spotify doing in revenue and profits?
2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range. Everything else appears to be a cost center or operating at a loss.
1) I don't add any because I don't know of any streaming service that has been recently acquired by another company at a highly inflated price that doesn't like up with minimal profits or losses. What are Pandora and Spotify doing in revenue and profits?
2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range. Everything else appears to be a cost center or operating at a loss.
1. How many acquisitions has Apple made in the last 3 years of companies that have large profits?
2. As I've said before, it doesn't matter how much it's making, this just isn't in Apple's DNA... imo.
1. How many acquisitions has Apple made in the last 3 years of companies that have large profits?
2. As I've said before, it doesn't matter how much it's making, this just isn't in Apple's DNA... imo.
1) Probably very few, if any, but it's also unlikely any were even close to the $3.2 billion of this rumour. Why should Apple having a lot of money mean they should just waste it on overpaying for companies?
2) Maybe, maybe not, but Apple doesn't have better headphones than Beats, but that's beside the point. If they are going to make a multi-billion dollar acquisition I'd want it to be a company that is making enough profits to pay off that investment in short order.
1) Probably very few, if any, but it's also unlikely any were even close to the $3.2 billion of this rumour. Why should Apple having a lot of money mean they should just waste it on overpaying for companies?
2) Maybe, maybe not, but Apple doesn't have better headphones than Beats, but that's beside the point. If they are going to make a multi-billion dollar acquisitor I'd want it to be a company that is making enough profits to pay off that investment in short order.
1. and 2. What do you think I've been saying? I don't like this deal. $3.2 billion for hardware just to get the streaming service is not in Apple's dna. Selling Beats hardware is not in Apple's dna. This whole deal is not in Apple's dna. Spending $3.2 billion is not in Apple's dna. The whole thing just seems wrong imo.
1. and 2. What do you think I've been saying? I don't like this deal. $3.2 billion for hardware just to get the streaming service is not in Apple's dna. Selling Beats hardware is not in Apple's dna. This whole deal is not in Apple's dna. Spending $3.2 billion is not in Apple's dna. The whole thing just seems wrong imo.
But you assuming it's just to get a streaming service, which Apple already has. It's the music rental service which Apple doesn't have, but that's 1) been their choice, and 2) there is no evidence to suggest the licenses carry over.
I respect your position in saying that Beats' reportedly profitable and dominate HW is not in Apple's DNA but your assertion that this deal is only for a streaming service which they have — and nothing else — doesn't make sense. Of course if doesn't look like a viable deal if you strip away the HW, the executives, the talent, the humanized algorithm, and everything else just to look at a streaming service they bought from MOG for $10 million a year ago.
You need to ask, "If Apple is truly considered buying Beats for the stated price what would they be seeing that I'm not seeing?"
But you assuming it's just to get a streaming service, which Apple already has. It's the music rental service which Apple doesn't have, but that's 1) been their choice, and 2) there is no evidence to suggest the licenses carry over.
I respect your position in saying that Beats' reportedly profitable and dominate HW is not in Apple's DNA but your assertion that this deal is only for a streaming service which they have — and nothing else — doesn't make sense. Of course if doesn't look like a viable deal if you strip away the HW, the executives, the talent, the humanized algorithm, and everything else just to look at a streaming service they bought from MOG for $10 million a year ago.
You need to ask, "If Apple is truly considered buying Beats for the stated price what would they be seeing that I'm not seeing?"
Well, I, for one, don't have to ask that question because I think the whole thing is bullshit. If it isn't bullshit, then, imo, Cook needs to get his head examined.
If there is something that we are not seeing then it is something that Beats has never ever divulged to the public... imo... and we can make up anything at this point. Transporter? Mind reading device that fits in an iPhone? Invisibility cloak?
[ re: 1. MOG - as I mentioned before, I think that Apple was late to the party on that one. 2. Has Apple only bought companies with software/services that Apple doesn't already have in one form or another? ]
Comments
About the best description I've seen so far.
There’s a picture of a mock-up of the deal circulating around the web. Why doesn’t AI have it?
Wonder what the excuse will be next week if it doesn't pan out.
I said all along I don't mind the deal, I just believe 3.2 is way too high of a number and it should be around 2b. Which is still overvalued, but within reason. 3.2 isn't.
There will be analyst’s reports of how Apple screwed up the deal and is doomed.
That picture was taken before being told that they were going to be bought for $3.2 billion. They're much more jovial in the after photo.
I'm sure there are many here that remember a certain Graphics card maker pre announcing a deal with Apple only to be frozen out by Apple as a punishment for the leaks. I couldn't help having a flash back on reading this rumor.
Yet Apple has become highly successful by concentrating on the little things, and getting them right. Will you guys ridicule each other when this turns into a smart move?
* Jimmy mentored on American Idol for 2 years (on the 2 shows per week Feb - May (about 16 shows, 32 appearances per year)
American Idol has some tie-in with iTunes -- there's a free iTunes app and they always tell you to download the latest performances from iTunes
I think you're probably right, but that is only because we're only likely to think of companies that appeal to use or have enough mindshare to that we'd think of them even if they don't directly appeal to us. Nest? Bad buy. Moto? Bad buy. Oculus? Bad buy. Instagram? Bad buy. Twitter? Bad buy. LinkedIn? Bad buy. (All those buys are my opinions)
The right buy for Apple is likely to be something we don't expect as their history has been acquisitions we didn't expect so our not guessing that Apple would PA Semi or even understanding what kind of a lead that would give Apple is not something we should rebuke them for doing.
If this rumour turns out to be true you should ask yourself what you're not seeing, not ask why Apple is so stupid or why the board hasn't fired Tim Cook yet.
I for one would have mentioned at least one streaming service as a good acquisition and I'm sure a lot of people would have also added a streaming service to their acquisition list. Beats wouldn't have been one of them because of the added baggage of the hardware... whether it's making big bucks or not.
Get out Apple while you still can.
1) I don't add any because I don't know of any streaming service that has been recently acquired by another company at a highly inflated price that doesn't like up with minimal profits or losses. What are Pandora and Spotify doing in revenue and profits?
2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range. Everything else appears to be a cost center or operating at a loss.
1) I don't add any because I don't know of any streaming service that has been recently acquired by another company at a highly inflated price that doesn't like up with minimal profits or losses. What are Pandora and Spotify doing in revenue and profits?
2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range. Everything else appears to be a cost center or operating at a loss.
1. How many acquisitions has Apple made in the last 3 years of companies that have large profits?
2. As I've said before, it doesn't matter how much it's making, this just isn't in Apple's DNA... imo.
1) Probably very few, if any, but it's also unlikely any were even close to the $3.2 billion of this rumour. Why should Apple having a lot of money mean they should just waste it on overpaying for companies?
2) Maybe, maybe not, but Apple doesn't have better headphones than Beats, but that's beside the point. If they are going to make a multi-billion dollar acquisition I'd want it to be a company that is making enough profits to pay off that investment in short order.
1) Probably very few, if any, but it's also unlikely any were even close to the $3.2 billion of this rumour. Why should Apple having a lot of money mean they should just waste it on overpaying for companies?
2) Maybe, maybe not, but Apple doesn't have better headphones than Beats, but that's beside the point. If they are going to make a multi-billion dollar acquisitor I'd want it to be a company that is making enough profits to pay off that investment in short order.
1. and 2. What do you think I've been saying? I don't like this deal. $3.2 billion for hardware just to get the streaming service is not in Apple's dna. Selling Beats hardware is not in Apple's dna. This whole deal is not in Apple's dna. Spending $3.2 billion is not in Apple's dna. The whole thing just seems wrong imo.
But you assuming it's just to get a streaming service, which Apple already has. It's the music rental service which Apple doesn't have, but that's 1) been their choice, and 2) there is no evidence to suggest the licenses carry over.
I respect your position in saying that Beats' reportedly profitable and dominate HW is not in Apple's DNA but your assertion that this deal is only for a streaming service which they have — and nothing else — doesn't make sense. Of course if doesn't look like a viable deal if you strip away the HW, the executives, the talent, the humanized algorithm, and everything else just to look at a streaming service they bought from MOG for $10 million a year ago.
You need to ask, "If Apple is truly considered buying Beats for the stated price what would they be seeing that I'm not seeing?"
With any luck, it will get right off the calendar completely.
But you assuming it's just to get a streaming service, which Apple already has. It's the music rental service which Apple doesn't have, but that's 1) been their choice, and 2) there is no evidence to suggest the licenses carry over.
I respect your position in saying that Beats' reportedly profitable and dominate HW is not in Apple's DNA but your assertion that this deal is only for a streaming service which they have — and nothing else — doesn't make sense. Of course if doesn't look like a viable deal if you strip away the HW, the executives, the talent, the humanized algorithm, and everything else just to look at a streaming service they bought from MOG for $10 million a year ago.
You need to ask, "If Apple is truly considered buying Beats for the stated price what would they be seeing that I'm not seeing?"
Well, I, for one, don't have to ask that question because I think the whole thing is bullshit. If it isn't bullshit, then, imo, Cook needs to get his head examined.
If there is something that we are not seeing then it is something that Beats has never ever divulged to the public... imo... and we can make up anything at this point. Transporter? Mind reading device that fits in an iPhone? Invisibility cloak?
[ re: 1. MOG - as I mentioned before, I think that Apple was late to the party on that one. 2. Has Apple only bought companies with software/services that Apple doesn't already have in one form or another? ]