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.
I wonder if Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine and he said no deal unless you take Beats along with me. And maybe Apple agreed because they want Jimmy that bad and will just leave the Beats hardware brand as it is. Still feels a bit like Apple is skating to where the puck was, not where it's going to be. I think it's fair to ask what has Apple been doing the past 3-4 years? Were they so wedded to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music? Or were they fearful of busting up iTunes and the download business model? I have a hard time believing it's because the record companies won't deal with Apple. According to the WSJ, the music industry has tired to get Apple to move to the streaming model, but Apple stubbornly clung to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music.
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.
Since you're conclusion is so absurdly improbably that you think Tim Cook has some sort of debilitating brain injury and no one at Apple is willing to stop him (as if he's making these decision on his own) then that's exactly why you should ask yourself the question.
If there is something that we are not seeing then it is something that Beats has never ever divulged to the public... imo…
Or something you're choosing not to consider because you're prejudged and aren't willing to examine your judgments.
and we can make up anything at this point. Transporter? Mind reading device that fits in an iPhone? Invisibility cloak?
We sure can, but it makes sense to work within a reality we could conceive coming true within the next month. Reductio ad absurdum isn't adding anything to this conversion.
[ 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? ]
Since you're conclusion is so absurdly improbably that you think Tim Cook has some sort of debilitating brain injury and no one at Apple is willing to stop him (as if he's making these decision on his own) then that's exactly why you should ask yourself the question.
Or something you're choosing not to consider because you're prejudged and aren't willing to examine your judgments.
We sure can, but it makes sense to work within a reality we could conceive coming true within the next month. Reductio ad absurdum isn't adding anything to this conversion.
What MOG by itself could do for Apple.
... and what you are failing to consider is that I could be right.
I wonder if Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine and he said no deal unless you take Beats along with me. And maybe Apple agreed because they want Jimmy that bad and will just leave the Beats hardware brand as it is. Still feels a bit like Apple is skating to where the puck was, not where it's going to be. I think it's fair to ask what has Apple been doing the past 3-4 years? Were they so wedded to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music? Or were they fearful of busting up iTunes and the download business model? I have a hard time believing it's because the record companies won't deal with Apple. According to the WSJ, the music industry has tired to get Apple to move to the streaming model, but Apple stubbornly clung to Jobs theory that people want to own, not rent music.
I like you're thinking of plausible scenarios but my feeling is that Iovine doesn't have the upper hand to force Apple to spend $3.2 billion for a single person. I don't think a person is worth that and as Apple's first large purchase at over 7x more than their last highest purchase, NeXT in 1997, I think this purchase needs to be well calculated because it will be in the public eye for many reasons.
Based on the available info, if true I think it's for a variety of reasons with Beats Electronics providing a profitable and popular brand that could make the aging iTunes (Music) Store cool again and reinvigorate their dropping unit sales.
... and what you are failing to consider is that I could be right.
I've always contended that there is no deal and I clearly stated your "Tim Head head trauma paired with no one at Apple realizing Cook had severe head trauma" was not impossible. You're the one that doesn't seem to want to look at it from all angles.
I've always contended that there is no deal and I clearly stated your "Tim Head head trauma paired with no one at Apple realizing Cook had severe head trauma" was not impossible. You're the one that doesn't seem to want to look at it from all angles.
Tell me one angle that you know that I haven't mentioned. Please.
Based on the available info, if true I think it's for a variety of reasons with Beats Electronics providing a profitable and popular brand that could make the aging iTunes (Music) Store cool again and reinvigorate their dropping unit sales.
and this is what worries me, that it's basically Apple spending $3B because they're concerned about not being cool within certain demographics. Though I don't know that owning beats necessarily transfers that cool to Apple. It could be that some consumers would stop buying Beats headphones just because they were owned by Apple. Perhaps Beats no longer becomes cool once the uncool Apple owns them.
and this is what worries me, that it's basically Apple spending $3B because they're concerned about not being cool within certain demographics. Though I don't know that owning beats necessarily transfers that cool to Apple. It could be that some consumers would stop buying Beats headphones just because they were owned by Apple. Perhaps Beats no longer becomes cool once the uncool Apple owns them.
As their first large acquisition I can see why that would be a concern but that was bound to happen at some point. You have several things in play that make Apple uncool.
1) Apple has been on top for a very long time. Kids usually try to step out of their parents shadows to create their own identity. It doesn't behoove Apple to have children choosing Android, Google Play and Amazon Music over the iPhone, App Store and iTunes Store. These decisions may never get reversed or take years. This is a big reason why companies like to get their products in the classroom. There is no altruism there.
2) iTunes (Music) Store has not only plateaued but started to slide. The reason could simply be that streaming and rental music is gaining traction, iTunes Store for music is no longer "cool", or a variety of reasons. Either way, they need to do something about it.
3) Regarding the second item on #2, iTunes (Music) Store is 13 years old. It's changed a lot since then but how much technology services have you been using for that long? I think my email providers are even newer than that, perhaps except my @mac.com email address back in the iTools days, but I only ever use that @me.com address. Either way, that makes my argument because iTools to .Mac to MobileMe to iCloud have all been radical changes and iTunes Store has only ever added to itself; no reinvention. I have no problem with iTunes (Music) Store but what about kids that bought their first song with an iTunes GC at 10yo and are now in their 20's? Do they still think iTS is still cool? Is that not something Apple should consider?
Regardless of what happens we're only talking about $3.2 billion of Apple's money so it's not the end of the world if Apple buys them.
I asked you to be specific. I asked "you" to tell me that angle.
I, and numerous other people and websites, have spent the last week detailing multiple advantages for buying Beats based on the available information as its come up. I've done it in this thread. You're the one that is failing to even consider the possibility.
You don't have to think it's probable but if there is an iota of chance the scientific mind will not automatically disregard it as impossible.
I, and numerous other people and websites, have spent the last week detailing multiple advantages for buying Beats based on the available information as its come up. I've done it in this thread. You're the one that is failing to even consider the possibility.
You don't have to think it's probable but if there is an iota of chance the scientific mind will not automatically disregard it as impossible.
Pardon me?
I'm the one who has said that the music streaming service is the thing that makes the most sense.
I'm also the one that has detailed why I don't think that the headphone business is in Apple's dna.
Multiple advantages? Well, let's hear them again. Name just one [that I haven't mentioned].
The merger sounds like a marriage between High Elf and Orc.
You know… I just happen to have a VERY relevant comic regarding that. Except it’s… more than a smudge too lascivious to post here. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range.
And that's why it's a bad idea. It would be better if there was no "baggage".
Do you remember when Tim Cook got pissed at the Apple shareholder meeting when some climate change denying group was trying to take Apple to task and Cook replied that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issue? So profits are not the primary concern for Apple when it comes to every issue, and they shouldn't be on this issue either, as the potential negatives outweighs any positives.
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.
I mentioned that some days ago and yes, that is a good reason to kill the whole deal.
I'm the one who has said that the music streaming service is the thing that makes the most sense.
But you stated it as (paraphrasing), "this is the only benefit, everything else is crap, which makes this a bad deal." That's not seeing from Apple's PoV if they were going to drop $3.2 billion on a deal.
I'm also the one that has detailed why I don't think that the headphone business is in Apple's dna.
Yes, yes you did.
Multiple advantages? Well, let's hear them again. Name just one [that I haven't mentioned].
Here are list of the ones off the top of my head. It's not a conclusive list of things that have been discussed. [@]Dick Applebaum[/@] can probably think of a few more:
High revenues
Growing revenues
High profits
Growing profits
Iovine and Young, and possibly Trent Reznor and others
Iovine and Young having patents that Apple needs to stave off their iTunes (Music) Store losses
Music rental service
Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate
Making Beats a gateway into Apple products buy creating a lock in
Successful headphones sales with Apple-likes construction and profit margins
Jony Ive seeing that he can take Beats headphones to the next level with a few changes to their look and sound
So profits are not the primary concern for Apple when it comes to every issue, and they shouldn't be on this issue either, as the potential negatives outweighs any positives.
Of course they are, the difference between Apple et al. is that Apple looks much farther ahead and at a much bigger picture than their contemporaries. This is why they invest in things that might not become profitable for years to come but that repeatedly have pushed them far ahead of the competition.
That why you shouldn't look at what Beats is right now to consider why Apple might want them. Consider what it could mean for Apple in the long run. What is Apple missing or think they will be missing that Beats could supply them? I'd think the drop in iTunes music sales is pretty obvious concern.
But you stated it as (paraphrasing), "this is the only benefit, everything else is crap, which makes this a bad deal." That's not seeing from Apple's PoV if they were going to drop $3.2 billion on a deal.
Yes, yes you did.
Here are list of the ones off the top of my head. It's not a conclusive list of things that have been discussed. @Dick Applebaum can probably think of a few more:
High revenues
Growing revenues
High profits
Growing profits
Iovine and Young, and possibly Trent Reznor and others
Iovine and Young having patents that Apple needs to stave off their iTunes (Music) Store losses
Music rental service
Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate
Making Beats a gateway into Apple products buy creating a lock in
Successful headphones sales with Apple-likes construction and profit margins
Jony Ive seeing that he can take Beats headphones to the next level with a few changes to their look and sound
That's not in my DNA.
"Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate"
That is the only thing in your list that I have not touched upon.
Is it worth $3.2 billion? That is the question.
At least you finally found one angle that I hadn't mentioned. It took a while for you to answer the question.
Comments
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303701304579550682787925164
Since you're conclusion is so absurdly improbably that you think Tim Cook has some sort of debilitating brain injury and no one at Apple is willing to stop him (as if he's making these decision on his own) then that's exactly why you should ask yourself the question.
Or something you're choosing not to consider because you're prejudged and aren't willing to examine your judgments.
We sure can, but it makes sense to work within a reality we could conceive coming true within the next month. Reductio ad absurdum isn't adding anything to this conversion.
What MOG by itself could do for Apple.
Since you're conclusion is so absurdly improbably that you think Tim Cook has some sort of debilitating brain injury and no one at Apple is willing to stop him (as if he's making these decision on his own) then that's exactly why you should ask yourself the question.
Or something you're choosing not to consider because you're prejudged and aren't willing to examine your judgments.
We sure can, but it makes sense to work within a reality we could conceive coming true within the next month. Reductio ad absurdum isn't adding anything to this conversion.
What MOG by itself could do for Apple.
... and what you are failing to consider is that I could be right.
I like you're thinking of plausible scenarios but my feeling is that Iovine doesn't have the upper hand to force Apple to spend $3.2 billion for a single person. I don't think a person is worth that and as Apple's first large purchase at over 7x more than their last highest purchase, NeXT in 1997, I think this purchase needs to be well calculated because it will be in the public eye for many reasons.
Based on the available info, if true I think it's for a variety of reasons with Beats Electronics providing a profitable and popular brand that could make the aging iTunes (Music) Store cool again and reinvigorate their dropping unit sales.
I've always contended that there is no deal and I clearly stated your "Tim Head head trauma paired with no one at Apple realizing Cook had severe head trauma" was not impossible. You're the one that doesn't seem to want to look at it from all angles.
I've always contended that there is no deal and I clearly stated your "Tim Head head trauma paired with no one at Apple realizing Cook had severe head trauma" was not impossible. You're the one that doesn't seem to want to look at it from all angles.
Tell me one angle that you know that I haven't mentioned. Please.
How about any angle that this deal could benefit Apple?
That's classified.
How about any angle that this deal could benefit Apple?
I asked you to be specific. I asked "you" to tell me that angle.
As their first large acquisition I can see why that would be a concern but that was bound to happen at some point. You have several things in play that make Apple uncool.
1) Apple has been on top for a very long time. Kids usually try to step out of their parents shadows to create their own identity. It doesn't behoove Apple to have children choosing Android, Google Play and Amazon Music over the iPhone, App Store and iTunes Store. These decisions may never get reversed or take years. This is a big reason why companies like to get their products in the classroom. There is no altruism there.
2) iTunes (Music) Store has not only plateaued but started to slide. The reason could simply be that streaming and rental music is gaining traction, iTunes Store for music is no longer "cool", or a variety of reasons. Either way, they need to do something about it.
3) Regarding the second item on #2, iTunes (Music) Store is 13 years old. It's changed a lot since then but how much technology services have you been using for that long? I think my email providers are even newer than that, perhaps except my @mac.com email address back in the iTools days, but I only ever use that @me.com address. Either way, that makes my argument because iTools to .Mac to MobileMe to iCloud have all been radical changes and iTunes Store has only ever added to itself; no reinvention. I have no problem with iTunes (Music) Store but what about kids that bought their first song with an iTunes GC at 10yo and are now in their 20's? Do they still think iTS is still cool? Is that not something Apple should consider?
Regardless of what happens we're only talking about $3.2 billion of Apple's money so it's not the end of the world if Apple buys them.
I, and numerous other people and websites, have spent the last week detailing multiple advantages for buying Beats based on the available information as its come up. I've done it in this thread. You're the one that is failing to even consider the possibility.
You don't have to think it's probable but if there is an iota of chance the scientific mind will not automatically disregard it as impossible.
I, and numerous other people and websites, have spent the last week detailing multiple advantages for buying Beats based on the available information as its come up. I've done it in this thread. You're the one that is failing to even consider the possibility.
You don't have to think it's probable but if there is an iota of chance the scientific mind will not automatically disregard it as impossible.
Pardon me?
I'm the one who has said that the music streaming service is the thing that makes the most sense.
I'm also the one that has detailed why I don't think that the headphone business is in Apple's dna.
Multiple advantages? Well, let's hear them again. Name just one [that I haven't mentioned].
Quit being wishy washy.
You know… I just happen to have a VERY relevant comic regarding that. Except it’s… more than a smudge too lascivious to post here.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
And in this case, the orc is Apple and the elf is Beats…
EDIT: apparently it won’t load in the viewer, so just download it; more than one page
2) According to the rumours the HW "baggage" is the reason why this rumoured deal is in the billions range.
And that's why it's a bad idea. It would be better if there was no "baggage".
Do you remember when Tim Cook got pissed at the Apple shareholder meeting when some climate change denying group was trying to take Apple to task and Cook replied that there are many things Apple does because they are right and just, and that a return on investment (ROI) was not the primary consideration on such issue? So profits are not the primary concern for Apple when it comes to every issue, and they shouldn't be on this issue either, as the potential negatives outweighs any positives.
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.
I mentioned that some days ago and yes, that is a good reason to kill the whole deal.
But you stated it as (paraphrasing), "this is the only benefit, everything else is crap, which makes this a bad deal." That's not seeing from Apple's PoV if they were going to drop $3.2 billion on a deal.
Yes, yes you did.
Here are list of the ones off the top of my head. It's not a conclusive list of things that have been discussed. [@]Dick Applebaum[/@] can probably think of a few more:
That's not in my DNA.
Of course they are, the difference between Apple et al. is that Apple looks much farther ahead and at a much bigger picture than their contemporaries. This is why they invest in things that might not become profitable for years to come but that repeatedly have pushed them far ahead of the competition.
That why you shouldn't look at what Beats is right now to consider why Apple might want them. Consider what it could mean for Apple in the long run. What is Apple missing or think they will be missing that Beats could supply them? I'd think the drop in iTunes music sales is pretty obvious concern.
But you stated it as (paraphrasing), "this is the only benefit, everything else is crap, which makes this a bad deal." That's not seeing from Apple's PoV if they were going to drop $3.2 billion on a deal.
Yes, yes you did.
Here are list of the ones off the top of my head. It's not a conclusive list of things that have been discussed. @Dick Applebaum can probably think of a few more:
- High revenues
- Growing revenues
- High profits
- Growing profits
- Iovine and Young, and possibly Trent Reznor and others
- Iovine and Young having patents that Apple needs to stave off their iTunes (Music) Store losses
- Music rental service
- Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate
- Making Beats a gateway into Apple products buy creating a lock in
- Successful headphones sales with Apple-likes construction and profit margins
- Jony Ive seeing that he can take Beats headphones to the next level with a few changes to their look and sound
That's not in my DNA."Humanized algorithm that Apple couldn't reasonably recreate"
That is the only thing in your list that I have not touched upon.
Is it worth $3.2 billion? That is the question.
At least you finally found one angle that I hadn't mentioned. It took a while for you to answer the question.
That was what I had asked you to do after all.