No, Jobs just saved Pixar from the grave, and gave it the resources (at great personal financial risk) and freedom to become the greatest animation studio.
Do you really need that shitty signature in every one of your posts? Is it supposed to be witty or clever? Or do you expect someone to answer that question?
If you don't realize how idiotic your post of "Sony has a 4K TV and Samsung has a curved screen so Apple shouldnt bother anymore" was, then I don't know what to tell you. How many of those 4k TVs that cost an arm and a leg do you think are selling?
Either way, get rid of your useless sig.
Not useless if you responded to it. The Apple TV hasn't been updated since March 2012. Apple couldn't at least upgrade the processor in 2 years? Is it that hard to innovate for a speed bump?
As for the other mythical unicorn Apple TV- at this point in time- who cares? Apple blew it content wise years ago by not buying a studio and making their own content like Netflix and Amazon. An technology wise Apple should be making their own displays at this point in time as they are display dependent- across the product line. The iMacs displays are sorely behind the ball.
And by the way 4K TVs are not expensive this year in comparison to just a year ago.
So simply- I'll remove it once Apple releases either /or.
AppleInsider, please stop giving these shitty people coverage. Walter Isaacson is a piece of garbage, who's been exploiting his position to bash Apple at every opportunity, and shill for Kane's agenda-laden, discredited smear-campaign book full of lies.
As for Dan Lyons? That piece of garbage troll has built a career on dragging Apple through the mud, and he recently admitted everything that he ever wrote was a pack of lies meant for "clicks" which he claims he was addicted to. He's still talking about Apple? And people are still listening to him? Unreal. This website should have an ounce of fucking class and restrain itself from re-publishing every breath of clowns like these. Isaacson has zeo insight about this rumored deal, same with Lyons. They're both deceitful, lying hacks.
Actually, I'd rather that AI publish this, so that we can get a response such as yours above, and then let me as an informed reader judge for myself. That makes this site far more interesting to me.
I guess you have not worked with big cheeses in BIG corporations. The public appearance can be very different than what goes on inside.
It is very "cut throat". They will curse you and then chew you up and spit you out for making mistakes. They are also human so they use the F word in private like everybody else.
Do you think Steve Jobs was a bad fit for Apple? Wake up and smell the coffee. Will you?
It's how they curse. Dr. Dre's lyrics are NOT anything that would be promoted by Apple Corporate. Jobs used swear words more as an adjective rather than a direct put down, at least that's how I heard him say things on a public level. But I don't think Apple appreciates and would support people that publicly call women "Bitches", "F the Police", and other things that Dr. Dre promotes in the lyrics of his so-called music.
Plus Dr. Dre and his friends spilled the beans on what is normally under NDA until Apple makes the formal announcement. That's a BIG No No in Apple's world. Maybe they put off the deal another week to change the terms of the deal since it leaked out. Until Apple makes a formal announcement, it's all speculation.
... Overheard my 14-year-old grandson on the phone:
"I'm straighter than the pole your mother dances on, Dude!"
That's a new one, I haven't heard that line. I'll have to use. :-)
I remember when I was a kid, we'd say things like "your mother wears army boots" and all kinds of funny put downs. That's typical of kids. I think I saw a recent commercial where there were a few kids putting each other down and I think one said something like "your mother buys your clothes at Wal Mart on lay away".
Oh, those darn kids. What will they come up with next? Trash talking is a normal way of life, especially with the highly competitive teenage social groups. It's their normal. They get it from watching too much sports, listening to too many rappers, certain comedians, and watching these political people.
When the possibility of this deal first hit the blogs, I thought that the "curation by experts" for you at this moment : "The only song as important as the song that is playing -- is the song that plays next!"
I think that curation process is applicable to other personal endeavors -- the movie you're watching, the meal you are eating, that dress/shirt you are buying ...
... Overheard my 14-year-old grandson on the phone:
"I'm straighter than the pole your mother dances on, Dude!"
That's a new one, I haven't heard that line. I'll have to use. :-)
I remember when I was a kid, we'd say things like "your mother wears army boots" and all kinds of funny put downs. That's typical of kids. I think I saw a recent commercial where there were a few kids putting each other down and I think one said something like "your mother buys your clothes at Wal Mart on lay away".
Oh, those darn kids. What will they come up with next? Trash talking is a normal way of life, especially with the highly competitive teenage social groups. It's their normal. They get it from watching too much sports, listening to too many rappers, certain comedians, and watching these political people.
Yeah ..
Then there's:
"Yo mama's so fat that she has euros in one pocket and pesos in the other."
-- Paula Poundstone
I'm sorry, but what the hell is amazing about GoPro camera technology? What they have going for them is rugedness and marketing. There's absolutely nothing special about the optics, and certainly nothing that Apple could benefit from squeezing into an iPhone. Do you see Apple coming out with a separate, GoPro like product? Just because a company is successful that doesnt mean it makes sense for Apple to acquire them, especially if it doesnt fit within their existing product line or DNA. Compare to how many people take photos/videos on their iPhones, GoPro is insanely niche. I don't know a single person who owns one.
What is amazing about Beats headphones or music service? Certainly nothing that Apple couldn't design and engineer themselves.
When the possibility of this deal first hit the blogs, I thought that the "curation by experts" for you at this moment : "The only song as important as the song that is playing -- is the song that plays next!"
I think that curation process is applicable to other personal endeavors -- the movie you're watching, the meal you are eating, that dress/shirt you are buying ...
When the possibility of this deal first hit the blogs, I thought that the "curation by experts" for you at this moment : "The only song as important as the song that is playing -- is the song that plays next!"
I think that curation process is applicable to other personal endeavors -- the movie you're watching, the meal you are eating, that dress/shirt you are buying ...
How is that worth $3B?
IMO, that's worth $30 B -- minimum!
Think about it -- someone you trust influences what you buy, and when -- and in the process, satisfies your desires.
``Everything media will go under the Beats brand including some hardware. iTunes, CarPlay, AppleTV, TV software, TV hardware, iPods, headPhones, earPhones, speakers etc...''
Not a shot in hell.
Beats will become a brand for Apple and neither Iovine nor Dr. Dre will manage them. They will have creative consultant titles, until they leave.
The combined net worth of the top 1500 billionaires most likely exceeds the worldwide M0 currency supply so that currency simply doesn't exist, which is an important consideration when we discuss income inequality. We're talking more about asset ownership and perceived value of those assets.
If you form a company and you split it into 1000 shares and you keep 500 of them and sell 499 of them for $1 and then operate your business and convince someone to spend $10,000 for that last share, the cash you've taken in from selling shares is $10,499 but because people are now willing to pay $10,000 for 1 share, it means that potentially every share is worth $10,000 so with 50% of the shares, you now have a net worth of 500 x $10,000 = $5m despite the fact you only took in under $11k of cash.
It wouldn't be valued like that from a single share but the overall value is from the value of much smaller exchanges. Ideally the share value would be tied much more closely to earnings but it's very difficult to do this. You can make a huge profit in 1 year and a higher loss the next so the value would swing from very high to almost nothing. You can make no profit for years but have a great product in production. If there was a regulation saying you couldn't sell shares beyond a certain multiple of yearly profits, it would be hard for a company to raise startup funding.
Perhaps there should be a divider between a startup and a successful company. A successful company beyond a certain revenue or profit level wouldn't be able to sell shares beyond a fixed multiple of their current earnings. Startups would be able to raise cash but only total cash value would attribute a share value to the company. If they become successful, the share value maxes out at a multiple of earnings. If that value happens to be lower than startup funding, it's the investor's loss.
If a well-established company makes repeated losses, it prevents investors bailing because the share price they'd be allowed to sell at would be low.
So, say that a company has an IPO just over $200m. It would be allowed to be any amount. Whatever actual cash they get becomes the company value. Investors couldn't sell shares until the earnings come in and cap the share price. If the earnings are a loss, the company would still be considered a startup and so they could sell shares up to their initial investment and get their money back. Once the company was established, the price cap would go up to a multiple of earnings, say 5x. So say they make $100m in earnings, investors could sell at up to their portion of $500m so each investor could make a 2.5x return or obviously hold onto it. If the company then makes $1b in earnings, an investor who bought in could sell their portion of $5b, making a 10x return. Traders wouldn't necessarily pay that much so that's when the share price balances out.
This means that if a company doesn't deliver on their promises to make a profit, their immediate investors suffer for it. 5x is still a large range so there would still be hype and manipulation but it would mean that a seller couldn't vastly oversell their shares in a company based on lies and keep the stock value going up to crazy levels based on nothing of real substance because that makes everything too volatile. If a company with an IPO of $200m never made a profit, their company could never be valued at more than $1b until they did make a profit.
In the case of Beats, they actually sell a product so they have revenue to back up their valuation. Apple needs to revamp the iPod line. They could easily ditch the entry iPods and integrate an iPod into Beats headphones. Put a battery over the headband and have the songs stored in the headphones with no wires. The iPhone can control it wirelessly and push songs to it. You'd need to charge them up but the battery should last longer if they aren't always using wireless transfer or powering a display.
A tiny iPod Shuffle lasts 15 hours and you can use Beats headphone with them for all that time. The iPod Shuffle weighs 12.5 grams, Beats phones weigh 400 grams. If they put a 50 gram battery in there, it's negligible weight difference and you can listen to music for 60 hours because there's no continuous wireless happening, the iPod would be in the phones and there's no sound degradation. They already make wireless Beats but continual wireless only lasts 12 hours. They can even put the click wheel on the side of the phones or some kind of controls for volume and playback. The only wireless would occur by pushing songs from a nearby iPhone or controlling the phones with the iPhone but the wireless connection doesn't have to be continuous. Bluetooth 4 can go up to wifi speed so a 5MB song can buffer to the phones in less than 1 second and use no wireless continuously.
This would qualify as a new category of product for Apple. It wouldn't prevent people using 3rd party headphones, they can easily use those with their iPhones as normal but wireless audio is the way forward and having an integrated iPod makes this feasible. Sony's waterproof buds have this setup and last 8 hours and the battery in those will be tiny.
The songs can come from the streaming service too. You might not need to have your iPhone with you. If you are out walking or running and happen to pass a Starbucks or other hotspot or maybe at the gym, just get it to buffer some songs for you over wifi. It'll only have to send say 60 minutes of songs (20 songs?) so 100MB, which takes about 3 minutes on average broadband.
It might not just be a TV subscription, they could offer an iTunes Subscription where, for one flat fee a month, you get access to their entire library of songs, movies, tv shows, books. That would be one way to defeat the services that are only offering music.
The Apple TV. Phooey. Too much too little too late.
Sony has 4K full internet TVs
Samsung now has their curved screen.
Apple? Fugetaboutit.
Beats is turning into a pure Hollywood nightmare.
Full internet!? Wow, sounds good. Btw all modern LCD TVs make movies looks like trash and completely mess with the 24 fps frame rate. Ask any well known cinematographer: Inaccurate colours, silly contract, odd frequencies, motion blur.
Think about it -- someone you trust influences what you buy, and when -- and in the process, satisfies your desires.
how do you put a value on that?
Then you'd think lots of tech companies (like Google and Facebook) would be after Beats. I'm not convinced they have some super magical curation process that is worth $3B or that couldn't be replicated. I agree with Ben Bajarin - most of the arguements for Apple buying Beats right now is just lipstick on a pig. IF it happens I can only hope there's stuff there none of us know about that will make the deal finally make sense.
Comments
Do you really need that shitty signature in every one of your posts? Is it supposed to be witty or clever? Or do you expect someone to answer that question?
If you don't realize how idiotic your post of "Sony has a 4K TV and Samsung has a curved screen so Apple shouldnt bother anymore" was, then I don't know what to tell you. How many of those 4k TVs that cost an arm and a leg do you think are selling?
Either way, get rid of your useless sig.
Not useless if you responded to it. The Apple TV hasn't been updated since March 2012. Apple couldn't at least upgrade the processor in 2 years? Is it that hard to innovate for a speed bump?
As for the other mythical unicorn Apple TV- at this point in time- who cares? Apple blew it content wise years ago by not buying a studio and making their own content like Netflix and Amazon. An technology wise Apple should be making their own displays at this point in time as they are display dependent- across the product line. The iMacs displays are sorely behind the ball.
And by the way 4K TVs are not expensive this year in comparison to just a year ago.
So simply- I'll remove it once Apple releases either /or.
Actually, I'd rather that AI publish this, so that we can get a response such as yours above, and then let me as an informed reader judge for myself. That makes this site far more interesting to me.
"I'm straighter than the pole your mother dances on, Dude!"
I guess you have not worked with big cheeses in BIG corporations. The public appearance can be very different than what goes on inside.
It is very "cut throat". They will curse you and then chew you up and spit you out for making mistakes. They are also human so they use the F word in private like everybody else.
Do you think Steve Jobs was a bad fit for Apple? Wake up and smell the coffee. Will you?
It's how they curse. Dr. Dre's lyrics are NOT anything that would be promoted by Apple Corporate. Jobs used swear words more as an adjective rather than a direct put down, at least that's how I heard him say things on a public level. But I don't think Apple appreciates and would support people that publicly call women "Bitches", "F the Police", and other things that Dr. Dre promotes in the lyrics of his so-called music.
Plus Dr. Dre and his friends spilled the beans on what is normally under NDA until Apple makes the formal announcement. That's a BIG No No in Apple's world. Maybe they put off the deal another week to change the terms of the deal since it leaked out. Until Apple makes a formal announcement, it's all speculation.
... Overheard my 14-year-old grandson on the phone:
"I'm straighter than the pole your mother dances on, Dude!"
That's a new one, I haven't heard that line. I'll have to use. :-)
I remember when I was a kid, we'd say things like "your mother wears army boots" and all kinds of funny put downs. That's typical of kids. I think I saw a recent commercial where there were a few kids putting each other down and I think one said something like "your mother buys your clothes at Wal Mart on lay away".
Oh, those darn kids. What will they come up with next? Trash talking is a normal way of life, especially with the highly competitive teenage social groups. It's their normal. They get it from watching too much sports, listening to too many rappers, certain comedians, and watching these political people.
I think that curation process is applicable to other personal endeavors -- the movie you're watching, the meal you are eating, that dress/shirt you are buying ...
Yeah ..
Then there's:
"Yo mama's so fat that she has euros in one pocket and pesos in the other."
-- Paula Poundstone
IMO, that's worth $30 B -- minimum!
Think about it -- someone you trust influences what you buy, and when -- and in the process, satisfies your desires.
how do you put a value on that?
The Apple TV. Phooey. Too much too little too late.
Sony has 4K full internet TVs
Samsung now has their curved screen.
Apple? Fugetaboutit.
Beats is turning into a pure Hollywood nightmare.
You're confusing "TV" with "Display panel" technology.
But thanks for playing.
iTunes, CarPlay, AppleTV, TV software, TV hardware, iPods, headPhones, earPhones, speakers etc...''
Not a shot in hell.
Beats will become a brand for Apple and neither Iovine nor Dr. Dre will manage them. They will have creative consultant titles, until they leave.
A billion just ain't what it used to be.
"Your mama is so fat when she steps on the scale it says 'to be continued'"
They don't all have billions in the bank though. I suspect very few do. See this recent example:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/danalexander/2014/05/16/wwe-ceo-vince-mcmahon-no-longer-billionaire-after-losing-340-million-in-a-day/
The combined net worth of the top 1500 billionaires most likely exceeds the worldwide M0 currency supply so that currency simply doesn't exist, which is an important consideration when we discuss income inequality. We're talking more about asset ownership and perceived value of those assets.
If you form a company and you split it into 1000 shares and you keep 500 of them and sell 499 of them for $1 and then operate your business and convince someone to spend $10,000 for that last share, the cash you've taken in from selling shares is $10,499 but because people are now willing to pay $10,000 for 1 share, it means that potentially every share is worth $10,000 so with 50% of the shares, you now have a net worth of 500 x $10,000 = $5m despite the fact you only took in under $11k of cash.
It wouldn't be valued like that from a single share but the overall value is from the value of much smaller exchanges. Ideally the share value would be tied much more closely to earnings but it's very difficult to do this. You can make a huge profit in 1 year and a higher loss the next so the value would swing from very high to almost nothing. You can make no profit for years but have a great product in production. If there was a regulation saying you couldn't sell shares beyond a certain multiple of yearly profits, it would be hard for a company to raise startup funding.
Perhaps there should be a divider between a startup and a successful company. A successful company beyond a certain revenue or profit level wouldn't be able to sell shares beyond a fixed multiple of their current earnings. Startups would be able to raise cash but only total cash value would attribute a share value to the company. If they become successful, the share value maxes out at a multiple of earnings. If that value happens to be lower than startup funding, it's the investor's loss.
If a well-established company makes repeated losses, it prevents investors bailing because the share price they'd be allowed to sell at would be low.
So, say that a company has an IPO just over $200m. It would be allowed to be any amount. Whatever actual cash they get becomes the company value. Investors couldn't sell shares until the earnings come in and cap the share price. If the earnings are a loss, the company would still be considered a startup and so they could sell shares up to their initial investment and get their money back. Once the company was established, the price cap would go up to a multiple of earnings, say 5x. So say they make $100m in earnings, investors could sell at up to their portion of $500m so each investor could make a 2.5x return or obviously hold onto it. If the company then makes $1b in earnings, an investor who bought in could sell their portion of $5b, making a 10x return. Traders wouldn't necessarily pay that much so that's when the share price balances out.
This means that if a company doesn't deliver on their promises to make a profit, their immediate investors suffer for it. 5x is still a large range so there would still be hype and manipulation but it would mean that a seller couldn't vastly oversell their shares in a company based on lies and keep the stock value going up to crazy levels based on nothing of real substance because that makes everything too volatile. If a company with an IPO of $200m never made a profit, their company could never be valued at more than $1b until they did make a profit.
In the case of Beats, they actually sell a product so they have revenue to back up their valuation. Apple needs to revamp the iPod line. They could easily ditch the entry iPods and integrate an iPod into Beats headphones. Put a battery over the headband and have the songs stored in the headphones with no wires. The iPhone can control it wirelessly and push songs to it. You'd need to charge them up but the battery should last longer if they aren't always using wireless transfer or powering a display.
A tiny iPod Shuffle lasts 15 hours and you can use Beats headphone with them for all that time. The iPod Shuffle weighs 12.5 grams, Beats phones weigh 400 grams. If they put a 50 gram battery in there, it's negligible weight difference and you can listen to music for 60 hours because there's no continuous wireless happening, the iPod would be in the phones and there's no sound degradation. They already make wireless Beats but continual wireless only lasts 12 hours. They can even put the click wheel on the side of the phones or some kind of controls for volume and playback. The only wireless would occur by pushing songs from a nearby iPhone or controlling the phones with the iPhone but the wireless connection doesn't have to be continuous. Bluetooth 4 can go up to wifi speed so a 5MB song can buffer to the phones in less than 1 second and use no wireless continuously.
This would qualify as a new category of product for Apple. It wouldn't prevent people using 3rd party headphones, they can easily use those with their iPhones as normal but wireless audio is the way forward and having an integrated iPod makes this feasible. Sony's waterproof buds have this setup and last 8 hours and the battery in those will be tiny.
The songs can come from the streaming service too. You might not need to have your iPhone with you. If you are out walking or running and happen to pass a Starbucks or other hotspot or maybe at the gym, just get it to buffer some songs for you over wifi. It'll only have to send say 60 minutes of songs (20 songs?) so 100MB, which takes about 3 minutes on average broadband.
It might not just be a TV subscription, they could offer an iTunes Subscription where, for one flat fee a month, you get access to their entire library of songs, movies, tv shows, books. That would be one way to defeat the services that are only offering music.
You are worth whatever someone is willing to pay you.
Now that is certainly not true.
The Apple TV. Phooey. Too much too little too late.
Sony has 4K full internet TVs
Samsung now has their curved screen.
Apple? Fugetaboutit.
Beats is turning into a pure Hollywood nightmare.
Full internet!? Wow, sounds good. Btw all modern LCD TVs make movies looks like trash and completely mess with the 24 fps frame rate. Ask any well known cinematographer:
Inaccurate colours, silly contract, odd frequencies, motion blur.
Curved screen? You're really embarrassing yourself.
Beats is turning into a pure Hollywood nightmare? You're not making sense.