``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.
If this ever happened then Cook would deserve to be shown the door. But I'm not worried because it never will.
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.
That's cool, but I think the curation process is actually more important. The museum with the most paintings is not the best place to go. The food app with the most recipes is certainly not the best recipe app. The one with a nice collection of the best recipes is, like Jamie Oliver or The Photo Cookbook.
Yes, with Apple's Beats app (their subscription service) you can search for any artist you like, but the secret sauce will be 100s of clever tastemakers that have carefully crafted lists to go with that artist. Having algorithms for certain things is useful, but algorithms are no substitute for human talent when it comes to creating lists of songs when you have the right people. You can't just build the same thing as that, it takes time and deep industry connections to hire all of that talent. But not if you buy a company that has those people, has done the hard work for you, and will be working for you when the deal is inked.
And they get a money making headphone brand and a great dealmaker thrown in on the deal. That combination of things is certainly worth 3.2B.
And they can use a great content dealmaker to try to get deals inked in other areas like TV, and yes, they can build on the Beats brand by further improving the build quality and audio quality of those headphones year over year and be the fashionable market leader for after market headphones. They would likely continue to bundle EarPods with iPhones, but they will surely convince some iPhone buyers to add a pair of Beats at additional cost.
I think when we carefully consider these various factors a 3.2B Beats acquisition looks like a better deal every day.
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: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RkNvxo42D0 Inaccurate colours, silly contract, odd frequencies, motion blur.
Beats is turning into a pure Hollywood nightmare? You're not making sense.
Hollywood- where's these Mega deals happen all the time based upon friendships or family relations resulting in drek-(read Lovine being Jobs' good friend). Meanwhile the price is bloviated based upon Beats crappy headphones and a subscription service that small and that new.
I will post a picture of Fonzi jumping the shark if this deal goes through.
Hollywood- where's these Mega deals happen all the time based upon friendships or family relations resulting in drek-(read Lovine being Jobs' good friend). Meanwhile the price is bloviated based upon Beats crappy headphones and a subscription service that small and that new.
I will post a picture of Fonzi jumping the shark if this deal goes through.
I guess you're right. What does the world's richest company know over "pazuzu".
That's cool, but I think the curation process is actually more important. The museum with the most paintings is not the best place to go. The food app with the most recipes is certainly not the best recipe app. The one with a nice collection of the best recipes is, like Jamie Oliver or The Photo Cookbook.
Yes, with Apple's Beats app (their subscription service) you can search for any artist you like, but the secret sauce will be 100s of clever tastemakers that have carefully crafted lists to go with that artist. Having algorithms for certain things is useful, but algorithms are no substitute for human talent when it comes to creating lists of songs when you have the right people. You can't just build the same thing as that, it takes time and deep industry connections to hire all of that talent. But not if you buy a company that has those people, has done the hard work for you, and will be working for you when the deal is inked.
And they get a money making headphone brand and a great dealmaker thrown in on the deal. That combination of things is certainly worth 3.2B.
And they can use a great content dealmaker to try to get deals inked in other areas like TV, and yes, they can build on the Beats brand by further improving the build quality and audio quality of those headphones year over year and be the fashionable market leader for after market headphones. They would likely continue to bundle EarPods with iPhones, but they will surely convince some iPhone buyers to add a pair of Beats at additional cost.
I think when we carefully consider these various factors a 3.2B Beats acquisition looks like a better deal every day.
I'm not so convinced. If you have a party or event on, then having a DJ (curator) is very important. But he has to be there, to feel the vibe of the room and respond to it. Pre-curated just won't do. And young people, do they want an expertly selected 3 hours of Jazz greats (or of anything), or do they just want to listen to whatever their friends are Tweeting, or whatever the top 10 are?
I admire expertise in all forms, including music curation, but I don't think it is the be-all and end-all solution to iTunes catalog organizational/discovery problems. It's one more arrow in the quiver, and not a particularly general purpose one at that. They already tried "iTunes Essentials" which were basically curated selections from different genres, I wonder how successful they were, I haven't seen any figures, but don't remember them on the top sales charts either.
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.
"Then you'd think lots of tech companies (like Google and Facebook) would be after Beats."
You'd think so, wouldn't you. I'd add Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, iTunes Radio ... oops!
But wait, all of these companies (and many others) already do curation -- for example, Amazon's: "People who bought Product A, also bought Product B, also bought Product C, and also bought Product D,
I've been observing Apple for 36 years * -- and Apple never invented anything. Rather, Apple looks around, observes what they (Apple people) want, what other people [should] want (where the puck is going to be) -- then evaluates the solutions that are available to satisfy those wants. Usually, the available solutions are crap -- or mediocre, at best. In some cases, Apple will decide to enter the market and offer an Apple solution.
* I tie it together in the final reel.
The Apple I was just something that the 2 Steve's (mostly Woz) wanted for themselves -- a microcomputer of their own.
Then, Apple, looked around at all the microcomputers out there ** -- and observed what they (Apple people) and other people wanted. Then, Apple decided to produce the Apple ][ as the first personal computer.. This was an amalgam of existing solutions, Apple's wants, and the [perceived] wants of others -- repurposed to titillate, attract and satisfy *** the wants of the [non-techie] average person.****
*** AIR, the June 1978 issue of Playboy had several 3rd-party Apple ][ ads, an article about the Apple ][, and an ad, by Apple, on the entire back cover ... now that's titillation!
**** When the Apple ][ was introduced in 1977, the average techie (called hobbyists,back then) was male, built their own computer(s) -- had little money to spend and seldom spent it.
So, it went over the years: Apple observing what they and others wanted; testing those wants against available solutions; sometimes offering an Apple solution ... Lisa/Mac... iMac ... iPod/iTunes... iPhone ... iPad ... 2013 Mac Pro ...
In the early years, Apple seldom bought other companies to flesh out Apple Computer, Inc. -- rather, they attracted (bought) the talent.
This has changed in recent years -- where Apple, Inc. often buys existing companies to get both the IP and the Talent. Often, the reasons for these acquisitions are to give Apple: manufacturing cost savings; design capability; a first-to-market lead ... These can be compelling advantages in a very competitive marketplace.
* The Final Reel
What about the Beats acquisition?
Earlier, I gave the example of Amazon's curation: "People who bought Product A, also bought Product B, also bought Product C, and also bought Product D,
This is a result of a rather simple algorithm that scans the history of what others bought in the Amazon database. Later, Amazon sends [spam] emails to their customers -- based on their history of interests, and what other people recently bought ...
Substitute "listend to" or "watched" for "bought" -- and you pretty much have the curation provided by Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, etc.
Similarly "searched for" for search engines.
These are all computer algorithms, of varying levels of sophistication, based on your history and the similar history of others.
What Beats adds to the scene is curation based on the judgement and experience and expertise of a team of people who are intimately involved in the product/service categories in question -- and the process to perform that curation. *****
Currently, the Beats schtick is music ...
"The only song as important as the song that is playing -- is the song that plays next."
That's so like the classic Apple ad: "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication".
Let's parse, analyze and restate that as: "The only song as important [to you, at this place, in your current mood, accompanied by, at this moment in time] as the song that is playing [curated by us] -- is the song that [should/will, curated by us] plays next."
In Amazon speak:
"People who bought Product A, also bought Product B, also bought Product C, and also bought Product D
becomes this in Beats speak: You are buying this -- you should by this next!
***** Beats-style Curation: the product/services ... the expert people ... the process.
I've thought a lot about this -- especially the process: How do you curate a product or service category so you can recommend what should come next?
I have some ideas, but I don't have the answer.
I suspect that Beats does!
I suspect that's what Apple is buying and it will give them a first-to-market lead time that ill prove difficult (or impossible) for the competition to catch up!
... Now, you has Jazz!
[VIDEO]
... And, That's Jazz!
'Course if you're listening to that song, the next song is:
Please, please stop plastering this old white guy's manic face and wannabe costume all over everything. I don't care how rich or famous he is, he looks ridiculous.
I'm not so convinced. If you have a party or event on, then having a DJ (curator) is very important. But he has to be there, to feel the vibe of the room and respond to it. Pre-curated just won't do.
Call it extreme bias on my part but I automatically go against any prognostication that Isaacson and/or Lyons has to say about Apple's future.
i don't take it as full authority myself.
What content doesn't Iovine gain them as a special advisor that they don't already have. Probably not that much.The real issue is that the way folks want to interact and pay for content is changing and nothing can really change that. You go with the flow or you lose. The music world already has it figured out that folks don't want to pay per track or even album but want a buffet of content for as cheap as possible
That's cool, but I think the curation process is actually more important. The museum with the most paintings is not the best place to go. The food app with the most recipes is certainly not the best recipe app. The one with a nice collection of the best recipes is, like Jamie Oliver or The Photo Cookbook.
Yes, with Apple's Beats app (their subscription service) you can search for any artist you like, but the secret sauce will be 100s of clever tastemakers that have carefully crafted lists to go with that artist. Having algorithms for certain things is useful, but algorithms are no substitute for human talent when it comes to creating lists of songs when you have the right people. You can't just build the same thing as that, it takes time and deep industry connections to hire all of that talent. But not if you buy a company that has those people, has done the hard work for you, and will be working for you when the deal is inked.
And they get a money making headphone brand and a great dealmaker thrown in on the deal. That combination of things is certainly worth 3.2B.
And they can use a great content dealmaker to try to get deals inked in other areas like TV, and yes, they can build on the Beats brand by further improving the build quality and audio quality of those headphones year over year and be the fashionable market leader for after market headphones. They would likely continue to bundle EarPods with iPhones, but they will surely convince some iPhone buyers to add a pair of Beats at additional cost.
I think when we carefully consider these various factors a 3.2B Beats acquisition looks like a better deal every day.
While I agree that curation is extremely important and still a weak point of the entire digital music industry and associated streaming and other services, that's not the perception of the general public. They're still swayed by the service with the "most" tracks just as they're swayed by the bookstore with the most books. I believe that's a problem and is one of the reasons why music sales are in the dumper (less than half of their 1999 peak): nothing has come along to replace DJ-driven radio as the way people found out about new music. Radio no longer serves that purpose.
While Beats is a strong brand with urban youth, I'm not convinced it's a strong brand across the market. And while they offer a certain image, I'm not sure that they're really offering fashion, per se. So I'm in the court that believes that if Apple is buying this for the headphones business, that they could have done better creating this on their own, unless Ive doesn't believe that he could create better looking phones than Beats has. As for audio quality, they would have been better off buying Bowers & Wilkins, which probably would have cost them far less and has far better quality.
Likewise, if this is about streaming, is setting up a streaming service so difficult that Apple couldn't have done it on their own, based on their own success with the iTunes store, for far less than $3.2b? They already have Apple Radio.
While I may agree with you that human interaction is better for creating lists of associated music tracks, is Beats actually doing that? If so, I'm unaware and of course there's no guarantee that those humans do a good job.
And if they're buying this for the brand, rather than the actual products, that doesn't work if they're going to dump the brand anyway. Frankly, I think that if they do go through with this, they're going to keep the brand and operate it as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple, until it does badly enough to merge into the company.
And if this is really about simply acquiring Iovine, for better or worse, I think Apple could have gotten him for well under $15 million a year.
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.
Omg Apple TV hasn't been updated in two years!!
Apple blew it? In what way? Why would they want a studio? Not every show is a hit. I guess the content on Netflix was so popular, they needed to raise subscription prices. Please Amazon has a different business strategy and goals.
Amazon has a different business strategy and goals.
OT: I'm looking forward to their Bosch series.
By the way, how much 4K content is out there?
A lot or a little, depending on your use of "out there." Studios have been filming in 4K for years now so there could be a lot that could be ready for distribution is they were so inclined. That said, what need do they have with so few 4K-capable devices available. The HW has to be available in a high enough capacity of the content to arrive. We've seen this before with HD.
I hope we see H.265 decoders soon and I hope the next Apple TV will have both H.265 and 4K UHD capabilities.
I'm just gonna go ahead and call it a hoax. The whole story is shite. There is no Apple/Beatz deal. Its a marketing ploy by beatz to get a higher price out of some other potential buyer.
A sound engineer that convinced the record business to sign up with iTunes after seeing the iPod. The iPod which was the foundation for what Apple is today. Don't underestimate the power of the dealmakers — they make things happen.
Jimmy Iovene is actually a gopher who impersonated his way into an assistant engineer's gig where he then impersonated his way into a producer's gig, and has been faking his entire career-thing ever since. Chalk it up to a tremendous ability bullshit that anybody listens to a word he says.
And bragging that he got the record biz to sign up for their own demise isn't really a "win" or even a positive demonstration of his savvy or business prowess. Iovene is first and foremost a greedy record company mogul, looking out for Jimmy Iovene and nobody else.
Watch his interviews, in his own words, he wanted to 'make something, anything, I didn't care, as long as it was gonna be called "BEATZ" because thats a great name", and then he talked to Dr Dre and decided it would be headphones.
The only way Iovene might not embarrass himself and destroy Apple is if he were interviewing for Katie Cotton's old job. He is qualified for nothing else. Nothing.
"Then you'd think lots of tech companies (like Google and Facebook) would be after Beats."
You'd think so, wouldn't you. I'd add Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, iTunes Radio ... oops!
But wait, all of these companies (and many others) already do curation -- for example, Amazon's: "People who bought Product A, also bought Product B, also bought Product C, and also bought Product D,
I've been observing Apple for 36 years * -- and Apple never invented anything. Rather, Apple looks around, observes what they (Apple people) want, what other people [should] want (where the puck is going to be) -- then evaluates the solutions that are available to satisfy those wants. Usually, the available solutions are crap -- or mediocre, at best. In some cases, Apple will decide to enter the market and offer an Apple solution.
* I tie it together in the final reel.
I hate to quote overlong posts but it's hard to edit on an iPhone.
Yes. We know the marketing schtick that beats claims it does. Whether it does or not. It's based on a company they bought for a few million. Furthermore the idea of human curation is not new, nor is it patentable. Nor to my mind is it possible.
There are literally trillions* of possibilities of song orderings. The potential ordering of N tracks is N! 10 tracks can be ordered 3,628,800 ways. 100 tracks can be ordered in
9.3326215443944e+157 ways.
Humans aren't going to do that.
* actually far more as you can see by the 100! figure.
"Yo mama's so fat that she has euros in one pocket and pesos in the other."
-- Paula Poundstone
we could go on and on and on. Rodney Dangerfield and Don Rickles were the best at those. Then Sam Kinison actually took trash talking that reached a whole other level of vulgarity and disgust.
the idea of human curation is not new, nor is it patentable. Nor to my mind is it possible.
There are literally trillions* of possibilities of song orderings.
It wouldn't be random selection though. Jimmy Iovine said that his daughter listened to two singers you would never associate together in the same playlist so they're not going to tell people what song should come next based on guesswork. You give it information just like you would Genius recommendations in the App Store and it builds up a profile. It will also use context e.g activity (driving, running, walking, sitting), location (park, home, work). It can't be completely human-based and won't be but algorithms with human input so like an AI of sorts. Music streaming seems to be quite popular - Pandora radio has over 76m listeners. This would be like that but with the special tailored algorithms.
According to the Beats site, they took over 50% of the $1b premium headphone market so that's another plus. People are buying music players and plugging Beats headphones into them:
"a knowledgeable source tells Fast Company that Beats Electronics is on track to do roughly $1.4 billion in revenue this year, though that number could range as high as $1.5 billion.
The revenue figure suggests that Beats continues to dominate the headphone market. According to the source, the company has sold around 15 to 20 million units to date, including headphones and speakers. Beats Electronics declined to comment on the figures, saying that as a private company, it doesn't share such numbers. But it did point to NPD data that shows Beats is leading the $100-plus headphone industry in the U.S. with more than a 60% market share."
That's 15-20m in about 4 years but it takes time to get up and running. The iPod is down to around 2.7m per quarter. Like I say if they can integrate an iPod Shuffle into Beats headphones, you could easily get 60 hours of high quality playback and just sync it up now and again.
The Beats buds could be shipped with iPhones and the cans sold separately. Something smaller than the cans would be good too - foldable, portable headphones.
Comments
"Yo mama's so fat that she has euros in one pocket and pesos in the other."
-- Paula Poundstone
Your mother's like the Eiffel Tower; half the world has been up on her.
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.
That's cool, but I think the curation process is actually more important. The museum with the most paintings is not the best place to go. The food app with the most recipes is certainly not the best recipe app. The one with a nice collection of the best recipes is, like Jamie Oliver or The Photo Cookbook.
Yes, with Apple's Beats app (their subscription service) you can search for any artist you like, but the secret sauce will be 100s of clever tastemakers that have carefully crafted lists to go with that artist. Having algorithms for certain things is useful, but algorithms are no substitute for human talent when it comes to creating lists of songs when you have the right people. You can't just build the same thing as that, it takes time and deep industry connections to hire all of that talent. But not if you buy a company that has those people, has done the hard work for you, and will be working for you when the deal is inked.
And they get a money making headphone brand and a great dealmaker thrown in on the deal. That combination of things is certainly worth 3.2B.
And they can use a great content dealmaker to try to get deals inked in other areas like TV, and yes, they can build on the Beats brand by further improving the build quality and audio quality of those headphones year over year and be the fashionable market leader for after market headphones. They would likely continue to bundle EarPods with iPhones, but they will surely convince some iPhone buyers to add a pair of Beats at additional cost.
I think when we carefully consider these various factors a 3.2B Beats acquisition looks like a better deal every day.
Hollywood- where's these Mega deals happen all the time based upon friendships or family relations resulting in drek-(read Lovine being Jobs' good friend). Meanwhile the price is bloviated based upon Beats crappy headphones and a subscription service that small and that new.
I will post a picture of Fonzi jumping the shark if this deal goes through.
Hollywood- where's these Mega deals happen all the time based upon friendships or family relations resulting in drek-(read Lovine being Jobs' good friend). Meanwhile the price is bloviated based upon Beats crappy headphones and a subscription service that small and that new.
I will post a picture of Fonzi jumping the shark if this deal goes through.
I guess you're right. What does the world's richest company know over "pazuzu".
I'm still holding out hope that this whole Beats rumor is a huge hoax.
Because why? Because you're a completely full of yourself blogger that thinks you know what's best for Apple in terms of financial acquisition?
I cannot for the life of me understand where people like you get the clout to make such comments, or even have such thoughts in the first place.
Because why? Because you're a completely full of yourself blogger that thinks you know what's best for Apple in terms of financial acquisition?
I cannot for the life of me understand where people like you get the clout to make such comments, or even have such thoughts in the first place.
Because why? Because this is still a rumor, that's why. Apple hasn't announced jack shit about this rumored and unconfirmed deal yet.
And I'm not a blogger, I don't have any blog. I'm a poster with an opinion, just like anybody else who comments on this site.
That's cool, but I think the curation process is actually more important. The museum with the most paintings is not the best place to go. The food app with the most recipes is certainly not the best recipe app. The one with a nice collection of the best recipes is, like Jamie Oliver or The Photo Cookbook.
Yes, with Apple's Beats app (their subscription service) you can search for any artist you like, but the secret sauce will be 100s of clever tastemakers that have carefully crafted lists to go with that artist. Having algorithms for certain things is useful, but algorithms are no substitute for human talent when it comes to creating lists of songs when you have the right people. You can't just build the same thing as that, it takes time and deep industry connections to hire all of that talent. But not if you buy a company that has those people, has done the hard work for you, and will be working for you when the deal is inked.
And they get a money making headphone brand and a great dealmaker thrown in on the deal. That combination of things is certainly worth 3.2B.
And they can use a great content dealmaker to try to get deals inked in other areas like TV, and yes, they can build on the Beats brand by further improving the build quality and audio quality of those headphones year over year and be the fashionable market leader for after market headphones. They would likely continue to bundle EarPods with iPhones, but they will surely convince some iPhone buyers to add a pair of Beats at additional cost.
I think when we carefully consider these various factors a 3.2B Beats acquisition looks like a better deal every day.
I'm not so convinced. If you have a party or event on, then having a DJ (curator) is very important. But he has to be there, to feel the vibe of the room and respond to it. Pre-curated just won't do. And young people, do they want an expertly selected 3 hours of Jazz greats (or of anything), or do they just want to listen to whatever their friends are Tweeting, or whatever the top 10 are?
I admire expertise in all forms, including music curation, but I don't think it is the be-all and end-all solution to iTunes catalog organizational/discovery problems. It's one more arrow in the quiver, and not a particularly general purpose one at that. They already tried "iTunes Essentials" which were basically curated selections from different genres, I wonder how successful they were, I haven't seen any figures, but don't remember them on the top sales charts either.
"Then you'd think lots of tech companies (like Google and Facebook) would be after Beats."
You'd think so, wouldn't you. I'd add Amazon, Spotify, Pandora, iTunes Radio ... oops!
But wait, all of these companies (and many others) already do curation -- for example, Amazon's: "People who bought Product A, also bought Product B, also bought Product C, and also bought Product D,
I've been observing Apple for 36 years * -- and Apple never invented anything. Rather, Apple looks around, observes what they (Apple people) want, what other people [should] want (where the puck is going to be) -- then evaluates the solutions that are available to satisfy those wants. Usually, the available solutions are crap -- or mediocre, at best. In some cases, Apple will decide to enter the market and offer an Apple solution.
* I tie it together in the final reel.
The Apple I was just something that the 2 Steve's (mostly Woz) wanted for themselves -- a microcomputer of their own.
Then, Apple, looked around at all the microcomputers out there ** -- and observed what they (Apple people) and other people wanted. Then, Apple decided to produce the Apple ][ as the first personal computer.. This was an amalgam of existing solutions, Apple's wants, and the [perceived] wants of others -- repurposed to titillate, attract and satisfy *** the wants of the [non-techie] average person.****
** Altair, Heathkit, Northstar nee Kentucky Fried Computer, Cromemco, Pet, Ohio Scientific, Smoke Signal Broadcasting ...
*** AIR, the June 1978 issue of Playboy had several 3rd-party Apple ][ ads, an article about the Apple ][, and an ad, by Apple, on the entire back cover ... now that's titillation!
**** When the Apple ][ was introduced in 1977, the average techie (called hobbyists,back then) was male, built their own computer(s) -- had little money to spend and seldom spent it.
So, it went over the years: Apple observing what they and others wanted; testing those wants against available solutions; sometimes offering an Apple solution ... Lisa/Mac... iMac ... iPod/iTunes... iPhone ... iPad ... 2013 Mac Pro ...
In the early years, Apple seldom bought other companies to flesh out Apple Computer, Inc. -- rather, they attracted (bought) the talent.
This has changed in recent years -- where Apple, Inc. often buys existing companies to get both the IP and the Talent. Often, the reasons for these acquisitions are to give Apple: manufacturing cost savings; design capability; a first-to-market lead ... These can be compelling advantages in a very competitive marketplace.
* The Final Reel
What about the Beats acquisition?
Earlier, I gave the example of Amazon's curation: "People who bought Product A, also bought Product B, also bought Product C, and also bought Product D,
This is a result of a rather simple algorithm that scans the history of what others bought in the Amazon database. Later, Amazon sends [spam] emails to their customers -- based on their history of interests, and what other people recently bought ...
Substitute "listend to" or "watched" for "bought" -- and you pretty much have the curation provided by Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, etc.
Similarly "searched for" for search engines.
These are all computer algorithms, of varying levels of sophistication, based on your history and the similar history of others.
What Beats adds to the scene is curation based on the judgement and experience and expertise of a team of people who are intimately involved in the product/service categories in question -- and the process to perform that curation. *****
Currently, the Beats schtick is music ...
"The only song as important as the song that is playing -- is the song that plays next."
That's so like the classic Apple ad: "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication".
Let's parse, analyze and restate that as: "The only song as important [to you, at this place, in your current mood, accompanied by, at this moment in time] as the song that is playing [curated by us] -- is the song that [should/will, curated by us] plays next."
In Amazon speak:
"People who bought Product A, also bought Product B, also bought Product C, and also bought Product D
becomes this in Beats speak: You are buying this -- you should by this next!
***** Beats-style Curation: the product/services ... the expert people ... the process.
I've thought a lot about this -- especially the process: How do you curate a product or service category so you can recommend what should come next?
I have some ideas, but I don't have the answer.
I suspect that Beats does!
I suspect that's what Apple is buying and it will give them a first-to-market lead time that ill prove difficult (or impossible) for the competition to catch up!
... Now, you has Jazz!
[VIDEO]
... And, That's Jazz!
'Course if you're listening to that song, the next song is:
[VIDEO]
I'm not so convinced. If you have a party or event on, then having a DJ (curator) is very important. But he has to be there, to feel the vibe of the room and respond to it. Pre-curated just won't do.
You're talking about something else now.
Call it extreme bias on my part but I automatically go against any prognostication that Isaacson and/or Lyons has to say about Apple's future.
i don't take it as full authority myself.
What content doesn't Iovine gain them as a special advisor that they don't already have. Probably not that much.The real issue is that the way folks want to interact and pay for content is changing and nothing can really change that. You go with the flow or you lose. The music world already has it figured out that folks don't want to pay per track or even album but want a buffet of content for as cheap as possible
That's cool, but I think the curation process is actually more important. The museum with the most paintings is not the best place to go. The food app with the most recipes is certainly not the best recipe app. The one with a nice collection of the best recipes is, like Jamie Oliver or The Photo Cookbook.
Yes, with Apple's Beats app (their subscription service) you can search for any artist you like, but the secret sauce will be 100s of clever tastemakers that have carefully crafted lists to go with that artist. Having algorithms for certain things is useful, but algorithms are no substitute for human talent when it comes to creating lists of songs when you have the right people. You can't just build the same thing as that, it takes time and deep industry connections to hire all of that talent. But not if you buy a company that has those people, has done the hard work for you, and will be working for you when the deal is inked.
And they get a money making headphone brand and a great dealmaker thrown in on the deal. That combination of things is certainly worth 3.2B.
And they can use a great content dealmaker to try to get deals inked in other areas like TV, and yes, they can build on the Beats brand by further improving the build quality and audio quality of those headphones year over year and be the fashionable market leader for after market headphones. They would likely continue to bundle EarPods with iPhones, but they will surely convince some iPhone buyers to add a pair of Beats at additional cost.
I think when we carefully consider these various factors a 3.2B Beats acquisition looks like a better deal every day.
While I agree that curation is extremely important and still a weak point of the entire digital music industry and associated streaming and other services, that's not the perception of the general public. They're still swayed by the service with the "most" tracks just as they're swayed by the bookstore with the most books. I believe that's a problem and is one of the reasons why music sales are in the dumper (less than half of their 1999 peak): nothing has come along to replace DJ-driven radio as the way people found out about new music. Radio no longer serves that purpose.
While Beats is a strong brand with urban youth, I'm not convinced it's a strong brand across the market. And while they offer a certain image, I'm not sure that they're really offering fashion, per se. So I'm in the court that believes that if Apple is buying this for the headphones business, that they could have done better creating this on their own, unless Ive doesn't believe that he could create better looking phones than Beats has. As for audio quality, they would have been better off buying Bowers & Wilkins, which probably would have cost them far less and has far better quality.
Likewise, if this is about streaming, is setting up a streaming service so difficult that Apple couldn't have done it on their own, based on their own success with the iTunes store, for far less than $3.2b? They already have Apple Radio.
While I may agree with you that human interaction is better for creating lists of associated music tracks, is Beats actually doing that? If so, I'm unaware and of course there's no guarantee that those humans do a good job.
And if they're buying this for the brand, rather than the actual products, that doesn't work if they're going to dump the brand anyway. Frankly, I think that if they do go through with this, they're going to keep the brand and operate it as a wholly-owned subsidiary of Apple, until it does badly enough to merge into the company.
And if this is really about simply acquiring Iovine, for better or worse, I think Apple could have gotten him for well under $15 million a year.
Omg Apple TV hasn't been updated in two years!!
Apple blew it? In what way? Why would they want a studio? Not every show is a hit. I guess the content on Netflix was so popular, they needed to raise subscription prices. Please Amazon has a different business strategy and goals.
By the way, how much 4K content is out there?
OT: I'm looking forward to their Bosch series.
A lot or a little, depending on your use of "out there." Studios have been filming in 4K for years now so there could be a lot that could be ready for distribution is they were so inclined. That said, what need do they have with so few 4K-capable devices available. The HW has to be available in a high enough capacity of the content to arrive. We've seen this before with HD.
I hope we see H.265 decoders soon and I hope the next Apple TV will have both H.265 and 4K UHD capabilities.
A sound engineer that convinced the record business to sign up with iTunes after seeing the iPod. The iPod which was the foundation for what Apple is today. Don't underestimate the power of the dealmakers — they make things happen.
Jimmy Iovene is actually a gopher who impersonated his way into an assistant engineer's gig where he then impersonated his way into a producer's gig, and has been faking his entire career-thing ever since. Chalk it up to a tremendous ability bullshit that anybody listens to a word he says.
And bragging that he got the record biz to sign up for their own demise isn't really a "win" or even a positive demonstration of his savvy or business prowess. Iovene is first and foremost a greedy record company mogul, looking out for Jimmy Iovene and nobody else.
Watch his interviews, in his own words, he wanted to 'make something, anything, I didn't care, as long as it was gonna be called "BEATZ" because thats a great name", and then he talked to Dr Dre and decided it would be headphones.
The only way Iovene might not embarrass himself and destroy Apple is if he were interviewing for Katie Cotton's old job. He is qualified for nothing else. Nothing.
I hate to quote overlong posts but it's hard to edit on an iPhone.
Yes. We know the marketing schtick that beats claims it does. Whether it does or not. It's based on a company they bought for a few million. Furthermore the idea of human curation is not new, nor is it patentable. Nor to my mind is it possible.
There are literally trillions* of possibilities of song orderings. The potential ordering of N tracks is N! 10 tracks can be ordered 3,628,800 ways. 100 tracks can be ordered in
9.3326215443944e+157 ways.
Humans aren't going to do that.
* actually far more as you can see by the 100! figure.
Yeah ..
Then there's:
"Yo mama's so fat that she has euros in one pocket and pesos in the other."
-- Paula Poundstone
we could go on and on and on. Rodney Dangerfield and Don Rickles were the best at those. Then Sam Kinison actually took trash talking that reached a whole other level of vulgarity and disgust.
It wouldn't be random selection though. Jimmy Iovine said that his daughter listened to two singers you would never associate together in the same playlist so they're not going to tell people what song should come next based on guesswork. You give it information just like you would Genius recommendations in the App Store and it builds up a profile. It will also use context e.g activity (driving, running, walking, sitting), location (park, home, work). It can't be completely human-based and won't be but algorithms with human input so like an AI of sorts. Music streaming seems to be quite popular - Pandora radio has over 76m listeners. This would be like that but with the special tailored algorithms.
According to the Beats site, they took over 50% of the $1b premium headphone market so that's another plus. People are buying music players and plugging Beats headphones into them:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3015051/major-beats-beats-electronics-may-be-on-track-to-hit-14b-in-2013-revenue
"a knowledgeable source tells Fast Company that Beats Electronics is on track to do roughly $1.4 billion in revenue this year, though that number could range as high as $1.5 billion.
The revenue figure suggests that Beats continues to dominate the headphone market. According to the source, the company has sold around 15 to 20 million units to date, including headphones and speakers. Beats Electronics declined to comment on the figures, saying that as a private company, it doesn't share such numbers. But it did point to NPD data that shows Beats is leading the $100-plus headphone industry in the U.S. with more than a 60% market share."
That's 15-20m in about 4 years but it takes time to get up and running. The iPod is down to around 2.7m per quarter. Like I say if they can integrate an iPod Shuffle into Beats headphones, you could easily get 60 hours of high quality playback and just sync it up now and again.
The Beats buds could be shipped with iPhones and the cans sold separately. Something smaller than the cans would be good too - foldable, portable headphones.