Apple wants Beats for Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre, not technology

Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 2015
A report on Thursday claims Apple's much rumored deal to buy Beats Electronics "is happening" and will be a play for company cofounders Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre, not technology associated with streaming music or headphones.


Source: Beats Music


Citing a "well-placed" source familiar with the ongoing talks, TechCrunch affirms what a number of pundits have already speculated; that Apple is looking to "acqui-hire" Iovine and Dre, whose real name is Andre Young, in a rumored $3.2 billion deal to buy Beats.

"They want Jimmy and they want Dre," the unnamed source said. "He's got fashion and culture completely locked up."

The person went on to say that the Apple-Beats tie-up "is happening," but nearly fell apart multiple times. The source is not completely confident of the acquisition's fate, however, and can only say with "70 percent certainty" that an agreement will be reached. Later in the report the person hedges that number by noting "the deal hasn't fallen apart yet."

In the days following initial word of Apple's interest in Beats, The Wall Street Journal reported Iovine and Young would take senior positions at Cupertino if an acquisition was made. Their respective roles are unclear, though Iovine would likely have to leave his seat as chairman of record label Interscope Geffen A&M to move to Apple.

Another report claimed Iovine was in separate discussions to serve as a "special advisor" to Tim Cook, though the possibility of that happening appears unlikely.

Beats is currently operating as both a hardware and a software business. Despite mediocre reviews from critics, the firm's high-margin headphones are some of the most popular models on the market. In January the company launched a subscription-based streaming music service called Beats Music that accrued an estimated 110,000 paying subscribers as of March.

Apple is said to be in the final stages of acquiring Beats for a supposed $3.2 billion, an announcement of which was expected last week. A follow-up report on Friday said official word would be pushed back to this week, while a separate report posits Iovine and Young could take the stage at this year's WWDC in June to be formally introduced as new Apple executives.
«13456

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 114
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    That's insanely stupid. Two people who might get run over by a bus tomorrow? Two people are worth $3.2 billion? I just don't see it.

    On the other hand, if they are managing an "account" to hire profitable acts to become a part of a new Apple music label... that could put the fear of, well, [I]something[/I], into the hearts and minds of content-owning companies.
  • Reply 2 of 114
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member

    Very expensive aqui-hire considering what Apple spent to get Steve Jobs back. Fashion & culture? I thought Apple already had that. Unless this is Tim Cook pandering to African-Americans and teenagers?

  • Reply 3 of 114
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    Fashion and culture ? Locked up ? phfffft
    insanity
  • Reply 4 of 114
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member

    The person went on to say that the Apple-Beats tie-up "is happening," but nearly fell apart multiple times. The source is not completely confident of the acquisition's fate, however, and can only say with "70 percent certainty" that an agreement will be reached. Later in the report the person hedges that number by noting "the deal hasn't fallen apart yet."

    And now that there's another leak, the certainty just dropped to 20%.
  • Reply 5 of 114
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by quinney View Post





    And now that there's another leak, the certainty just dropped to 20%.

     

    Maybe more... maybe more.

  • Reply 6 of 114
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post



    That's insanely stupid. Two people who might get run over by a bus tomorrow? Two people are worth $3.2 billion? I just don't see it.



    On the other hand, if they are managing an "account" to hire profitable acts to become a part of a new Apple music label... that could put the fear of, well, something, into the hearts and minds of content-owning companies.

    If Apple is getting into the content creation business, i'd rather see them creating good TV programming rather than trying to build a record label.

  • Reply 7 of 114
    chandra69chandra69 Posts: 638member

    The headline does not have to say "Not for technology." Does Beats have technology, first of all?  THey just have stylized super sized headphones.

  • Reply 8 of 114
    jd mbajd mba Posts: 38member
    Is this some sort of a sick joke?
  • Reply 9 of 114
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by JD MBA View Post



    Is this some sort of a sick joke?

    Just wait putting lipstick on the pig will happen soon.

  • Reply 10 of 114
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    From sure thing to 70%? How long until the deal is cancelled. (Allegedly)
  • Reply 11 of 114
    lord amhranlord amhran Posts: 902member
    Makes sense actually. There's rumors of a revamped AppleTV in which Apple could be looking for content deals in which case Iovine would be invaluable, Dre to a lesser extent.

    The only thing that doesn't really make much sense is the price. As well connected as Iovine and Young are, are they really worth $3.2 billion?
  • Reply 12 of 114
    ealvarezealvarez Posts: 88member
    Who is the "well-placed source"?

    There has been so much "well-placed source" reports that is better to wait for a word from Apple... If the deal happens!
  • Reply 13 of 114
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

     

    Very expensive aqui-hire considering what Apple spent to get Steve Jobs back. Fashion & culture? I thought Apple already had that. Unless this is Tim Cook pandering to African-Americans and teenagers?


     

    Apple is obviously a fashion forward company in the technology world, but I don't see the problem with them looking to improve in an area where they already lead.  Fashion and style is a huge differentiator between Apple products and competitors and it gives Apple products cachet that others just don't possess.  Let's be honest, Samsung products aren't selling in massive quanitites because they're pretty.

  • Reply 14 of 114
    toukaletoukale Posts: 38member
    I think most people have a problem with the price tag nothing else. For those of you who thinks that, then you need to take economics 101. Beats generated over $1.3 billion last year ok, you many not think much of their headsets the fact is a lot of people do and they are paying a premium for them. When this deal was first rumored that was the only scenario that made sense for apple. If apple introduce a streaming service then their downnload business would collapse almost overnight. You don't just throw away that kind of money when you have nothing else to make up for it. So buying beats will allow apple to have a streaming serving (which by the way is also on all the other platform) while milking the download business to the end. On top of that you get beats hardware which are hip and making money heads over fist. To tap that off you get a music exec with connections with labels and artist to run that business for you. That makes all the sense in the world to me and lets not forget none of the streaming services are making money. Spotify soon or later will have to stop bleeding red and if they can't, they will either be acquired or shut their doors. The way things are now only the platform holders will survive since they will be able to use their other business to prop up their streaming until it can fully stand on its own.
  • Reply 15 of 114
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    droidftw wrote: »
    Apple is obviously a fashion forward company in the technology world, but I don't see the problem with them looking to improve in an area where they already lead.  Fashion and style is a huge differentiator between Apple products and competitors and it gives Apple products cachet that others just don't possess.  Let's be honest, Samsung products aren't selling in massive quanitites because they're pretty.
    How is bringing on Iovine and Dre improving Apple's fashion? When I think of fashion and design I don't think of those two.
  • Reply 16 of 114
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,503member

    The legal cases pending will most likely kill the deal.

  • Reply 17 of 114
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Please let this whole deal fall apart, and then we wont have to read any more silly rumors about this silly rumor.

     

    And just who are these anonymous sources that are leaking this info? Are there so many people out there who have inside information about this supposed deal, that they would be able to leak info without being revealed?

  • Reply 18 of 114
    droidftwdroidftw Posts: 1,009member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    How is bringing on Iovine and Dre improving Apple's fashion? When I think of fashion and design I don't think of those two.

     

    You may not, but others sure do.

  • Reply 19 of 114
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by toukale View Post



    For those of you who thinks that, then you need to take economics 101. Beats generated over $1.3 billion last year ok, you many not think much of their headsets the fact is a lot of people do and they are paying a premium for them.

     

    Even if that number were true, then so what?

     

    Apple's good name and reputation is worth far more than a measly 1.3 Billion, and the damage could easily be greater than that.

  • Reply 20 of 114
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    toukale wrote: »
    I think most people have a problem with the price tag nothing else. For those of you who thinks that, then you need to take economics 101. Beats generated over $1.3 billion last year ok, you many not think much of their headsets the fact is a lot of people do and they are paying a premium for them. When this deal was first rumored that was the only scenario that made sense for apple. If apple introduce a streaming service then their downnload business would collapse almost overnight. You don't just throw away that kind of money when you have nothing else to make up for it. So buying beats will allow apple to have a streaming serving (which by the way is also on all the other platform) while milking the download business to the end. On top of that you get beats hardware which are hip and making money heads over fist. To tap that off you get a music exec with connections with labels and artist to run that business for you. That makes all the sense in the world to me and lets not forget none of the streaming services are making money. Spotify soon or later will have to stop bleeding red and if they can't, they will either be acquired or shut their doors. The way things are now only the platform holders will survive since they will be able to use their other business to prop up their streaming until it can fully stand on its own.

    I agree with what Marco Arment said on the last Accidental Tech Podcast. He recently tried out Beats headphones in an Apple store and said they were awful. He said Beats is essentially what Apple haters claim Apple is - OVERPRICED. Or the only reason people buy Apple products is because of slick marketing and design. The last thing Apple needs is to be associated with a brand that is considered overpriced. Also, for me Apple stands for quality. Tim Cook and Jony Ive have both said Apple's goal is not about revenues, but to make great products. And if you make great products the revenues will follow. To me Beats is the complete opposite of that. It's basically saying, who cares if it's a great product or not because it makes money. If that's what Apple is about now then that's really sad.
Sign In or Register to comment.