Ive is good at hardware, not particularly good at UI design, and is not leading any innovation as far as I've seen or read. He is a designer. He doesn't manage the software or decide what happens on the hardware front with new devices. He just makes whatever is decided elsewhere, pretty.
Ive is good at hardware, not particularly good at UI design, and is not leading any innovation as far as I've seen or read. He is a designer. He doesn't manage the software or decide what happens on the hardware front with new devices. He just makes whatever is decided elsewhere, pretty.
So, then you haven't read about Apple over the last 17 years or so nor anything about what Ives does there (especially in the last year and a bit)?
This deal is an aqui-hire, but not of just Iovine and Dre. This deal is about aquiring their marketing and product teams. Beats isn't two guys in a garage.
Ive is good at hardware, not particularly good at UI design, and is not leading any innovation as far as I've seen or read. He is a designer. He doesn't manage the software or decide what happens on the hardware front with new devices. He just makes whatever is decided elsewhere, pretty.
This is what Steve told Walter Isaacson (p. 364 in his book):
"The difference that Jony has made, not only at Apple but in the world, is huge. He is a wickedly intelligent person in all ways. He understands business concepts, marketing concepts. He picks stuff up just like that, click. He understands what we do at our core better than anyone. If I had a spiritual partner at Apple, it’s Jony. Jony and I think up most of the products together and then pull others in and say, “Hey, what do you think about this?” He gets the big picture as well as the most infinitesimal details about each product. And he understands that Apple is a product company. He’s not just a designer. That’s why he works directly for me. He has more operational power than anyone else at Apple except me. There’s no one who can tell him what to do, or to butt out. That’s the way I set it up."
I'm sure some others at Apple might not entirely agree with this quote, but clearly Ive is more than someone who is brought in at the end to make things look pretty.
Yes, that's why I referred to him as a music insider.
So his connections in music are expected to translate into movies and TV content contracts?
What's hysterical is that the music/movie sales/profits is such a small part of Apple's business model, I think this whole thing is overhyped. Beats may sell a bunch of headphones, but so what? It's chump change to Apple. it's like Apple buying a stick of gum. That's how it should be viewed.
Tim Cook once said that he will never hire a "VP of innovation" because doing so would mean there was a problem at Apple. Well, what do you think he's doing with his recent hires? He is offloading the task of ideation to others and managing the scene.
No. Why do you think that? Who is Apple's VP of innovation? Ahrendts? Browett?
I think this deal would be fantastic and would prove that Tim Cook really understands where his business is going. For Apple to continue to sustain it's high profits, brand appeal is just as important or maybe even more important than product (differences in product capability will dwindle over time). There will need to be multiple brands and multiple distribution channels. Like it or not, this may mean embracing cultural trends that are not popular with some in its traditional base. Note that Apple did not grow to its current size by limiting itself to its traditional base, and music was a core driving force. As to comments regarding the quality of the Beats products, remember that Apple currently sells these products in its stores today. An interesting rationale for the deal can be found over at TechCrunch (Apple Wants Beats Music Because Transitioning iTunes To Streaming Could Kill Download Sales).
What's hysterical is that the music/movie sales/profits is such a small part of Apple's business model, I think this whole thing is overhyped. Beats may sell a bunch of headphones, but so what? It's chump change to Apple. it's like Apple buying a stick of gum. That's how it should be viewed.
Sure it's chump change for them but doesn't mean it's a good move. I suppose at worst it's a distraction and might become an embarrassment.
When I first read these rumours I thought Beats would be Apple's Nest or Motorola, getting suckered into overpaying. But the new rumours make it sound more like Apple's own Alicia Keys.
You may think that this video will conjure negative reactions in people who think as you do, and this type of language is certainly not my style. However, this gentleman has built up a net worth of hundreds of millions of dollars through legitimate business dealings. That should say something about his business acumen, connections, and his potential value to Apple.
Sure it's chump change for them but doesn't mean it's a good move. I suppose at worst it's a distraction and might become an embarrassment.
When I first read these rumours I thought Beats would be Apple's Nest or Motorola, getting suckered into overpaying. But the new rumours make it sound more like Apple's own Alicia Keys.
I don't know what to say. If anything, it's certainly getting a lot of free publicity.
I think that the headphone market is saturated with a LOT of companies making a lot of products. I personally don't wear headphones and I only listen to ear buds only on rare occasions when I'm somewhere with my iPad and I want to listen to movies, watch YouTube or maybe a song or two, but most of my listening to music is done on a regular stereo which is what i personally prefer.
The big problem I see in the content sales/subscription/rental is that it's VERY low profit margin and Apple has to be VERY careful as to not have too much of their Net Profit pie with too much low margin business as it destroys the company's overall profit margin. I think if Apple split off the iTunes Store into a separate company, it would show people how little profit margin it actually makes and how the rest of the company's profit margins would increase a couple of points.
Maybe that's something up their sleeve. Who knows.
So, I think Iovine and Dr. Dre will be good for Apple strictly as advisers and mostly given free reign. I don't know their individual personalities, but maybe true artists never fit that well into a corporate environment. These two guys are leaders and are capable of working on their own instead of blindly following orders. I wouldn't think that Steve Jobs would have fit in a corporate environment because he didn't take crap from anyone and did his own thing. Steve definitely wouldn't have been considered a team player if that's what you're talking about by fitting into a corporate environment.
Yes, but they could hire them as advisors for much cheaper. Hell, 100 million per year for ten years EACH would be cheaper.
WTF is a "special adviser"? What sort of "special advice" will such a person offer that's so much more "special" than the advice that thousands of highly talented and creative people at Apple give every day (and are expected to)? If said "special advice' is only "special" because it's "different," isn't there the temptation to offer something "different" only to justify and validate one's expense? And could such "different" "special advice" lead Apple astray from the core values and accomplishments that have been the foundation of its current success with its users?
I'm not buying it. Hiring somebody to be a burr under the saddle is only going to piss off the horse.
Comments
Ive is good at hardware, not particularly good at UI design, and is not leading any innovation as far as I've seen or read. He is a designer. He doesn't manage the software or decide what happens on the hardware front with new devices. He just makes whatever is decided elsewhere, pretty.
I guess you haven't been paying attention.
This is what Steve told Walter Isaacson (p. 364 in his book):
I'm sure some others at Apple might not entirely agree with this quote, but clearly Ive is more than someone who is brought in at the end to make things look pretty.
LOL funniest rumor ever.
I think you forgot this: /s
Not sure what that means, but okay.
Yes, that's why I referred to him as a music insider.
So his connections in music are expected to translate into movies and TV content contracts?
What's hysterical is that the music/movie sales/profits is such a small part of Apple's business model, I think this whole thing is overhyped. Beats may sell a bunch of headphones, but so what? It's chump change to Apple. it's like Apple buying a stick of gum. That's how it should be viewed.
No. Why do you think that? Who is Apple's VP of innovation? Ahrendts? Browett?
This is what Apple just paid billions for? Watch this video and then tell me, why would Apple pay a dime for this individual?
When I first read these rumours I thought Beats would be Apple's Nest or Motorola, getting suckered into overpaying. But the new rumours make it sound more like Apple's own Alicia Keys.
$3.2b for 2 guys who has no loyalty to anyone except themselves.
How will Apple get them to stay if one day they decided to leave and with all the Bs these guys are set for life without work.
Sure it's chump change for them but doesn't mean it's a good move. I suppose at worst it's a distraction and might become an embarrassment.
When I first read these rumours I thought Beats would be Apple's Nest or Motorola, getting suckered into overpaying. But the new rumours make it sound more like Apple's own Alicia Keys.
I don't know what to say. If anything, it's certainly getting a lot of free publicity.
I think that the headphone market is saturated with a LOT of companies making a lot of products. I personally don't wear headphones and I only listen to ear buds only on rare occasions when I'm somewhere with my iPad and I want to listen to movies, watch YouTube or maybe a song or two, but most of my listening to music is done on a regular stereo which is what i personally prefer.
The big problem I see in the content sales/subscription/rental is that it's VERY low profit margin and Apple has to be VERY careful as to not have too much of their Net Profit pie with too much low margin business as it destroys the company's overall profit margin. I think if Apple split off the iTunes Store into a separate company, it would show people how little profit margin it actually makes and how the rest of the company's profit margins would increase a couple of points.
Maybe that's something up their sleeve. Who knows.
So, I think Iovine and Dr. Dre will be good for Apple strictly as advisers and mostly given free reign. I don't know their individual personalities, but maybe true artists never fit that well into a corporate environment. These two guys are leaders and are capable of working on their own instead of blindly following orders. I wouldn't think that Steve Jobs would have fit in a corporate environment because he didn't take crap from anyone and did his own thing. Steve definitely wouldn't have been considered a team player if that's what you're talking about by fitting into a corporate environment.
Yes, but they could hire them as advisors for much cheaper. Hell, 100 million per year for ten years EACH would be cheaper.
Yes, but they could hire them as advisors for much cheaper. Hell, 100 million per year for ten years EACH would be cheaper.
In order to hire them, they have to buy Beats. That's the scam.
WTF is a "special adviser"? What sort of "special advice" will such a person offer that's so much more "special" than the advice that thousands of highly talented and creative people at Apple give every day (and are expected to)? If said "special advice' is only "special" because it's "different," isn't there the temptation to offer something "different" only to justify and validate one's expense? And could such "different" "special advice" lead Apple astray from the core values and accomplishments that have been the foundation of its current success with its users?
I'm not buying it. Hiring somebody to be a burr under the saddle is only going to piss off the horse.
I don't buy it.
And I don't think Apple did either.