1. OK. Change that to 10 / 40 million and counting.
2. -
3. With the right model and some industry "Friends" Apple could get cable companies globally to follow their lead.
4. You should care because if media moguls are making money on something they are more likely to support it.
5. iTunes and iPhones/iOS were the main game changers. (The iOS api is a derivative of MacOS which is a derivative of NeXT Step)
I think you have been listening to the financial anal-ysts too long. The best growth days of Apple are still ahead of it. (Mobile Payments, Smart Wearables, Global Media anywhere).
1. OK, 10 Million paid subscribers. The thing that EVERYONE seems to NOT talk about is PROFITS. How much NET PROFIT ARE THEY MAKING? Until we actually know if they are actually making a DECENT Net Profit on Gross Sales, then it's not a PROFITABLE business.
How would you like to be in business making $1 Trillion in gross sales, but not making any profit. What happens when you don't make any profits? What TYPICALLY happens to businesses when they don't make any profits? Let's focus on figuring out how much NET PROFITS they make in comparison to Gross Sales. I'm talking about for the company. Does anyone know this number? The company has overhead that is taken out of the gross profits. They charge X from the customer, they pay X to the record distributors, and they retain X and out of what they retain, they have to pay salaries, building leases, advertising, taxes (if profitable) and other costs to do business. I want to know how much they retain as a company per year/quarter in terms of NET PROFITS. No one seems to talk about that? Usually information is held back due to lack of something positive to talk about and since they are privately held companies, they are not required to release that information.
2. -
3. If Apple could develop a box that would also be able to connect to a cable company so one could do both streaming of content over the internet, connect to a cable TV company AND also have DVR capabilities, that might be worth a lot of money, but the thing is ARE they planning on building such a box, if so, when are they planning on releasing it. The current $99 box doesn't make much profit on the hardware and they are relying on people renting movies through the iTunes Movie service. I'm not sure how much they actually make in profits to gross sales on the Apple TV box.
4. The record industry is in the dumps. They can't seem to figure out how to make serious amounts of money. In Iovine's All Things Digital interview he covered how the music industry is sucking wind. Partially due to people stealing music rather than buying it. Also, because they can't seem to pump out enough content that sells. Now, 24 Bit download market seems to be picking up steam as people PAY for it, they charge a lot of money per download, but their problem is getting enough content out since they can only pump out so much new 24 Bit versions a week. They only have about 1,000 albums on 24 bit on places like HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds. They are actually putting out a lot of vinyl, which is growing, but still not enough to increase sales for the record industry.
5. And? But Apple is STILL not in their hyper growth mode as they kind of tanked last year and only doing marginally better this year. Hopefully, they'll do well with the larger screen iPhones, which will help, but it's all about can they increase production by X amount year to year along with increased demand that is more than 15 to 20% year to year growth rate? If so, how long can they continue that trend?
Wearables I think is just incremental business, but not going to be a major contributor in terms of profits like the iPhone or the iPad are. I think they might do a few billion a year in gross revenues from wearables, but not tens of billions. At least that's my gut feeling.
No, I don't listen to anyone other than look at the numbers, the growth rates, the profits, etc. and use some common sense. Go look at the numbers and do your own calculations. But remember, LOOK at the PROFITS and GROWTH RATES. Stop looking at just the sales. Sales doesn't tell the whole story. With Spotify and Beats, they neglect to tell the whole story since they aren't publicly traded companies and since they probably don't make much in the way of profits, they hold back that information because the story told by the media wouldn't be the same story.
The responses in defence of Apple's acquisition of Beats is becoming unbelievable (just like with Tesla).
Sure, there are benefits in acquiring Beats, but there are many, many, more acquisitions that Apple could be making (at the same time even), but they won't do it.
There are all sorts of great talent out there, and all sorts of great companies with great products, services, know-how, etc., but Apple must be able to assimilate them into their culture. Apple's priority is to maintain its 'One Apple' strategy which Microsoft and Sony are attempting to copy.
The reason that Apple is in a state of chaos and hence it must make an acquisition is ridiculous.
Plus, Apple is not about the numbers (e.g. the sales and profits), its about a great product (and preventing theft of intellectual property)...
I wonder how much of the delay is the result of Dre's big mouth. Loose lips sink deals in Apple world.
Apple needs to kill the deal.
The very fact that there are so many threads on this rumor is proof that it should be killed, because it should never have been leaked in the first place.
"... If the article is to be believed"? Really? Some dingbat entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple does? Really?
Look, if you so badly want to 'win the argument' by stooping to such logical ridiculousness, be my guest.
Dingbat entertainment publication?
Hahahahaha
I'm sorry, Anan, but that's the silliest thing you have ever said.
You don't don't keep a magazine going for 120 years by being a bunch of dingbats.
I never really agreed with the concept of keeping your enemies closer BS that a lot of people THINK is how to do business. If you bring the enemies too close, they'll screw you over, that's why they are called enemies.
It's hard for some of these CEOs to figure out who the enemies are, especially since they'll lie to you because they are ENEMIES, you just have to realize it BEFORE it's too late.
I never really agreed with the concept of keeping your enemies closer BS that a lot of people THINK is how to do business. If you bring the enemies too close, they'll screw you over, that's why they are called enemies.
It's hard for some of these CEOs to figure out who the enemies are, especially since they'll lie to you because they are ENEMIES, you just have to realize it BEFORE it's too late.
Yes, Hindsight is 20/20. I was just trying to point out the lack of weight that the statement that Rofigan made about Tim Cook. I know he had the /S tag at the end of his statement, but from reading the rest of his posts it seems like he may have really meant what he said. I guess I could have added the /S to the end of my comment also.
You would think that they would have signed NDAs or something similar if they were worried about it being leaked too soon plus I thought Jay-Z was the first billionaire in Hip-hop.
I'm sorry, Anan, but that's the silliest thing you have ever said.
You don't don't keep a magazine going for 120 years by being a bunch of dingbats.
A business trade magazine at that...
Fair enough, and thank you for pointing that out. I guess I should not have called them 'dingbat' in their domain of expertise.
So let me rephrase: "An entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple -- the company rumored to be carrying out the acquisition, and the most valuable publicly traded company in the world -- does? Really?"
Fair enough, and thank you for pointing that out. I guess I should not have called them 'dingbat' in their domain of expertise.
So let me rephrase: "An entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple -- the company rumored to be carrying out the acquisition, and the most valuable publicly traded company in the world -- does? Really?"
What do you think?
I would think that Billboard would have at least as good an idea of the valuation of a company whose primary business is music. Billboard would know a lot more about Iovine and Dre's contacts and contracts and what they are actually worth. The only thing that Billboard wouldn't know is what exactly Beats means to Apple personally because only Cook and Apple's Board can come up with that answer. Whether or not they ["they" meaning Cook and Company] are correct in their assessment is another matter all together.
I would think that Billboard would have at least as good an idea of the valuation of a company whose primary business is music. Billboard would know a lot more about Iovine and Dre's contacts and contracts and what they are actually worth. The only thing that Billboard wouldn't know is what exactly Beats means to Apple personally because only Cook and Apple's Board can come up with that answer. Whether or not they ["they" meaning Cook and Company] are correct in their assessment is another matter all together.
Billboard? They don't normally hire people with a Finance background with regards to their journalists that write stories. In order to put a valuation on a company that's privately held, you have to know what their gross sales, net profits, debt, what value you put on their IP, how much cash they have, long term/short term investments, etc. etc. This stuff is not publicly released. So how COULD they know what Beats is worth..
All Billboard really tracks is what albums, singles are selling and being played on the radio and things of that nature and then the industry news like what new albums are coming out, what changes in management, etc. etc. Billboard is not normally considered a source to gather financial data on a company, especially privately held.
They might know the valuation of Sony, Warner and Universal because they are publicly traded companies where the financials are released. But a privately held company? NOPE. They have no clue unless they have someone with a finance background looking at their books writing an article, which doesn't happen.
Billboard? They don't normally hire people with a Finance background with regards to their journalists that write stories. In order to put a valuation on a company that's privately held, you have to know what their gross sales, net profits, debt, what value you put on their IP, how much cash they have, long term/short term investments, etc. etc. This stuff is not publicly released. So how COULD they know what Beats is worth..
All Billboard really tracks is what albums, singles are selling and being played on the radio and things of that nature and then the industry news like what new albums are coming out, what changes in management, etc. etc. Billboard is not normally considered a source to gather financial data on a company, especially privately held.
They might know the valuation of Sony, Warner and Universal because they are publicly traded companies where the financials are released. But a privately held company? NOPE. They have no clue unless they have someone with a finance background looking at their books writing an article, which doesn't happen.
Well, I'm glad to see we have someone from Billboard to help us assess what Billboard knows and doesn't know.
Well, I'm glad to see we have someone from Billboard to help us assess what Billboard knows and doesn't know.
I've read Billboard magazine since a LONG time ago. It's actually a very thin publication and not much in it except the latest charts on what's songs/albums get the most play/sales. It's not an in depth magazine by any stretch of the imagination on the inner workings of the music industry.
Actually, the cables that Monster got famous for were based on patents they licensed from a person by the name of Bruce Brisson of MIT Cables, he's the actual brains behind the original Monster cables that Monster got their name and reputation, Lee just marketed the heck out of them to the higher end audio crowd and then he ventured off into other products and markets. Here's MIT Cables History. I've met Bruce Brisson and talked with him for about an hour many years ago. The guy's a freakin genius as he helped HP develop one of the most precise measurement equipment (cost about $100K) to measure what's going on with audio cables because nothing existed when he set out to figure out why cables sound different. He's actually considered the real father of the high end audio cable. He's has about 16 patents and some of them were licensed to Monster Cable back as early as 1981. But Monster doesn't want you knowing this since it doesn't sound as cool.
I've read Billboard magazine since a LONG time ago. It's actually a very thin publication and not much in it except the latest charts on what's songs/albums get the most play/sales. It's not an in depth magazine by any stretch of the imagination on the inner workings of the music industry.
Go pick up a copy and read it.
Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.
What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?
Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.
There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business. That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.
What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?
Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.
What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?
Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.
There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business. That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.
What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?
Intangibles? Like what specifically?
Dr. Dre produces rap music, and? That's a niche in the entire music industry.
Iovine has certain credentials, and only has so much power in the industry. I don't consider anyone that spends time as a mentor on American Idol to be someone that is anything more than just going after young, innocent and naive kids trying to make it in the pop industry. BFD. so Iovine caters to teenage girls market that's looking for their next American Idol. And?
A bunch of contracts? Like what contracts that make lots of money? You mean selling speakers to some of Chrysler's autos? Harmon sells infinitely more auto speaker systems than just about anyone in the auto industry. They are HUGE in that market. Absolutely HUGE. they own JBL, Infinity, Blaupunkt, Becker, Harmon/Kardon, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, IOnRoad, Selenium that cater to the auto industry. Beats is a gnat fart to Harmon International. then you have Clarion. I looked up some BOSE products that are installed in cars and found out that they were actually made by Becker, which is owned by Harmon. Bose used to be big in the car stereo OEM world, but Harmon took over that business years ago.
Beats is puny in that market. Who makes most of the navigation systems in cars these days? Harmon. There are a handful of players in the car audio industry as OEM suppliers and Beats is teeny tiny.
I didn't say that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what's going on. But Billboard only posts superficial things when it comes to anything about the financials about a privately held company. They don't have access to that information. Billboard is NOT a place I would automatically go to in order to find out about financial aspects of a company like Beats. I'm sure if Beats sent them a press release, Billboard would post it, but so does everyone else. That's not th?eir gig, so to speak to cover financial aspects of a privately held company if Billboard got the information, so would everyone else. Billboard's major function in life is tracking what album and songs are selling and being played. That's their sole purpose in life. That's what people look at Billboard for. Go pick up the magazine and read it. It will take about 10 minutes to cruise their articles since there aren't many actually written and they are usually small articles that are about a couple of small paragraphs. A lot of article they publish are based on PR they are given. Plus they have some stupid articles like 65 Hot Celebrity Beach Bodies and other BS and gossip. http://www.billboard.com/photos/428592/65-hot-celebrity-beach-bodies?i=500718 That's the kind of crap Billboard has. They are just more of a rumor, PR regurgitation, gossip, and starry eyed fan site. Check out Billboard.com and see the kind of articles they publish. Seriously, Billboard is more like People magazine than some serious financial news site.
What do you work for Beats? it sure sounds like it.
I just looked up Chrysler and they only offer the $1200 Beat option on SOME models, not all. I'm sure Beats probably makes $100 of actual profit since it's been marked up by the dealer and auto mfg. BFD. That's nothing. I'm sure if you look at the Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and other foreign cars, they probably ship 80% with something from Harmon. Lexus sells Mark Levinson car stereos and they integrate Lexicon technology in the Harmon and Mark Levinson systems for surround sound, Harmon make just about all of the navigation systems for the european auto mfg. They recently inked a long term deal with Mercedes to supply all of the navigation systems for them. Harmon is going after a MAJOR portion of the OEM car industry. I think Clarion is another big player for a lot of the Asian car mfg. I think there's another player as well. then you have small niche high end audio mfg starting to cater to the ultra high end auto car market like B&O, Meridian, Focal, and others, but those are $5000+ systems for high end cars that sell in much small quantity, but for them, it's still lucrative enough to do it.
Harmon installs their systems on probably a good 80% of the european cars as either standard or more expensive options, plus several other car mfg.
Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.
What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?
Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.
There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business. That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.
What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?
Me being arrogant? How about you try not to be so ignorant? Maybe that's the REAL problem.
You sound like you buy into the hype of Beats/Iovine and Dr. Dre. I don't. I don't have much respect for them other than they were successful at marketing some crappy headphones to a bunch of kids that don't really listen to music that's created by real musical instruments. Most of today's pop music the kids are listening aren't generated by recording musical instruments, but rather noises to represent music and it's so processed, they really don't know what an acoustic piano REALLY sounds like, or any musical instrument being played without a ton of signal processing. Heck, they don't even know what a real singer sounds like since most of today's pop music the singer's voice goes through Auto Tune and Melodyne software to alter their mistakes to make someone who can't sing sound like they can. That's the kind of crap most kids are listening to. Artificial garbage. It's been like that for about 20+ years, but has really done downhill in the last 10. probably thanks to Dr. Dre and Iovine.
Comments
1. OK. Change that to 10 / 40 million and counting.
2. -
3. With the right model and some industry "Friends" Apple could get cable companies globally to follow their lead.
4. You should care because if media moguls are making money on something they are more likely to support it.
5. iTunes and iPhones/iOS were the main game changers. (The iOS api is a derivative of MacOS which is a derivative of NeXT Step)
I think you have been listening to the financial anal-ysts too long. The best growth days of Apple are still ahead of it. (Mobile Payments, Smart Wearables, Global Media anywhere).
1. OK, 10 Million paid subscribers. The thing that EVERYONE seems to NOT talk about is PROFITS. How much NET PROFIT ARE THEY MAKING? Until we actually know if they are actually making a DECENT Net Profit on Gross Sales, then it's not a PROFITABLE business.
How would you like to be in business making $1 Trillion in gross sales, but not making any profit. What happens when you don't make any profits? What TYPICALLY happens to businesses when they don't make any profits? Let's focus on figuring out how much NET PROFITS they make in comparison to Gross Sales. I'm talking about for the company. Does anyone know this number? The company has overhead that is taken out of the gross profits. They charge X from the customer, they pay X to the record distributors, and they retain X and out of what they retain, they have to pay salaries, building leases, advertising, taxes (if profitable) and other costs to do business. I want to know how much they retain as a company per year/quarter in terms of NET PROFITS. No one seems to talk about that? Usually information is held back due to lack of something positive to talk about and since they are privately held companies, they are not required to release that information.
2. -
3. If Apple could develop a box that would also be able to connect to a cable company so one could do both streaming of content over the internet, connect to a cable TV company AND also have DVR capabilities, that might be worth a lot of money, but the thing is ARE they planning on building such a box, if so, when are they planning on releasing it. The current $99 box doesn't make much profit on the hardware and they are relying on people renting movies through the iTunes Movie service. I'm not sure how much they actually make in profits to gross sales on the Apple TV box.
4. The record industry is in the dumps. They can't seem to figure out how to make serious amounts of money. In Iovine's All Things Digital interview he covered how the music industry is sucking wind. Partially due to people stealing music rather than buying it. Also, because they can't seem to pump out enough content that sells. Now, 24 Bit download market seems to be picking up steam as people PAY for it, they charge a lot of money per download, but their problem is getting enough content out since they can only pump out so much new 24 Bit versions a week. They only have about 1,000 albums on 24 bit on places like HDTracks, Acoustic Sounds. They are actually putting out a lot of vinyl, which is growing, but still not enough to increase sales for the record industry.
5. And? But Apple is STILL not in their hyper growth mode as they kind of tanked last year and only doing marginally better this year. Hopefully, they'll do well with the larger screen iPhones, which will help, but it's all about can they increase production by X amount year to year along with increased demand that is more than 15 to 20% year to year growth rate? If so, how long can they continue that trend?
Wearables I think is just incremental business, but not going to be a major contributor in terms of profits like the iPhone or the iPad are. I think they might do a few billion a year in gross revenues from wearables, but not tens of billions. At least that's my gut feeling.
No, I don't listen to anyone other than look at the numbers, the growth rates, the profits, etc. and use some common sense. Go look at the numbers and do your own calculations. But remember, LOOK at the PROFITS and GROWTH RATES. Stop looking at just the sales. Sales doesn't tell the whole story. With Spotify and Beats, they neglect to tell the whole story since they aren't publicly traded companies and since they probably don't make much in the way of profits, they hold back that information because the story told by the media wouldn't be the same story.
The responses in defence of Apple's acquisition of Beats is becoming unbelievable (just like with Tesla).
Sure, there are benefits in acquiring Beats, but there are many, many, more acquisitions that Apple could be making (at the same time even), but they won't do it.
There are all sorts of great talent out there, and all sorts of great companies with great products, services, know-how, etc., but Apple must be able to assimilate them into their culture. Apple's priority is to maintain its 'One Apple' strategy which Microsoft and Sony are attempting to copy.
The reason that Apple is in a state of chaos and hence it must make an acquisition is ridiculous.
Plus, Apple is not about the numbers (e.g. the sales and profits), its about a great product (and preventing theft of intellectual property)...
I wonder how much of the delay is the result of Dre's big mouth. Loose lips sink deals in Apple world.
Probably 99% of the reason.
I wonder how much of the delay is the result of Dre's big mouth. Loose lips sink deals in Apple world.
Apple needs to kill the deal.
The very fact that there are so many threads on this rumor is proof that it should be killed, because it should never have been leaked in the first place.
Tim Cook did hire John Browett. /s
Steve Jobs let Bill Gates & Eric Schmidt in.
"... If the article is to be believed"? Really? Some dingbat entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple does? Really?
Look, if you so badly want to 'win the argument' by stooping to such logical ridiculousness, be my guest.
Dingbat entertainment publication?
Hahahahaha
I'm sorry, Anan, but that's the silliest thing you have ever said.
You don't don't keep a magazine going for 120 years by being a bunch of dingbats.
A business trade magazine at that...
Steve Jobs let Bill Gates & Eric Schmidt in.
I never really agreed with the concept of keeping your enemies closer BS that a lot of people THINK is how to do business. If you bring the enemies too close, they'll screw you over, that's why they are called enemies.It's hard for some of these CEOs to figure out who the enemies are, especially since they'll lie to you because they are ENEMIES, you just have to realize it BEFORE it's too late.
Steve Jobs let Bill Gates & Eric Schmidt in.
I never really agreed with the concept of keeping your enemies closer BS that a lot of people THINK is how to do business. If you bring the enemies too close, they'll screw you over, that's why they are called enemies.
It's hard for some of these CEOs to figure out who the enemies are, especially since they'll lie to you because they are ENEMIES, you just have to realize it BEFORE it's too late.
Yes, Hindsight is 20/20. I was just trying to point out the lack of weight that the statement that Rofigan made about Tim Cook. I know he had the /S tag at the end of his statement, but from reading the rest of his posts it seems like he may have really meant what he said. I guess I could have added the /S to the end of my comment also.
Dingbat entertainment publication?
Hahahahaha
I'm sorry, Anan, but that's the silliest thing you have ever said.
You don't don't keep a magazine going for 120 years by being a bunch of dingbats.
A business trade magazine at that...
Fair enough, and thank you for pointing that out. I guess I should not have called them 'dingbat' in their domain of expertise.
So let me rephrase: "An entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple -- the company rumored to be carrying out the acquisition, and the most valuable publicly traded company in the world -- does? Really?"
What do you think?
Fair enough, and thank you for pointing that out. I guess I should not have called them 'dingbat' in their domain of expertise.
So let me rephrase: "An entertainment publication is likely to have a more credible handle on valuing an acquisition asset than Apple -- the company rumored to be carrying out the acquisition, and the most valuable publicly traded company in the world -- does? Really?"
What do you think?
I would think that Billboard would have at least as good an idea of the valuation of a company whose primary business is music. Billboard would know a lot more about Iovine and Dre's contacts and contracts and what they are actually worth. The only thing that Billboard wouldn't know is what exactly Beats means to Apple personally because only Cook and Apple's Board can come up with that answer. Whether or not they ["they" meaning Cook and Company] are correct in their assessment is another matter all together.
I would think that Billboard would have at least as good an idea of the valuation of a company whose primary business is music. Billboard would know a lot more about Iovine and Dre's contacts and contracts and what they are actually worth. The only thing that Billboard wouldn't know is what exactly Beats means to Apple personally because only Cook and Apple's Board can come up with that answer. Whether or not they ["they" meaning Cook and Company] are correct in their assessment is another matter all together.
Billboard? They don't normally hire people with a Finance background with regards to their journalists that write stories. In order to put a valuation on a company that's privately held, you have to know what their gross sales, net profits, debt, what value you put on their IP, how much cash they have, long term/short term investments, etc. etc. This stuff is not publicly released. So how COULD they know what Beats is worth..
All Billboard really tracks is what albums, singles are selling and being played on the radio and things of that nature and then the industry news like what new albums are coming out, what changes in management, etc. etc. Billboard is not normally considered a source to gather financial data on a company, especially privately held.
They might know the valuation of Sony, Warner and Universal because they are publicly traded companies where the financials are released. But a privately held company? NOPE. They have no clue unless they have someone with a finance background looking at their books writing an article, which doesn't happen.
[URL="http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world"]http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world[/URL]
[URL="http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/21/beats-dr-dre-iovine-royalties-sues"]http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/21/beats-dr-dre-iovine-royalties-sues[/URL]
Billboard? They don't normally hire people with a Finance background with regards to their journalists that write stories. In order to put a valuation on a company that's privately held, you have to know what their gross sales, net profits, debt, what value you put on their IP, how much cash they have, long term/short term investments, etc. etc. This stuff is not publicly released. So how COULD they know what Beats is worth..
All Billboard really tracks is what albums, singles are selling and being played on the radio and things of that nature and then the industry news like what new albums are coming out, what changes in management, etc. etc. Billboard is not normally considered a source to gather financial data on a company, especially privately held.
They might know the valuation of Sony, Warner and Universal because they are publicly traded companies where the financials are released. But a privately held company? NOPE. They have no clue unless they have someone with a finance background looking at their books writing an article, which doesn't happen.
Well, I'm glad to see we have someone from Billboard to help us assess what Billboard knows and doesn't know.
Well, I'm glad to see we have someone from Billboard to help us assess what Billboard knows and doesn't know.
I've read Billboard magazine since a LONG time ago. It's actually a very thin publication and not much in it except the latest charts on what's songs/albums get the most play/sales. It's not an in depth magazine by any stretch of the imagination on the inner workings of the music industry.
Go pick up a copy and read it.
Here's what some former Beats partners have to say about the company.
http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/may/21/beats-dr-dre-iovine-royalties-sues
Actually, the cables that Monster got famous for were based on patents they licensed from a person by the name of Bruce Brisson of MIT Cables, he's the actual brains behind the original Monster cables that Monster got their name and reputation, Lee just marketed the heck out of them to the higher end audio crowd and then he ventured off into other products and markets. Here's MIT Cables History. I've met Bruce Brisson and talked with him for about an hour many years ago. The guy's a freakin genius as he helped HP develop one of the most precise measurement equipment (cost about $100K) to measure what's going on with audio cables because nothing existed when he set out to figure out why cables sound different. He's actually considered the real father of the high end audio cable. He's has about 16 patents and some of them were licensed to Monster Cable back as early as 1981. But Monster doesn't want you knowing this since it doesn't sound as cool.
http://ww2.mitcables.com/history-of-mit-cables.html
I've read Billboard magazine since a LONG time ago. It's actually a very thin publication and not much in it except the latest charts on what's songs/albums get the most play/sales. It's not an in depth magazine by any stretch of the imagination on the inner workings of the music industry.
Go pick up a copy and read it.
Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.
What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?
Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.
There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business. That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.
What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?
Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.
What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?
Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.
There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business. That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.
What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?
Intangibles? Like what specifically?
Dr. Dre produces rap music, and? That's a niche in the entire music industry.
Iovine has certain credentials, and only has so much power in the industry. I don't consider anyone that spends time as a mentor on American Idol to be someone that is anything more than just going after young, innocent and naive kids trying to make it in the pop industry. BFD. so Iovine caters to teenage girls market that's looking for their next American Idol. And?
A bunch of contracts? Like what contracts that make lots of money? You mean selling speakers to some of Chrysler's autos? Harmon sells infinitely more auto speaker systems than just about anyone in the auto industry. They are HUGE in that market. Absolutely HUGE. they own JBL, Infinity, Blaupunkt, Becker, Harmon/Kardon, Lexicon, Mark Levinson, IOnRoad, Selenium that cater to the auto industry. Beats is a gnat fart to Harmon International. then you have Clarion. I looked up some BOSE products that are installed in cars and found out that they were actually made by Becker, which is owned by Harmon. Bose used to be big in the car stereo OEM world, but Harmon took over that business years ago.
Beats is puny in that market. Who makes most of the navigation systems in cars these days? Harmon. There are a handful of players in the car audio industry as OEM suppliers and Beats is teeny tiny.
The streaming music business Beats Music was looking for $100 Million more since that side of the business was running out of cash. Here's the article. http://www.theverge.com/2014/4/21/5636704/beats-music-is-struggling
I didn't say that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what's going on. But Billboard only posts superficial things when it comes to anything about the financials about a privately held company. They don't have access to that information. Billboard is NOT a place I would automatically go to in order to find out about financial aspects of a company like Beats. I'm sure if Beats sent them a press release, Billboard would post it, but so does everyone else. That's not th?eir gig, so to speak to cover financial aspects of a privately held company if Billboard got the information, so would everyone else. Billboard's major function in life is tracking what album and songs are selling and being played. That's their sole purpose in life. That's what people look at Billboard for. Go pick up the magazine and read it. It will take about 10 minutes to cruise their articles since there aren't many actually written and they are usually small articles that are about a couple of small paragraphs. A lot of article they publish are based on PR they are given. Plus they have some stupid articles like 65 Hot Celebrity Beach Bodies and other BS and gossip. http://www.billboard.com/photos/428592/65-hot-celebrity-beach-bodies?i=500718 That's the kind of crap Billboard has. They are just more of a rumor, PR regurgitation, gossip, and starry eyed fan site. Check out Billboard.com and see the kind of articles they publish. Seriously, Billboard is more like People magazine than some serious financial news site.
What do you work for Beats? it sure sounds like it.
I just looked up Chrysler and they only offer the $1200 Beat option on SOME models, not all. I'm sure Beats probably makes $100 of actual profit since it's been marked up by the dealer and auto mfg. BFD. That's nothing. I'm sure if you look at the Mercedes, BMW, Audi, and other foreign cars, they probably ship 80% with something from Harmon. Lexus sells Mark Levinson car stereos and they integrate Lexicon technology in the Harmon and Mark Levinson systems for surround sound, Harmon make just about all of the navigation systems for the european auto mfg. They recently inked a long term deal with Mercedes to supply all of the navigation systems for them. Harmon is going after a MAJOR portion of the OEM car industry. I think Clarion is another big player for a lot of the Asian car mfg. I think there's another player as well. then you have small niche high end audio mfg starting to cater to the ultra high end auto car market like B&O, Meridian, Focal, and others, but those are $5000+ systems for high end cars that sell in much small quantity, but for them, it's still lucrative enough to do it.
Harmon installs their systems on probably a good 80% of the european cars as either standard or more expensive options, plus several other car mfg.
Don't be so f*cking arrogant. You think I would say something about Billboard without knowing what it is.
What you don't seem to understand is that Billboard would know about things that Apple wouldn't have a clue about. The intangibles. Do you really think that Billboard wouldn't know shit about Iovine and Dre? Really?
Sure, Apple gets to look at the financials and if this was as easy as you make it sound, a bunch of financial knowledge, then Apple would already have delivered a verdict on this deal.
There is much more to this because Beats has one supposedly profitable business, headphones, and then a bunch of contracts along with a streaming music business. That would be exactly where Cook and Apple step out of their league and into the waters churned daily by Billboard.
What? Now you're going to tell me that Billboard doesn't hear anything about what is going on in the music industry?
Me being arrogant? How about you try not to be so ignorant? Maybe that's the REAL problem.
You sound like you buy into the hype of Beats/Iovine and Dr. Dre. I don't. I don't have much respect for them other than they were successful at marketing some crappy headphones to a bunch of kids that don't really listen to music that's created by real musical instruments. Most of today's pop music the kids are listening aren't generated by recording musical instruments, but rather noises to represent music and it's so processed, they really don't know what an acoustic piano REALLY sounds like, or any musical instrument being played without a ton of signal processing. Heck, they don't even know what a real singer sounds like since most of today's pop music the singer's voice goes through Auto Tune and Melodyne software to alter their mistakes to make someone who can't sing sound like they can. That's the kind of crap most kids are listening to. Artificial garbage. It's been like that for about 20+ years, but has really done downhill in the last 10. probably thanks to Dr. Dre and Iovine.