Personally, I think this is really a 'head fake', by Apple, and we'll all be talking about the iWatch announcement by next Monday. One can hope. Can't they? ????
Yeah, that's what all the Apple haters are saying. Apple and Beats is a perfect match, because they both sell overpriced products to sheep. I also notice that quite a few Apple haters, not just on this forum, but across the net, are mysteriously in favor of this deal. That ought to make anybody suspicious.
It's confirmed. Tim Cook really is the next Steve Ballmer. The man simply has no vision. Buying crappy headphones and sh*tty streaming app? Damn! I lost all respect for the man. Time to turn in my Apple fanboy card.
This fool, along with many other trolls, jumped on the fact that there are some legitimate doubts about this deal to endlessly, and prematurely criticize Tim and Apple. BTW, how did the term "haters" come into popular use?
Anyway, amongst the legitimate questions posed, most of the opposition to this deal has been little more than foot stamping. After the initial shock of the deal, buying Beats makes a lot of sense. For one, Apple has given no indications that it makes bad acquisitions, but for the doubting Thomas's out there:
1) There is very little financial risk, with $1.3B and growing revenue in 2013, Ireland tax breaks, and now the price is reduced by $0.2B.
2) Dealing with musicians is not in Apple's core competency. The potential for an iTunes music label is huge; the popularity and growth of iTunes festival is the tip of the iceberg. Even the threat of a label can give Apple huge leverage on negotiations with labels, particularly if Apple is trying to get a streaming service off the ground.
3) Curation and music AI. Curation is also not a core Apple competency, as can be seen with the stale state of iTunes, a huge inconsistency for a company that is so amazing at intersecting humanities with technology in consumer electronics. It seems Beats has a great creative team of over 150 people in charge of Beats Music, led by Iovine, Dre, and Trent Reznor. Algorithms are not enough, just like with Siri, the key is to combine algorithms and human curation.
4) There is a lot of appeal to Beats headphones, which are reportedly attuned to mimicking the experience of live music, not perfectly accurate music reproduction (as Dick Applebaum discussed in a previous thread). This is the experience that the majority of consumers are looking for.
Apple should strive to be the clear leader in music. More and more music is being commoditized and consumed for free, the trend is clear. Radio apps, soundcloud, and youtube are providing viable alternatives to buying music. Apple should do more than just present songs in iTunes as a utility. Music curation allows Apple to provide compelling value over algorithms and free streaming. Apple is once again in the position to save the music industry from itself.
"Adding to the never-ending stream of scuttlebutt surrounding Apple's hyped buyout of Beats Electronics, a report on Tuesday claims the terms of the supposed acquisition have dropped to $3 billion and will be announced this week."
I think the article meant to say, "... dropped by $3 billion..." har!
"While some have speculated that Apple's interest lies in rolling Beats Music into its iTunes Radio streaming service, sources say this is not the case."
But...
"Apple doesn't have a streaming music business so it would be a nice instant get, but the hardware is the profitable business," one person said.
"While some have speculated that Apple's interest lies in rolling Beats Music into its iTunes Radio streaming service, sources say this is not the case."
But...
"Apple doesn't have a streaming music business so it would be a nice instant get, but the hardware is the profitable business," one person said.
Huh?
There seems to be a weird disconnect with many people, not just this article, as to what is a streaming service. That term gets used in the exact same way without qualification when it means a streaming radio-like service and when it's a streaming music rental service where you can pick and choose by song or album, skip and repeat as much as you please.
Elaboration on the numbers, the publication said Apple is placing a high value on Beats' high-margin audio hardware business that recorded $1.3 billion in sales in 2013.
what?
who writes this stuff? oh, right, a "staff" who can't be bothered to even proofread their own content before they post it for their readers to correct. gotta collect that paycheck and get those ad dollars, stat. it's sites like this that make me happy i use ad-blocking software.
If this rumour turns out to be a false, then these crap sheets will spend the next five years saying 'Any day now!' in the hope that Apple will cave and buy the company. Unfortunately, so much junk has been written about this deal that the 'journalists' haven't given themselves enough room to backpedal.
?The deal has been delayed for all sorts of dumb reasons, and now the price is dropping. The 'diligence' thing is a classic; as if Apple wouldn't have probed this company with a surgical glove before even mentioning a figure.
I hope this deal doesn't go through, just so people realise that tech journalism is pretty much dead.
If it happens Apple will have bought a profitable company for three billion dollars which is about two times earnings, usually that is a good deal, certainly better than buying Nest, Twitter, Netflix, Whatsapp, or Instagram all of which make/made little to no profit at all despite their big price tags.
Only Apple can be DOOMED for buying a apparently profitable company?
Those $200 million Heinekens better have been damn fine beers.
Seriously Apple and Beats sound like a fine match, Dr Dre regardless of the colour of his skin, stays hungry, not content to sit on the laurels of his rather successful music career, set about to change the world.
Beats is one of the hottest brands out there.
Stay hungry, inject something new, stick your middle finger up at all the white middle aged white men who whine that Tim Cook ain't doing enough, ain't flashy enough, ain't innovating enough.
It's confirmed. Tim Cook really is the next Steve Ballmer. The man simply has no vision. Buying crappy headphones and sh*tty streaming app? Damn! I lost all respect for the man. Time to turn in my Apple fanboy card.
Wait, you have an Apple fanboy card? Damn! I lost all respect for you man.
If beats made this up, than they got a bunch of press for free. Think about who beats are - an overly hyped headphone company. You don't think they got overly hyped without some publicity stunts along the way? This rumor associates them with apple, a respectable company, and gives them a valuation of 3 billion, a lot more money than I would.
There's a few obvious issues with the rumor - why would apple make an offer and than undercut them self later, no company would do this especially apple. 2nd, why does apple need to buy a hardware company when they know how to make hardware better than anyone? They make computer chips........ And computers...... Headphones would be nothing in comparison. It's be like putting two soup cans together with a string. They probably don't give a crap about the dr Dre brand either. 3rd apple hasn't ever bought name brand companies. Why start with a brand known for being hyped up?
I really don't see any fit at all... It all sounds mafia stuff to me.. If apple doesn't get market share in streaming music big deal.. No one seems to be making a huge lot of money in that business. Apple should stick to their job of making great devices which people love to use.
This move will devalue apple brand, and apple going after this deal with some vague idea of making streaming a huge business within apple is wrong. That business value is going to be negligible when compared to the whole iPhone business.
Let others build the streaming service and let them fight it out in the market place. It looks like MAPs fiasco all over again.
"While some have speculated that Apple's interest lies in rolling Beats Music into its iTunes Radio streaming service, sources say this is not the case."
But...
"Apple doesn't have a streaming music business so it would be a nice instant get, but the hardware is the profitable business," one person said.
I read about the history of Beats headphones in an article on Gizmodo that was written last year, long before any of the current rumors appeared, and it was all about the dealings of Beats and Monster, who designed and made the headphones for a long time, and the whole read was pretty damn shady if you ask me.
I don't know what planet a few people are living on, those who claim that Beats and Apple are on the same level. I have to assume that it's due to ignorance on their part, and in that case they shouldn't blindly be defending a company that they know very little of.
And I think that it's a poor idea for Apple to be buying a brand name, I can't recall them ever doing that before, and especially not a brand name that has the potential to tarnish Apple's own brand. Is Apple's own name not good enough anymore? I can't think of a better brand name than the one that Apple currently has.
I'm pretty sure that Apple's own brand name is viewed very favorably by virtually all Apple users and I'm pretty sure that Beat's brand name is viewed favorably by a far lesser percentage of Apple users. Unless there are some hidden details that have not yet been revealed, this whole deal still sounds completely insane. Beats are heavily marketed fashion headphones, and fashion can be highly polarizing. There are those who like it, and there are those who hate it. Apple's own brand has a far wider reaching audience, so it makes stupid business sense to want a brand that appeals to less people, while possibly hurting your own brand at the same time.
To sum things up, there had better not be any damn Beats logo on any future Apple hardware that I will be buying. If that happens, then Apple will have truly jumped the shark. If I wanted anything to do with Beats, then I would have bought a damn Android phone a few years ago.
Of course the headphone line is of interest. Beats are one of the best selling headphone brands and have high margins. Why wouldn't Apple want them? Some say that Beats headphones are overpriced for what you get, but a lot of people say that about Apple products too. Ask people who spent $150-250 on a pair of Beats headphones if they're happy with their purchase and I'd imagine that most are more then happy with them.
Yeah, that's what all the Apple haters are saying. Apple and Beats is a perfect match, because they both sell overpriced products to sheep. I also notice that quite a few Apple haters, not just on this forum, but across the net, are mysteriously in favor of this deal. That ought to make anybody suspicious.
I never thought that Apple would lower itself to this level, because it's not just about the money. There are plenty of profitable companies around that Apple can snap up, if they wanted to.
I buy and use Apple computers and devices because they're the best around. If this Beats deal is indeed real, then I guess that I will have to stay far away from any Apple or Beats headphones in the future if they merge, as they are not on the same level that Apples' computers and devices are, and I am disappointed that Apple would buy such a company that is not known for being the best. I don't give a crap about how many weird looking people buy their headphones. Plenty of people buy Android phones too, and Beats was actually a part of certain Android phones for a long time. I thought that Apple was only interested in perfection and the best, but maybe that has changed.
We still need to hear the details about this deal of course, and what exactly it means for Apple, but I was skeptical when I first heard about this deal, and I remain skeptical.
That's the weird thing about this. Don't we expect real high-end anymore ? Lower middle class performance is not worth chasing. Not in line with what we expect from Apple. It needs to be the BEST, not just one of the flock.
I don't get the whole Beats is profitable argument. So what? Why does Apple need to be in the headphone business? What evidence is there that Iovine and Dre will be able to negotiate content deals for Apple? If content providers are playing hardball with Apple is that all of a sudden going to change because Iovine is working for the company?
There seems to be a weird disconnect with many people, not just this article, as to what is a streaming service. That term gets used in the exact same way without qualification when it means a streaming radio-like service and when it's a streaming music rental service where you can pick and choose by song or album, skip and repeat as much as you please.
Yeah. I hate that too. Apple clearly have a streaming service. Clearly. That said its only in a few countries. Maybe that's the issue? Send Dre and Iovine to sell iTunes Radio elsewhere. The rollout of that service has been a disaster.
If it happens Apple will have bought a profitable company for three billion dollars which is about two times earnings, usually that is a good deal, certainly better than buying Nest, Twitter, Netflix, Whatsapp, or Instagram all of which make/made little to no profit at all despite their big price tags.
Only Apple can be DOOMED for buying a apparently profitable company?
Apple could buy any number of profitable companies. It could get into real estate. Buy some supermarket chain. Or buy an oil refinery. Until now it has bought technology companies for their technology not profitable companies to keep the brand. All of the non profit making companies you listed are good technology companies. Beats isn't.
There have been plenty of people defending this supposed deal, claiming that it's not about the headphones, it's about the streaming service.
And the article in the OP is saying the exact opposite of that.
In other words they don't know what they're talking about and I don't know what Apple is doing. I for one hope that the deal doesn't go through because I do not believe that the company with its headphones music or its founders are going to be of any value to Apple.
I don't understand if Apple wants to get into the entertainment business that could very easily be done by buying one of entertainment like universal and few others.
Dr. Dre will mentor Jony on hip designs (he'll need some cash since he won't be the first Billionaire Hip Hop) and Jimmy will teach Tim how to dress hip and shave his head. We're going to be hip boys!
Comments
Well, not all..
This fool, along with many other trolls, jumped on the fact that there are some legitimate doubts about this deal to endlessly, and prematurely criticize Tim and Apple. BTW, how did the term "haters" come into popular use?
Anyway, amongst the legitimate questions posed, most of the opposition to this deal has been little more than foot stamping. After the initial shock of the deal, buying Beats makes a lot of sense. For one, Apple has given no indications that it makes bad acquisitions, but for the doubting Thomas's out there:
1) There is very little financial risk, with $1.3B and growing revenue in 2013, Ireland tax breaks, and now the price is reduced by $0.2B.
2) Dealing with musicians is not in Apple's core competency. The potential for an iTunes music label is huge; the popularity and growth of iTunes festival is the tip of the iceberg. Even the threat of a label can give Apple huge leverage on negotiations with labels, particularly if Apple is trying to get a streaming service off the ground.
3) Curation and music AI. Curation is also not a core Apple competency, as can be seen with the stale state of iTunes, a huge inconsistency for a company that is so amazing at intersecting humanities with technology in consumer electronics. It seems Beats has a great creative team of over 150 people in charge of Beats Music, led by Iovine, Dre, and Trent Reznor. Algorithms are not enough, just like with Siri, the key is to combine algorithms and human curation.
4) There is a lot of appeal to Beats headphones, which are reportedly attuned to mimicking the experience of live music, not perfectly accurate music reproduction (as Dick Applebaum discussed in a previous thread). This is the experience that the majority of consumers are looking for.
Apple should strive to be the clear leader in music. More and more music is being commoditized and consumed for free, the trend is clear. Radio apps, soundcloud, and youtube are providing viable alternatives to buying music. Apple should do more than just present songs in iTunes as a utility. Music curation allows Apple to provide compelling value over algorithms and free streaming. Apple is once again in the position to save the music industry from itself.
"Adding to the never-ending stream of scuttlebutt surrounding Apple's hyped buyout of Beats Electronics, a report on Tuesday claims the terms of the supposed acquisition have dropped to $3 billion and will be announced this week."
I think the article meant to say, "... dropped by $3 billion..." har!
"While some have speculated that Apple's interest lies in rolling Beats Music into its iTunes Radio streaming service, sources say this is not the case."
But...
"Apple doesn't have a streaming music business so it would be a nice instant get, but the hardware is the profitable business," one person said.
Huh?
There seems to be a weird disconnect with many people, not just this article, as to what is a streaming service. That term gets used in the exact same way without qualification when it means a streaming radio-like service and when it's a streaming music rental service where you can pick and choose by song or album, skip and repeat as much as you please.
the new york post reports *what*, exactly? perhaps a complete sentence is in order?
what?
who writes this stuff? oh, right, a "staff" who can't be bothered to even proofread their own content before they post it for their readers to correct. gotta collect that paycheck and get those ad dollars, stat. it's sites like this that make me happy i use ad-blocking software.
Apple doesn't rush things.
Apple would rather lose the deal than rush things.
If it happens Apple will have bought a profitable company for three billion dollars which is about two times earnings, usually that is a good deal, certainly better than buying Nest, Twitter, Netflix, Whatsapp, or Instagram all of which make/made little to no profit at all despite their big price tags.
Only Apple can be DOOMED for buying a apparently profitable company?
Seriously Apple and Beats sound like a fine match, Dr Dre regardless of the colour of his skin, stays hungry, not content to sit on the laurels of his rather successful music career, set about to change the world.
Beats is one of the hottest brands out there.
Stay hungry, inject something new, stick your middle finger up at all the white middle aged white men who whine that Tim Cook ain't doing enough, ain't flashy enough, ain't innovating enough.
It's confirmed. Tim Cook really is the next Steve Ballmer. The man simply has no vision. Buying crappy headphones and sh*tty streaming app? Damn! I lost all respect for the man. Time to turn in my Apple fanboy card.
Wait, you have an Apple fanboy card? Damn! I lost all respect for you man.
There's a few obvious issues with the rumor - why would apple make an offer and than undercut them self later, no company would do this especially apple. 2nd, why does apple need to buy a hardware company when they know how to make hardware better than anyone? They make computer chips........ And computers...... Headphones would be nothing in comparison. It's be like putting two soup cans together with a string. They probably don't give a crap about the dr Dre brand either. 3rd apple hasn't ever bought name brand companies. Why start with a brand known for being hyped up?
This move will devalue apple brand, and apple going after this deal with some vague idea of making streaming a huge business within apple is wrong. That business value is going to be negligible when compared to the whole iPhone business.
Let others build the streaming service and let them fight it out in the market place. It looks like MAPs fiasco all over again.
But...
http://dashburst.com/itunes-radio-more-popular-spotify/
Huh?
I read about the history of Beats headphones in an article on Gizmodo that was written last year, long before any of the current rumors appeared, and it was all about the dealings of Beats and Monster, who designed and made the headphones for a long time, and the whole read was pretty damn shady if you ask me.
I don't know what planet a few people are living on, those who claim that Beats and Apple are on the same level. I have to assume that it's due to ignorance on their part, and in that case they shouldn't blindly be defending a company that they know very little of.
And I think that it's a poor idea for Apple to be buying a brand name, I can't recall them ever doing that before, and especially not a brand name that has the potential to tarnish Apple's own brand. Is Apple's own name not good enough anymore? I can't think of a better brand name than the one that Apple currently has.
I'm pretty sure that Apple's own brand name is viewed very favorably by virtually all Apple users and I'm pretty sure that Beat's brand name is viewed favorably by a far lesser percentage of Apple users. Unless there are some hidden details that have not yet been revealed, this whole deal still sounds completely insane. Beats are heavily marketed fashion headphones, and fashion can be highly polarizing. There are those who like it, and there are those who hate it. Apple's own brand has a far wider reaching audience, so it makes stupid business sense to want a brand that appeals to less people, while possibly hurting your own brand at the same time.
To sum things up, there had better not be any damn Beats logo on any future Apple hardware that I will be buying. If that happens, then Apple will have truly jumped the shark. If I wanted anything to do with Beats, then I would have bought a damn Android phone a few years ago.
Of course the headphone line is of interest. Beats are one of the best selling headphone brands and have high margins. Why wouldn't Apple want them? Some say that Beats headphones are overpriced for what you get, but a lot of people say that about Apple products too. Ask people who spent $150-250 on a pair of Beats headphones if they're happy with their purchase and I'd imagine that most are more then happy with them.
Yeah, that's what all the Apple haters are saying. Apple and Beats is a perfect match, because they both sell overpriced products to sheep. I also notice that quite a few Apple haters, not just on this forum, but across the net, are mysteriously in favor of this deal. That ought to make anybody suspicious.
I never thought that Apple would lower itself to this level, because it's not just about the money. There are plenty of profitable companies around that Apple can snap up, if they wanted to.
I buy and use Apple computers and devices because they're the best around. If this Beats deal is indeed real, then I guess that I will have to stay far away from any Apple or Beats headphones in the future if they merge, as they are not on the same level that Apples' computers and devices are, and I am disappointed that Apple would buy such a company that is not known for being the best. I don't give a crap about how many weird looking people buy their headphones. Plenty of people buy Android phones too, and Beats was actually a part of certain Android phones for a long time. I thought that Apple was only interested in perfection and the best, but maybe that has changed.
We still need to hear the details about this deal of course, and what exactly it means for Apple, but I was skeptical when I first heard about this deal, and I remain skeptical.
That's the weird thing about this. Don't we expect real high-end anymore ? Lower middle class performance is not worth chasing. Not in line with what we expect from Apple. It needs to be the BEST, not just one of the flock.
Yeah. I hate that too. Apple clearly have a streaming service. Clearly. That said its only in a few countries. Maybe that's the issue? Send Dre and Iovine to sell iTunes Radio elsewhere. The rollout of that service has been a disaster.
Apple could buy any number of profitable companies. It could get into real estate. Buy some supermarket chain. Or buy an oil refinery. Until now it has bought technology companies for their technology not profitable companies to keep the brand. All of the non profit making companies you listed are good technology companies. Beats isn't.
I don't understand if Apple wants to get into the entertainment business that could very easily be done by buying one of entertainment like universal and few others.
Dr. Dre will mentor Jony on hip designs (he'll need some cash since he won't be the first Billionaire Hip Hop) and Jimmy will teach Tim how to dress hip and shave his head. We're going to be hip boys!