Keep in mind that revenue does not include Beats Music and most of their acquisitions don't have any significant revenue or built in customers that aren't already buying apple gear already.
Keep in mind that revenue does not equal profit. People who keep saying Apple will make its $3b back in two years because beats revenue is $1.5b are absolutely clueless. Yes- if they had no payroll, marketing, research, packaging, or materials costs- you're right. And that $1.4estimated revenue didn't include beats music- which is absolutely not profitable yet. 100k members- 98k are "paying" since Jan- but id guess a large chunk of that is via the free promotions cell providers were offering or free with headphone purchases. But for fun, let's say it's 100% of that 98k that is paying $10/month. You're talking less than $5 mil in revenue this year since the service started January. Were the studio deals free? Advertising? Was there no software development costs? Is there no staff? Beats music is in the red still- by a healthy margin.
I've said it a million times but you baristas can't wrap your heads around it. Revenue doesn't determine the value of a company. Ever.
Everyone needs to get off the headphones. That was clearly just a little icing on the cake. It's profitable, sure- but apple really could give a rat about the peripheral business. Been there, done that, and unsuccessfully might I add.
It's crystal clear now with Cook's comments it was a 2 person aqui-hire which I think will be good for Apple- and music streamer that is apparently smarter than the others. Apple views those as worth $3b. So I'll be eagerly anticipating to see what they do with those. Like island hermit and solip said earlier- $3b is nothing in overall cost for a company apples size, so no biggie.
As far as the headphones, I see that going the way of FileMaker (which I use for my companies and love)- out of sight out of mind- just let them do their thing.
Tim Cook confirmed for one of the worst CEOs in Apple's history. He will go down like Ballmer. It won't be long before he starts throwing chairs around as their competitors start eating into their revenue more and more.
He bought two people for $3 billion dollars? What a complete tool!
Believe it or not, Apple executives are quite a bit smarter than you. Cook especially, whose talent made SJ choose him as CEO, and under him Apple has had more success than anytime in its history.
Okay apple paid 3 billion for beats. If beats sales is 1.5 it will take longer than 2 years to pay for the deal. 1.5 billion is not profit it's total sales.
That's true. If they used Beats' profits it would take a few years to pay off the deal.
The crazy thing is... Apple can completely pay for this deal in only a month using their own profits.
Apple made $10 billion last quarter. With that kind of income... a $3 billion deal suddenly doesn't seem so bad!
Jimmy Iovine said at the Code conference that Apple makes headphones just to make sure the sound works on their phones. I'm sure Jony Ive appreciates that. And it's a bit rich for Iovine to be criticizing headphones when plenty of people hate Beats.
And Iovine also said he has a full plate with music and wouldn't dare get into TV. So all these people who said he was Apple's meal ticket to deals with content providers were just spewing BS.
Apple made $10 billion last quarter. With that kind of income... a $3 billion deal suddenly doesn't seem so bad!
If we use the engagement ring rule then Apple should pay 2 months salary which is over $6.7 billion for net earnings, but I think the rule is based on gross so we're talking over $30 billion to court Beats.
The more I listen to Jimmy and Eddy the more I get the sense Apple paid $3B for music curation. That's basically all they've talked about. Is music curation THAT important?
Okay apple paid 3 billion for beats. If beats sales is 1.5 it will take longer than 2 years to pay for the deal. 1.5 billion is not profit it's total sales.
That's true. If they used Beats' profits it would take a few years to pay off the deal.
The crazy thing is... Apple can completely pay for this deal in only a month using their own profits.
Apple made $10 billion last quarter. With that kind of income... a $3 billion deal suddenly doesn't seem so bad!
It is staggering. Can you imagine if someone suggested in 2001 that Apple would be making $10 billion a quarter? They'd have been laughed out of the room! Or that they would dwarf Microsoft in market cap? They've come a long way. And they're just getting started.
That said, I don't see streaming being profitable in its current state. There has to be something more. I will always want to own my music. A combined subscription/download service might work, but it would need to be very carefully applied.
If we use the engagement ring rule then Apple should pay 2 months salary which is over $6.7 billion for net earnings, but I think the rule is based on gross so we're talking over $30 billion to court Beats.
And you confirm yourself to be a pathetic, vile, despicable troll with every post that you make. Believe it or not, Apple executives are quite a bit smarter than you. Cook especially, whose talent made SJ choose him as CEO, and under him Apple has had more success than anytime in its history. You? You're just a useless dipshit.
Compare Tim Cook with this guy-->
The smartest thing he ever did was hire the guy who forced him out.
I don't see streaming being profitable in its current state. There has to be something more.
I believe there is something more with regards to streaming.
Beats Audio may become profitable for Apple. Or it may not. But I don't think that's Apple's primary concern... selling high-margin iPhones and iPads is.
On the other hand... Spotify absolutely NEEDS their streaming service to be profitable... it's all they do. Pandora too.
I'm guessing Apple will use Beats Audio as a value-add to sell more hardware products. If they happen to make money with it... that will be a nice bonus.
Believe it or not, Apple executives are quite a bit smarter than you. Cook especially, whose talent made SJ choose him as CEO, and under him Apple has had more success than anytime in its history.
facts and figures dont matter to people whos opinions are colored by their racism. Remember ignorance is the corner stone of racism. Facts wont matter.
facts and figures dont matter to people whos opinions are colored by their racism. Remember ignorance is the corner stone of racism. Facts wont matter.
Remember Dr. Blank's posts where he was convinced that rap music isn't "real" music and then called Dr. Dre a thug as proof that it's not. I don't see how making that leap is anything other than racism.
Remember Dr. Blank's posts where he was convinced that rap music isn't "real" music and then called Dr. Dre a thug as proof that it's not. I don't see how making that leap is anything other than racism.
Oh, I don't know... Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps he just doesn't like rap. I used to listen to rap in the 80s and 90s but I generally avoid it now. That doesn't make me a racist. My tastes have changed.
Comments
Keep in mind that revenue does not equal profit. People who keep saying Apple will make its $3b back in two years because beats revenue is $1.5b are absolutely clueless. Yes- if they had no payroll, marketing, research, packaging, or materials costs- you're right. And that $1.4 estimated revenue didn't include beats music- which is absolutely not profitable yet. 100k members- 98k are "paying" since Jan- but id guess a large chunk of that is via the free promotions cell providers were offering or free with headphone purchases. But for fun, let's say it's 100% of that 98k that is paying $10/month. You're talking less than $5 mil in revenue this year since the service started January. Were the studio deals free? Advertising? Was there no software development costs? Is there no staff? Beats music is in the red still- by a healthy margin.
I've said it a million times but you baristas can't wrap your heads around it. Revenue doesn't determine the value of a company. Ever.
Everyone needs to get off the headphones. That was clearly just a little icing on the cake. It's profitable, sure- but apple really could give a rat about the peripheral business. Been there, done that, and unsuccessfully might I add.
It's crystal clear now with Cook's comments it was a 2 person aqui-hire which I think will be good for Apple- and music streamer that is apparently smarter than the others. Apple views those as worth $3b. So I'll be eagerly anticipating to see what they do with those. Like island hermit and solip said earlier- $3b is nothing in overall cost for a company apples size, so no biggie.
As far as the headphones, I see that going the way of FileMaker (which I use for my companies and love)- out of sight out of mind- just let them do their thing.
Believe it or not, Apple executives are quite a bit smarter than you. Cook especially, whose talent made SJ choose him as CEO, and under him Apple has had more success than anytime in its history.
That's true. If they used Beats' profits it would take a few years to pay off the deal.
The crazy thing is... Apple can completely pay for this deal in only a month using their own profits.
Apple made $10 billion last quarter. With that kind of income... a $3 billion deal suddenly doesn't seem so bad!
And Iovine also said he has a full plate with music and wouldn't dare get into TV. So all these people who said he was Apple's meal ticket to deals with content providers were just spewing BS.
If we use the engagement ring rule then Apple should pay 2 months salary which is over $6.7 billion for net earnings, but I think the rule is based on gross so we're talking over $30 billion to court Beats.
I'm going to defy this purchase by using my EarPods even more now.
It is staggering. Can you imagine if someone suggested in 2001 that Apple would be making $10 billion a quarter? They'd have been laughed out of the room! Or that they would dwarf Microsoft in market cap? They've come a long way. And they're just getting started.
That said, I don't see streaming being profitable in its current state. There has to be something more. I will always want to own my music. A combined subscription/download service might work, but it would need to be very carefully applied.
Damn... then Apple got a relative bargain!
And you confirm yourself to be a pathetic, vile, despicable troll with every post that you make. Believe it or not, Apple executives are quite a bit smarter than you. Cook especially, whose talent made SJ choose him as CEO, and under him Apple has had more success than anytime in its history. You? You're just a useless dipshit.
Compare Tim Cook with this guy-->
The smartest thing he ever did was hire the guy who forced him out.
I believe there is something more with regards to streaming.
Beats Audio may become profitable for Apple. Or it may not. But I don't think that's Apple's primary concern... selling high-margin iPhones and iPads is.
On the other hand... Spotify absolutely NEEDS their streaming service to be profitable... it's all they do. Pandora too.
I'm guessing Apple will use Beats Audio as a value-add to sell more hardware products. If they happen to make money with it... that will be a nice bonus.
Fools!
What has "race" got to do with anything?
Remember Dr. Blank's posts where he was convinced that rap music isn't "real" music and then called Dr. Dre a thug as proof that it's not. I don't see how making that leap is anything other than racism.
Oh, I don't know... Maybe, maybe not. Perhaps he just doesn't like rap. I used to listen to rap in the 80s and 90s but I generally avoid it now. That doesn't make me a racist. My tastes have changed.