I'm not completely opposed to this acquisition, even though I'm not to keen on it either. It's just the ridiculous amount of money they payed for it that bothers me (and others here apparently) this seems like it should of been a 300 million dollar purchase not a 3 billion dollar one!
If the rumours of Beats making over $300 million in net profits for 2013 alone, a single year, is accurate then how you can say that it should be valued at only $300 million.
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!
I'm not completely opposed to this acquisition, even though I'm not to keen on it either. It's just the ridiculous amount of money they payed for it that bothers me (and others here apparently) this seems like it should of been a 300 million dollar purchase not a 3 billion dollar one!
If the rumours of Beats making over $300 million in net profits for 2013 alone, a single year, is accurate then how you can say that it should be valued at only $300 million.
If remotely about the speakers, this is a rebuke of Jony Ive and his direct control over Apple's industrial design. Beats are the equivalent of extra chrome and neon lights on a Ford Taurus.
Tim to Apple employees today:
(emphasis mine)
Quote:
Beats Electronics has become the brand of choice for headphones and speakers in both the music and sports world, just five years after its launch. They are among the most popular and highest-rated third-party products sold today in Apple’s retail and online stores. We see an incredible opportunity to bring Apple’s legendary design and engineering capabilities to these popular products under Phil’s leadership.
Because Apple either already has all that or can get it fore much less.
Apple already has the most valuable brand in the world. They already make high quality high margin electronics that sell in high volume. They already have the largest music store in existence which puts them in a good position to negotiate with the record labels on their terms.
When I look at recent acquisitions in the tech industry I see Apples competitors spending billions on seemingly random companies while Apple has been spending mere millions augmenting itself with unique talent and cutting edge tech. Now all the sudden they are spending billions on a company, and I'm not seeing the potential that I do with the other acquisitions they have made at less than 1/10th the price.
The difference here is, this company actually makes real money and has two people that can help them in other ways. I believe buying a successful company for just two years of their revenue, and gaining the best streaming service, and accessories that your competitors try to use to make them seem cooler than you, is much better than spending the same money on a thermostat company that only makes $300 million a year. Or better yet, 12.8 billion on Motorola which hadn't made a profit in years. Many doubt Cook's judgement, but they refused to by nest for such a price because it didn't make sense and doesn't solve a problem that Apple has. They have been rumored to do a subscription service for years but they were being blocked by the label heads. Now the will negotiate with one of their own. Someone who already negotiated the terms Apple could not get.
Google buys robotics, self-driving cars, advanced AI that will create assistants like in movie "Her", life-extension technologies that will extend human lifespan, advanced drones/aeronautics companies that will bring internet to all parts of the world.. and Apple buys urban fashion accessories for $3 BILLION DOLLARS!
Let that sink in for a bit so you realize how completely rudderless Apple's leadership has become.
Congrats, You've earned a block! I will answer this though. If you have a rudder, you are moving in one general direction. If you're rudderless, you're just sitting trying to move in any direction you can. That sounds like Googs not Apple.
If this is Apple's strategy for growth going forward, will they basically buy up all of the high-end and currently popular accessories companies that make add-ons for Apple products?
Will they hire CEOs from Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios to build out a filmed entertainment division? Why not buy Disney next?
Beats music is an amazing service with 100s of employees. It would take a hell of a lot of time to build out that talent right there. This is a shortcut to that. And Apple are getting the Beats brand as a bonus, and Iovine who helped Apple get the iTunes deals inked in 2003. And Dre helped build this company too. I think you're overreacting.
As I've argued before if this is indeed the case, go ahead and make a low-end (but still profitable) phone to steal marketshare from Samsung. Slash Samsung's ankles while Apple has billions in the bank. Destroy them, then claim the entire low and high end markets... Hello? Beats phone, anyone?
Thankfully they're keeping it as a separate brand so Jony Ive doesn't have to waste his time on these silly headphones.
I hate to break it to you, but Ive will be redesigning the headphones and Apple engineers will be reengineering them. Tim just told Apple employees as mush today; it was posted over on 9to5Mac. The Beats brand is solid, now just up the quality and sound and you've the best of both words. Try creating a cool brand for headphones, that's a much harder problem.
So Tim Cook is saying that Apple can't do headphone design, negotiate deals or create an in house streaming service to match a company set up by two non techies and sold by HTC for peanuts a few years ago.
Nor has anybody explained why it didn't work out for HTC. I'd love to see Cook get grilled on this.
Beats music is an amazing service with 100s of employees. It would take a hell of a lot of time to build out that talent right there. This is a shortcut to that. And Apple are getting the Beats brand as a bonus, and Iovine who helped Apple get the iTunes deals inked in 2003. And Dre helped build this company too. I think you're overreacting.
Perhaps, although I think buying a large stake in Disney actually would be a good idea (no sarcasm).
Because Apple either already has all that or can get it fore much less.
Apple already has the most valuable brand in the world. They already make high quality high margin electronics that sell in high volume. They already have the largest music store in existence which puts them in a good position to negotiate with the record labels on their terms.
When I look at recent acquisitions in the tech industry I see Apples competitors spending billions on seemingly random companies while Apple has been spending mere millions augmenting itself with unique talent and cutting edge tech. Now all the sudden they are spending billions on a company, and I'm not seeing the potential that I do with the other acquisitions they have made at less than 1/10th the price.
The difference here is, this company actually makes real money and has two people that can help them in other ways. I believe buying a successful company for just two years of their revenue, and gaining the best streaming service, and accessories that your competitors try to use to make them seem cooler than you, is much better than spending the same money on a thermostat company that only makes $300 million a year. Or better yet, 12.8 billion on Motorola which hadn't made a profit in years. Many doubt Cook's judgement, but they refused to by nest for such a price because it didn't make sense and doesn't solve a problem that Apple has. They have been rumored to do a subscription service for years but they were being blocked by the label heads. Now the will negotiate with one of their own. Someone who already negotiated the terms Apple could not get.
Especially compared to the overpriced crap that Google and FB have been buying....
The HTC leadership must be kicking themselves. The company they sold for $300M a mere 2-3 years ago is worth so much more now. If only they has realised the potential.
Apple probably lost the "urban market" by not having big phones. But who cares? It's not a rich market nor is it important outside the US where apple are floundering.
It's bigger than you think and they spend lots of money. There is a reason Walmart so big. I don't even think it's just about that market per se. The urban market currently drives the future of the suburban market. Just like urban and hip hop music became pop music. They know they have to plug that hole because they don't need pop culture to start writing negative songs about them.
Comments
If the rumours of Beats making over $300 million in net profits for 2013 alone, a single year, is accurate then how you can say that it should be valued at only $300 million.
I could go on with the junky comments......
Give up, people. At this point, you're sounding like a bunch of
toolsfools.Because he's clueless, that's why.
If remotely about the speakers, this is a rebuke of Jony Ive and his direct control over Apple's industrial design. Beats are the equivalent of extra chrome and neon lights on a Ford Taurus.
Tim to Apple employees today:
(emphasis mine)
Tim to Apple employees today:
(emphasis mine)
We see an incredible opportunity to bring Apple’s legendary design and engineering capabilities to these popular products under Phil’s leadership.
I did not see that before. Thanks.
This is the End.
Of your visiting AI?
Yes!
Except for the "b" Beats is a total knock off itself.
The "b" is an earphone.
Ah crap, the THOUGHT POLICE have arrived.
Congrats, You've earned a block! I will answer this though. If you have a rudder, you are moving in one general direction. If you're rudderless, you're just sitting trying to move in any direction you can. That sounds like Googs not Apple.
If this is Apple's strategy for growth going forward, will they basically buy up all of the high-end and currently popular accessories companies that make add-ons for Apple products?
Will they hire CEOs from Warner Bros., Paramount Pictures, Universal Studios to build out a filmed entertainment division? Why not buy Disney next?
Beats music is an amazing service with 100s of employees. It would take a hell of a lot of time to build out that talent right there. This is a shortcut to that. And Apple are getting the Beats brand as a bonus, and Iovine who helped Apple get the iTunes deals inked in 2003. And Dre helped build this company too. I think you're overreacting.
Apple just entered the Android Music Market!
As I've argued before if this is indeed the case, go ahead and make a low-end (but still profitable) phone to steal marketshare from Samsung. Slash Samsung's ankles while Apple has billions in the bank. Destroy them, then claim the entire low and high end markets... Hello? Beats phone, anyone?
Thankfully they're keeping it as a separate brand so Jony Ive doesn't have to waste his time on these silly headphones.
I hate to break it to you, but Ive will be redesigning the headphones and Apple engineers will be reengineering them. Tim just told Apple employees as mush today; it was posted over on 9to5Mac. The Beats brand is solid, now just up the quality and sound and you've the best of both words. Try creating a cool brand for headphones, that's a much harder problem.
Oh gosh, I have no such pretensions.
I just prefer THOUGHT to KNEE-JERK, that's all.
Nor has anybody explained why it didn't work out for HTC. I'd love to see Cook get grilled on this.
Beats music is an amazing service with 100s of employees. It would take a hell of a lot of time to build out that talent right there. This is a shortcut to that. And Apple are getting the Beats brand as a bonus, and Iovine who helped Apple get the iTunes deals inked in 2003. And Dre helped build this company too. I think you're overreacting.
Perhaps, although I think buying a large stake in Disney actually would be a good idea (no sarcasm).
Especially compared to the overpriced crap that Google and FB have been buying....