Wall Street warming up to $3B Apple-Beats deal, sees potential to offset declining iTunes revenue



  • Reply 81 of 95
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 20,401member
    Originally Posted by mesomorphicman View Post


    Some people here are funny... "I don't like Beats headphones - they're cheap and stink, therefore this is a horrible deal! They should buy the headphones I personally use." Good thing you don't run a billion dollar company if that's your rationale, to only invest in what you personally like, eff the public majority or the companies assets.

    Spot on. (Sounds like the arguments -- ironically -- that most Androiders make on Apple sites about why/how their products are superior!)


    Audiophiles making a big deal about headphone quality listening to lossy MP3/AAC music on their iDevices are simply revealing their aural snobbery. You just can't tell the difference at that level of sound quality. Moreover, for those who complain about the excessive bass on Beats, I've wondered, why don't they simply choose the 'Bass Reducer' option under EQ?!

  • Reply 82 of 95
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Stock is up 2% today.

    Stock is up $12,000,000,000 today.

    Much more than the Beats sale price. Wow.
    Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 are all up today. Netflix is up over 3%, Amazon over 1%. Only company down today (and not by much is Google). I wouldn't read much into the stock right now. And since Cur said Apple's pipeline is the best he's seen in 25 years Wall Street will be expecting a lot on Monday. Eddy just set the bar very high.
  • Reply 83 of 95
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

    Dow, Nasdaq and S&P 500 are all up today. Netflix is up over 3%, Amazon over 1%. Only company down today (and not by much is Google). I wouldn't read much into the stock right now. And since Cur said Apple's pipeline is the best he's seen in 25 years Wall Street will be expecting a lot on Monday. Eddy just set the bar very high.


    I kind of suspected the entire market was up again.

  • Reply 84 of 95
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Oh please what a load of BS. This has nothing to do with class or race. And going downmarket doesn't mean making cheap crap. Apple products have a certain design language. Maybe Ive can use the Beats brand as a whole other design language. Think back to colored iMacs and iPods. Use Beats as a brand where the designers can have more fun, be more expressive. And yes, perhaps create a line of products that are less expensive. These new inexpensive Motorola phones are actually getting good reviews. I think Ive and the hardware engineering team could absolutely create a really nice $350 off contract 5C style smartphone that would be a gateway into the iOS ecosystem. Use Beats as the brand for this. Coordinate the design with Beats headphones and hand it off to Angela Anrendts to make everyone who walks by an Apple store want to stop in and see it. And hand it off to Schiller to make sure it gets prime advertising. And it doesn't just have to be phones. This could includes iPods, speakers wearables, etc. This wouldn't be Apple just trying to buy cool but creating their own new cool and increasing traffic into Apple stores.

    Good, you changed your language. It makes all the difference. I agree completely with what you say here, except for the first sentence, where you respond to my objections to your original language.
  • Reply 85 of 95
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    tt92618 wrote: »
    I just can't wrap my head around the decision to maintain the beats brand.  People are virtually ignoring the enormous sea change that this represents for Apple.  A year ago, Cook consolidated product development for software and hardware and put both under Ive.  And at the time, the reason given was that he wanted to ensure that every product Apple builds works together seamlessly across all aspects of the human interface, with the same attention to detail and design thoughtfulness that the hardware has.

    Now flash forward a year, and Apple has not only acquired an entire brand, they plan to continue to operate that brand, which is for Apple a gigantic change in and of itself.  And even more interesting, they aren't putting the hardware or software design for this entirely new brand under Ive, they are putting it under Phil Schiller, a marketing guy.

    So, we have two dueling realities.  One is the reality where Apple is fanatical to detail and to anything that may sully its brand, and where they have vested tremendous power over the design of their products in just one individual, ostensibly all in service of protecting the core design centric ethos of the company.  And then we have this entirely separate reality, where not only is Apple's brand irrelevant, they have completely sidestepped the authority over design that is pervasive in the core brand.

    What is up with that?

    Everyone is talking about the streaming music app, the headphones, Jimmy Iovine, etc. and trying to make sense of this from the perspective of revenue.  But people seem to be ignoring the fundamental nature of the change in Apple's business practice that this acquisition represents.  This is a significant departure for Apple from the fundamental nature of how they have run their business.  And I don't think that change can be properly understood by framing it with arguments about talent acquisition, digital rights, streaming music, or any of that.  Either this represents a highly strategic move which will see Apple heavily leverage the Beats brand going forward... or it is an enormous mistake.

    Honestly I'm not really sure which this is at this point - genius or disaster.  But I cannot believe that Apple would make these very significant changes to the core of how they do business just to get at some headphones and a streaming app.  There has to be much more to this picture.

    There IS more to this picture. Apple is buying and planning to develop a platform, not a brand.

    The platform is portable audio done as an environment that you wear. First isolating headphones to be worn out in the world, in the streets. Beats music provides the content for the platform. Simple, new, going to be very big.

    People say it's un-Apple to be buying a brand. True, but they're not, they're buying a platform. Apple has always been about platforms first, brands a distant second. They've always bought pieces of their own platforms, starting with their first microprocessors, now up to the Touch ID sensor for their coming mobile payments platform. Here they're buying a more finished, already marketed platform, aimed at a huge new market. People are choking on the socioeconomic details. Not surprising, I suppose, all too familiar, unfortunately.
  • Reply 86 of 95
    haggarhaggar Posts: 1,568member
    Originally Posted by delreyjones View Post


    I agree with you.  It seems to me that you really have to be able to "think different" to appreciate this deal.  Apple did it first, some of these analysts came along 2nd, and eventually there might even be a consensus amongst the AI commenters.  OK OK, maybe it was the drugs talking about that last one, but two out of three aint bad!  8-) 


    Seems like Apple did something that has even the most devout Apple defenders scrambling to rationalize it to themselves.  Apple made their decision.  Now it's every AI commenter's duty to defend it.

  • Reply 87 of 95
    heliahelia Posts: 170member
    Wall Street warming up to ... well I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.
  • Reply 88 of 95
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member

    Originally Posted by helia View Post

    Wall Street warming up to ... well I'm waiting for the other shoe to drop.


    Big Nike announcement?

  • Reply 89 of 95
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    We can't possibly know that. All we know is that Apple is doing many things outside its norm by 1) making a huge purchase (8x more than NeXT, which is the highest purchase we're aware of), 2) keeping an acquisition as a separate entity and jeeping the branding (the next closest thing looks to be Siri which only kept its name, and 3) going after a highly established product, not a start up that is unknown.

    But why is this inherently a bad thing? Thinking different isn't about doing the same thing over and over again in a niche manner; lets leave that to kids who express their "individuality" by all donning the same look and style. Thinking different was about thinking outside the box, and sometimes thinking outside the box means you need to think within in when you're history has been outside it (e.g.: Ender using a formation for his last battle against two armies).

    That said, this could be a relative failure for Apple like Ping and many other attempts by Apple but we have so little information as to what Apple's longterm plans are that we can't rule out that Apple is skating to where the puck will be by virtue of not being privy of what Apple knows and sees. At this point I don't think we should second guess Apple's ability to know better than we do.

    Then maybe it makes sense to wait and see what they have planned first. This deal didn't start overnight. They've probably been working on this for months. 

  • Reply 90 of 95
    adonissmuadonissmu Posts: 1,776member

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    I wonder when Apple is going to release their own sneaker line? 


    If grabbing money from urban people and people with darker complexions is the main goal here, according to certain defenders of this deal, then Apple should definitely make a sneaker line. Certain people will literally stab and kill for sneakers and trendy sneakers are a high profit, high margin business, and this is all about making money according to certain people, isn't it?


    I also have a hard time telling the difference between what certain defenders of this deal are saying and what Samsung trolls usually say, because the messages are both similar. Apple has lost their cool and they need to capture the youth market. I find that reasoning to be absurd, because when somebody is spouting Samsung propaganda, then that is not somebody who I can take seriously.


    I don't think that Apple has lost their cool at all, and I also don't think that Apple needs to pander to any certain markets. Just make the best devices and people will buy them.

    Are you really this ignorant?

  • Reply 91 of 95
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    Putting the Beats products under Schiller might only be temporary. It could be like a quarantine period where Apple decides if they can be integrated into Apple's existing design organization, or need to be kept separate permanently, or sold off. Integrating acquisitions can be disruptive and I think Apple's approach with Beats seeks to minimize the disruption to current development work.
  • Reply 92 of 95
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member
    Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post


    I am sure Apple has the data, and knows it well. What you (or I speculate) about this is irrelevant beyond compare.


    "I use Spotify.." therefore I know what dozens of millions of people are doing?! Wow, the arrogance (I've used that word in relation to your posts before) -- the silliness of generalizing about all of humanity from your one data point says it all for me.


    Spotify is great, but there are many things beyond the quality of the service that may have made one more or less desirable. It could be related to their content licensing terms, financial solvency, how well they would integrate (not talking about just 2 people), or many other things. I like their streaming service, but I don't know how it would have looked as a possible acquisition based solely on the quality of their streaming client.



    Originally Posted by AdonisSMU View Post


    Are you really this ignorant?

    I think he has fun with the rants. I get a laugh out of some of those posts, because reading them as text on a page brings to mind more of a caricature than a real person.

  • Reply 93 of 95
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,264member

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

    The Beats deal is "sitting on the puck."



    That is even better than 'skating to where the puck will be' because sitting on the puck means you can control where it will be!

  • Reply 94 of 95
    benjamin frostbenjamin frost Posts: 7,203member

    Originally Posted by Hans01 View Post


    There is absolutely no downside. It's like me spending $3. If they shutter Beats tomorrow it won't hurt Apple. I'm optimistic that good can come of the acquisition. The vast majority of analysts agree...for what that's worth.

    If it's like you spending $3, then you are worth less than $600. I imagine that even the poorest of those who frequent this site are worth a few thousand dollars.

Sign In or Register to comment.