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?!
sog35 wrote: »
Stock is up 2% today.
Stock is up $12,000,000,000 today.
Much more than the Beats sale price. Wow.
I kind of suspected the entire market was up again.
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.
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.
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!
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.
Big Nike announcement?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.