They are not owned by Apple - the acquisition is still in progress. And that's not even why people are up in arms about it. It's odd that after all these years of being on the market, Bose has just NOW decided to sue Beats. Timing seems a little peculiar, don't you think?
Although I tend to think that Bose is attempting to drag Beats in court before the acquisition finalizes. They might fear that once Apple owns Beats, there won't be such a clear cut path to litigation, seeing how Apple itself holds many patents related to noise cancellation.
Sure I guess but I honestly don't care. We also dont have all of the facts, who knows, Bose might have contacted Beats a long time ago about this and was just ignored so they Bose had no other choice. We just don't know, what I do know is because the company in question is going after a soon to be Apple entity people here automatically call foul, are calling Bose slimy, crap products, blah, blah, always the same. Silly really, in the end who cares what billion dollar companies do to each other.
Uhhhh, I wouldn't call Beats "premium". Expensive, yes. Premium, no.
Pretty much this.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
I doubt any of those have any forward thinking technology or assets worth owning to Apple. Beats, for better or worse, did.
No they didn't.
Apple made a mistake buying Beats. They're getting nothing innovative out of the deal.
If Apple wanted good audio, they could have bought Sennheiser.
If Apple wanted streaming, they could have bought Pandora or Spotify - or just continued developing their own (superior to any of the others anyway) iTunes Radio service.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
I wish I knew someone with a pair. I don’t trust the cleanliness of the ears of the people who would try on a display model of Beats’ headphones. Or the cleanliness of the ears of people who would try on display headphones, for that matter.
I guess I’ll just trust that my Harman/Kardons have better sound and leave it at that. They do, by the way. I don’t even know about Beats’ lineup and my H/Ks do have better sound. They’re great. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Originally Posted by DarkVader
If Apple wanted streaming, they could have bought Pandora or Spotify...
Ah, but Momma Europe wouldn’t have let that happen.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
While I don't personally like the sound of Beats headphones and they do emphasize bass over high-end, which is one of the reasons I don't like them, tell me how Beats headphones compress the music. Is there a circuit in the headphones that compresses the music? I was really not aware of that. EDIT: Apparently there is.
And the fact is that there are plenty of very expensive headphones that don't sound very good. Beats is far from the only offender.
My theory is that Apple will not keep Beats headphones around for long.
Apple will spin off a subsidiary for perhaps a year to see which Beats employees they want to keep at Apple. That subsidiary can also deal with the Bose lawsuit.
Either Apple will come out with their own Apple-branded, dynamite, large Beats-like headphones, with their own technology, or they'll let the large Beats headphones just die. Not Apple quality.
Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine, in particular, and Dr. Dre... as well as their streaming music algorithms.
Apple could kill the b headphones... and not miss a Beats.
Apple made a mistake buying Beats. They're getting nothing innovative out of the deal.
If Apple wanted good audio, they could have bought Sennheiser.
If Apple wanted streaming, they could have bought Pandora or Spotify - or just continued developing their own (superior to any of the others anyway) iTunes Radio service.
You're missing the point, as good audio isn't a factor in any company's value. It's about making money with what they're buying. Sennheiser is a good example of a (privately held) company that won't be bought by any publicly held company any time soon much less Apple. No public company buys any audio company like Sennheiser, for a variety of reasons.
Same with Pandora and Spotify. For all one can point to Beats' streaming and say "why would they have any interest in that", there's nothing in Pandora or Spotify that's any more attractive to purchase.
Beats had something no one else had by a long shot, except maybe Tesla, and that is a person who can do what Jimmy Iovine does, which is create a "reality distortion field" reminiscent of Jobs' and a track record of windfalling hundreds of millions every few years.
My theory is that Apple will not keep Beats headphones around for long.
Apple will spin off a subsidiary for perhaps a year to see which Beats employees they want to keep at Apple. That subsidiary can also deal with the Bose lawsuit.
Either Apple will come out with their own Apple-branded, dynamite, large Beats-like headphones, with their own technology, or they'll let the large Beats headphones just die. Not Apple quality.
Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine, in particular, and Dr. Dre... as well as their streaming music algorithms.
Apple could kill the b headphones... and not miss a Beats.
You think Apple paid $2.5 billion for Beats Electronics and will kill it? No freaking way.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
The pair that I own (PowerBeats) don't seem to exhibit what you describe at all, then I use them almost every day they are way better than these which I also own (see picture in earlier comment.
Comments
Sure I guess but I honestly don't care. We also dont have all of the facts, who knows, Bose might have contacted Beats a long time ago about this and was just ignored so they Bose had no other choice. We just don't know, what I do know is because the company in question is going after a soon to be Apple entity people here automatically call foul, are calling Bose slimy, crap products, blah, blah, always the same. Silly really, in the end who cares what billion dollar companies do to each other.
Uhhhh, I wouldn't call Beats "premium". Expensive, yes. Premium, no.
Pretty much this.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
I doubt any of those have any forward thinking technology or assets worth owning to Apple. Beats, for better or worse, did.
No they didn't.
Apple made a mistake buying Beats. They're getting nothing innovative out of the deal.
If Apple wanted good audio, they could have bought Sennheiser.
If Apple wanted streaming, they could have bought Pandora or Spotify - or just continued developing their own (superior to any of the others anyway) iTunes Radio service.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
I wish I knew someone with a pair. I don’t trust the cleanliness of the ears of the people who would try on a display model of Beats’ headphones. Or the cleanliness of the ears of people who would try on display headphones, for that matter.
I guess I’ll just trust that my Harman/Kardons have better sound and leave it at that. They do, by the way. I don’t even know about Beats’ lineup and my H/Ks do have better sound. They’re great.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Ah, but Momma Europe wouldn’t have let that happen.
Pretty much this.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
While I don't personally like the sound of Beats headphones and they do emphasize bass over high-end, which is one of the reasons I don't like them, tell me how Beats headphones compress the music. Is there a circuit in the headphones that compresses the music? I was really not aware of that. EDIT: Apparently there is.
And the fact is that there are plenty of very expensive headphones that don't sound very good. Beats is far from the only offender.
Apple will spin off a subsidiary for perhaps a year to see which Beats employees they want to keep at Apple. That subsidiary can also deal with the Bose lawsuit.
Either Apple will come out with their own Apple-branded, dynamite, large Beats-like headphones, with their own technology, or they'll let the large Beats headphones just die. Not Apple quality.
Apple wanted Jimmy Iovine, in particular, and Dr. Dre... as well as their streaming music algorithms.
Apple could kill the b headphones... and not miss a Beats.
No they didn't.
Apple made a mistake buying Beats. They're getting nothing innovative out of the deal.
If Apple wanted good audio, they could have bought Sennheiser.
If Apple wanted streaming, they could have bought Pandora or Spotify - or just continued developing their own (superior to any of the others anyway) iTunes Radio service.
You're missing the point, as good audio isn't a factor in any company's value. It's about making money with what they're buying. Sennheiser is a good example of a (privately held) company that won't be bought by any publicly held company any time soon much less Apple. No public company buys any audio company like Sennheiser, for a variety of reasons.
Same with Pandora and Spotify. For all one can point to Beats' streaming and say "why would they have any interest in that", there's nothing in Pandora or Spotify that's any more attractive to purchase.
Beats had something no one else had by a long shot, except maybe Tesla, and that is a person who can do what Jimmy Iovine does, which is create a "reality distortion field" reminiscent of Jobs' and a track record of windfalling hundreds of millions every few years.
You think Apple paid $2.5 billion for Beats Electronics and will kill it? No freaking way.
Of course they will. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Pretty much this.
Beats headphones are expensive crap, there's nothing premium about muddy, overcompressed, bass-boosted audio - and that's what you get from Beats headphones.
The pair that I own (PowerBeats) don't seem to exhibit what you describe at all, then I use them almost every day they are way better than these which I also own (see picture in earlier comment.
Of course they will. Why would anyone think otherwise?
Yeah, I still haven't heard a convincing rationale for the purchase of Beats or especially the price paid.
My conclusion: Iovine is a heck of a salesman.
Beats has officially fallen behind the curve. Maybe this is why Apple bought them, to give them an $1,800 model.
Longhair Ethiopian sheep leather! Already a $600 Beats just doesn't have the same street cachet it did a month ago.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1015349-REG/ultrasone_edition_12_headphones_matte.html
Leather covers always get shredded by beard/sideburn stubble. I've yet to have a pair or headphones that resist tearing easily.