And lets get real. Without Dre/Jimmy Beats would be NOTHING. Beats is all about style and marketing. And without Dre/Jimmy there would be no flash to those headphones.
Exactly. And why Apple buying it was a waste of $3B. Apple doesn't need to spend money on style and marketing.
Monster really did screw this one up themselves. Smart for them to wait on the suit until Beats was backed by some money, but it doesn't sound like they have any ground to stand on.
Monster complaining about a "sham" could be the most ironic thing I'll read all year.
I have to agree,
Years back when I was researching audio cable for my home I ran across an article written by a retired audio engineer from one of the big names in speakers and stereo equipment. He brought me back to my basic electronics background and how any copper wire will work for audio. Unless you pushing more then 1500 watts per speaker your basic 14 or 12 gauge stranded copper wire will work. The wire has no influence the fidelity of the sound copper properties do not change from DC to 20KHz. Not until you get into the high MHZ and GHz does copper properties begin to change.
He recommendation was to get any pure stranded copper wire and you did not need the fancy gold connectors and it will be fine. He also said when he worked for the big name stereo equipment company they were told not to comment publicly about other companies speaker wire products (hint Monster). It appears that Monster brought law suites against any stereo company manufacture who made any statement that Monster products were no better than any copper wire you could buy at fraction of the cost.
The Apple Watch is being touted by Cook as fashionable.
Fashion is fickle.
Are you being paid to generate negative comments about Apple watch or something? I think that's a dozen or so similar comments I've read in the past couple of days. You don't like it, we get it, get over it and stop derailing unrelated threads.
As for the topic at hand, as someone else stated, it sounds like sour grapes from Mr. Lee because he sold his stake in Beats before the Apple acquisition. Monster makes overpriced cables that are literally forced upon you by salesmen who are looking to top up their commission on the TV or stereo you just bought, so I have no love for them.
Exactly. And why Apple buying it was a waste of $3B. Apple doesn't need to spend money on style and marketing.
Yes, and now Apple has got to pay for their legal affairs as well. It appears Beats didn't engineer their products ... the voguish Beats headphones are actually a lame white-product with a gangsta bass.
Slightly off-point, I know. I got the Beats Studio Wireless headphones for Christmas (a very classy looking titanium). Although a tad bulky, it is outstanding, overall. Best headphones I've owned (and I've covered the gamut).
The clueless people here who dump on Beats can go suck on a lemon.
(Add: I also got the B&O portable bluetooth speaker -- I still can't quite believe the sound quality from the small darn thing.)
The value in Beats is the athsetic design and marketing
Yes, as Rogifan mentioned before: this is something Apple already got in abundance.
And now, it appears Beats does not know how to engineer audio hardware. They asked Monster to do their homework. Seriously, I really cannot see the Three Billion Value here.
Yes, I am not an Apple Insider. I recommend you reading noivad's post. It gives you great background information:
Quote:
Originally Posted by noivad
I never thought this would see the light of day. I heard about this years ago, before Beats became a household name. I heard about the story of the development of the Beats from a sound engineer at a AES show when I commented to him about the lackluster fidelity of Beats. He told me that Monster did do the engineering on the Beats, but they failed to meet some sort of sales quota in a clause that was needed for Dre%u2019s to endorse them. The unit sell-through quota was beyond what could be met, and the rights to the name and product fell into Iovine & Dre%u2019s control.
The main point of his story was that Dre insisted on the change to the frequency response to favor bass which destroyed the clarity and high end nature of the original monster concept of the product leaving the shell looking high-end but sounding low end (pun not intended).
The engineer said Monster had been cheated. But still, someone at Monster thought it was a sure things, and Monster did sign the contract with that rights clause. It was obvious that Monster overvalued Dre%u2019s name as a selling feature.
Now Monster is back with their own version of headphones, which I imagine sound better (I haven%u2019t heard them yet), and probably would have had the Beat%u2019s name if they had met the sales quotas, and might not belong to Apple.
Was Monster cheated? Yes. But was their loss a possible outcome in the legal contract they signed? Yes. Unfortunately, sour grapes hold no weight in court, and what the losing side calls %u201Ccheating,%u201D the other side calls good business sense.
I imagine the only reason Lee is suing now is because Beats was sold to Apple, which is a larger cash cow than Beats ever was. Before the sale to Apple Beats%u2019 profitability was in doubt, and had only its brand name to ride on. Although Beats marketing has been a hit, which once again (see Windows 95&98, Office 2007, etc.) proves that you CAN dress up a turd & call it high-end or art or fashion, or whatever.
I recommend you reading noivad's post. It gives you great background information:
Yup, that post pretty much reads like the Gizmodo article linked above. As he said "sour grapes hold no weight in court". They signed a bad contract out of desperation and inevitably ended up on the losing side.
As to the original point: even if Beats never had the in-house audio engineering chops, they certainly have access to it now via Apple. Apple essentially bought a brand with a dedicated following that I doubt they themselves would be able to build. Worth 3B? Hard to say right now, but bringing that following over to related services (music streaming, etc) might very well be.
This coming from the company who claims no product in any category and regardless of date of origin may use the word Monster. They probably spent more time filing lawsuits over mini golf and muffin companies over the word than any R & D, as if they could in a million years prove they caused confusion with their product. Telling the Boston Red Sox they can't refer to their legendary Green Monster left field wall in their merch? Seriously?
Their frivolous and abusive lawsuits are legendary. This is just another.
Monster complaining about a "sham" could be the most ironic thing I'll read all year.
My thoughts exactly. It's hard to imagine a less scrupulous company in the world of audio equipment. Monster is known primarily for pawning gold plated cables to suckers at insanely high prices which have been proven to offer zero benefits over cables costing less than $10.
A friend of mine worked in a warehouse for a few years where one of the clients was Monster. Shipments of unbranded bulk cables and other items would come in from China and the workers would have to repackage them as Monster brand. That should tell you everything you need to know about Monster, as if their ridiculous lawsuits and other scummy business practices weren't enough.
Amazing. Monster must be getting desperate. Maybe people have finally stopped buying their overpriced, crappy cables. Can't stand Monster. Apple cables are a rip-off too, but at least they're high quality.
Comments
Exactly. And why Apple buying it was a waste of $3B. Apple doesn't need to spend money on style and marketing.
High quality cables are only effective in distances of over 100ft. One can get the same quality with lower priced cables.
Your products are all over-priced scams. HDMI cabled for $100-$200?
I was thinking the same thing regarding the least durable $0.50 cables made: $20 Apple Lightning
Monster really did screw this one up themselves. Smart for them to wait on the suit until Beats was backed by some money, but it doesn't sound like they have any ground to stand on.
This is a pretty good article from (surprisingly) Gizmodo on the history: http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world
Monster complaining about a "sham" could be the most ironic thing I'll read all year.
I have to agree,
Years back when I was researching audio cable for my home I ran across an article written by a retired audio engineer from one of the big names in speakers and stereo equipment. He brought me back to my basic electronics background and how any copper wire will work for audio. Unless you pushing more then 1500 watts per speaker your basic 14 or 12 gauge stranded copper wire will work. The wire has no influence the fidelity of the sound copper properties do not change from DC to 20KHz. Not until you get into the high MHZ and GHz does copper properties begin to change.
He recommendation was to get any pure stranded copper wire and you did not need the fancy gold connectors and it will be fine. He also said when he worked for the big name stereo equipment company they were told not to comment publicly about other companies speaker wire products (hint Monster). It appears that Monster brought law suites against any stereo company manufacture who made any statement that Monster products were no better than any copper wire you could buy at fraction of the cost.
Beats headphones are currently fashionable.
The Apple Watch is being touted by Cook as fashionable.
Fashion is fickle.
Are you being paid to generate negative comments about Apple watch or something? I think that's a dozen or so similar comments I've read in the past couple of days. You don't like it, we get it, get over it and stop derailing unrelated threads.
As for the topic at hand, as someone else stated, it sounds like sour grapes from Mr. Lee because he sold his stake in Beats before the Apple acquisition. Monster makes overpriced cables that are literally forced upon you by salesmen who are looking to top up their commission on the TV or stereo you just bought, so I have no love for them.
The easiest way to tell if Beats copied Monster: If the price of a replacement cable is more than the headphones themselves.
Exactly. And why Apple buying it was a waste of $3B. Apple doesn't need to spend money on style and marketing.
Yes, and now Apple has got to pay for their legal affairs as well. It appears Beats didn't engineer their products ... the voguish Beats headphones are actually a lame white-product with a gangsta bass.
Slightly off-point, I know. I got the Beats Studio Wireless headphones for Christmas (a very classy looking titanium). Although a tad bulky, it is outstanding, overall. Best headphones I've owned (and I've covered the gamut).
The clueless people here who dump on Beats can go suck on a lemon.
(Add: I also got the B&O portable bluetooth speaker -- I still can't quite believe the sound quality from the small darn thing.)
most who bash Beats here have never used the product.
...or they've checked it out in a store-type setting where it's really difficult to tell.
I do have to say that the new Bluetooth Studio is significantly better than the two older Beats (wired headphones) the kids have.
The value in Beats is the athsetic design and marketing
Yes, as Rogifan mentioned before: this is something Apple already got in abundance.
And now, it appears Beats does not know how to engineer audio hardware. They asked Monster to do their homework. Seriously, I really cannot see the Three Billion Value here.
I've got some helpful news for you: Settings --> Music --> EQ --> Bass Reducer.
You're welcome.
I'm just wondering:
Could this turn of events relate to Iovine's quote of "backstabbing people" a few weeks ago?
Was he already referring to the pending Monster lawsuit?
You have incomplete information.
Yes, I am not an Apple Insider. I recommend you reading noivad's post. It gives you great background information:
I never thought this would see the light of day. I heard about this years ago, before Beats became a household name. I heard about the story of the development of the Beats from a sound engineer at a AES show when I commented to him about the lackluster fidelity of Beats. He told me that Monster did do the engineering on the Beats, but they failed to meet some sort of sales quota in a clause that was needed for Dre%u2019s to endorse them. The unit sell-through quota was beyond what could be met, and the rights to the name and product fell into Iovine & Dre%u2019s control.
The main point of his story was that Dre insisted on the change to the frequency response to favor bass which destroyed the clarity and high end nature of the original monster concept of the product leaving the shell looking high-end but sounding low end (pun not intended).
The engineer said Monster had been cheated. But still, someone at Monster thought it was a sure things, and Monster did sign the contract with that rights clause. It was obvious that Monster overvalued Dre%u2019s name as a selling feature.
Now Monster is back with their own version of headphones, which I imagine sound better (I haven%u2019t heard them yet), and probably would have had the Beat%u2019s name if they had met the sales quotas, and might not belong to Apple.
Was Monster cheated? Yes. But was their loss a possible outcome in the legal contract they signed? Yes. Unfortunately, sour grapes hold no weight in court, and what the losing side calls %u201Ccheating,%u201D the other side calls good business sense.
I imagine the only reason Lee is suing now is because Beats was sold to Apple, which is a larger cash cow than Beats ever was. Before the sale to Apple Beats%u2019 profitability was in doubt, and had only its brand name to ride on. Although Beats marketing has been a hit, which once again (see Windows 95&98, Office 2007, etc.) proves that you CAN dress up a turd & call it high-end or art or fashion, or whatever.
I recommend you reading noivad's post. It gives you great background information:
Yup, that post pretty much reads like the Gizmodo article linked above. As he said "sour grapes hold no weight in court". They signed a bad contract out of desperation and inevitably ended up on the losing side.
As to the original point: even if Beats never had the in-house audio engineering chops, they certainly have access to it now via Apple. Apple essentially bought a brand with a dedicated following that I doubt they themselves would be able to build. Worth 3B? Hard to say right now, but bringing that following over to related services (music streaming, etc) might very well be.
This coming from the company who claims no product in any category and regardless of date of origin may use the word Monster. They probably spent more time filing lawsuits over mini golf and muffin companies over the word than any R & D, as if they could in a million years prove they caused confusion with their product. Telling the Boston Red Sox they can't refer to their legendary Green Monster left field wall in their merch? Seriously?
Their frivolous and abusive lawsuits are legendary. This is just another.
http://www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/HallOfShame/MonsterCable/MonsterCable.shtml
Monster complaining about a "sham" could be the most ironic thing I'll read all year.
My thoughts exactly. It's hard to imagine a less scrupulous company in the world of audio equipment. Monster is known primarily for pawning gold plated cables to suckers at insanely high prices which have been proven to offer zero benefits over cables costing less than $10.
A friend of mine worked in a warehouse for a few years where one of the clients was Monster. Shipments of unbranded bulk cables and other items would come in from China and the workers would have to repackage them as Monster brand. That should tell you everything you need to know about Monster, as if their ridiculous lawsuits and other scummy business practices weren't enough.
Amazing. Monster must be getting desperate. Maybe people have finally stopped buying their overpriced, crappy cables. Can't stand Monster. Apple cables are a rip-off too, but at least they're high quality.
Then how are they a rip-off?