Beats was a political move and a cultural one, not a technological one.
1) Which issues of governance was Apple tackling when they bought Beats?
2) What culture are you talking about with a desire to get into a huge popular headphone company they had been selling in their stores for years? Are "people with ears" really a culture?
3) Despite all your comments, Beats was a brilliant move by Apple. To deny that it hasn't been hugely profitable with your "I think it's OK. Not great. Not horrible. A good business move in some ways" comment means you really have an innate hated for this "culture" you mention or Dr. Dre, or you just don't understand how successful the purchase has been, which seems unfathomable considering your read this website.
I think with 2) he means the rip-off and Dr. Dre beat(s) up culture.
You have literally no proof that AirPods and HomePod technology was borne out the Beats purchase. It's pure conjecture; Apple typically is developing technology for many years before it sees the light of day, and suggesting that they didn't have a capable audio team before Beats came on board is rubbish.
It's also worth noting that many audiophiles and tech reviewers have/had/and do pan Beats products for average or middling audio quality when compared to other brands.
This article is simply conjecture and seems to be another DED Apple love fest.
Everything you wrote was excessive fuming about nothing.
"the acquisition of Beats jumpstarted Apple's flatlined audio hardware ambitions. Whether that was due to an influx of Beats audio technicians or simply a strategic refocusing upon Apple Music as an ecosystem feature, sound reproduction at Apple has greatly improved across its product line since buying Beats."
Let me join the chorus of "What were you smoking when you wrote this?".
Regarding audio quality, Apple has always had a reputation of putting good DACs in their equipment. And their inclusion of SPDIF out through the 3.5mm jacks was a nice touch for truly pro-quality.
But if they really wanted audio technology, they should have bought Dolby, Meridian, or KLANG.
The state of equalization on Apple's products is pitiful. Every speaker, earbud, headphone, etc. has a different sonic signature - just like different monitors have different color profiles. If Apple really wanted to drive some interesting audio tech they'd push a way for speakers & the machine to negotiate a profile. And provide system-wide equalization controls like those provided by Boom.
Let me join the chorus of "What were you smoking when you wrote this?".
Regarding audio quality, Apple has always had a reputation of putting good DACs in their equipment. And their inclusion of SPDIF out through the 3.5mm jacks was a nice touch for truly pro-quality.
But if they really wanted audio technology, they should have bought Dolby, Meridian, or KLANG.
The state of equalization on Apple's products is pitiful. Every speaker, earbud, headphone, etc. has a different sonic signature - just like different monitors have different color profiles. If Apple really wanted to drive some interesting audio tech they'd push a way for speakers & the machine to negotiate a profile. And provide system-wide equalization controls like those provided by Boom.
This article was pure fantasy.
Your post is pure fantasy and has little to do with the realities of audio.
Why you would “let devices negotiate a profile”, rather than giving out completely neutral signal and building whatever compensation they might need directly into the output device is completely beyond me.
You want Apple to crap up their digital signal to compensate for badly designed output hardware? Why on Earth? If a speaker system has the logic built in to “negotiate for a profile”, it would be positively idiotic not to have that logic BE the profile. Way cheaper, equally effective, and above all, not Apple’s problem. Really.
The soundstaging by Klang looks interesting, but as long as Apple doesn’t even sell lossless downloads (and I’m not buying until they do), it’s ridiculous to suggest they purchase a hi-res audio distributor. Hi-res is way overrated, anyway.
edit: Oh, also - S/PDIF is only ever a “pro” format when it supports ADAT, which the consumer-grade lossy optical surround output on Macs never did.
Let me join the chorus of "What were you smoking when you wrote this?".
Regarding audio quality, Apple has always had a reputation of putting good DACs in their equipment. And their inclusion of SPDIF out through the 3.5mm jacks was a nice touch for truly pro-quality.
But if they really wanted audio technology, they should have bought Dolby, Meridian, or KLANG.
The state of equalization on Apple's products is pitiful. Every speaker, earbud, headphone, etc. has a different sonic signature - just like different monitors have different color profiles. If Apple really wanted to drive some interesting audio tech they'd push a way for speakers & the machine to negotiate a profile. And provide system-wide equalization controls like those provided by Boom.
This article was pure fantasy.
DACs and SPDIF relate to audio output, not speakers.
Dolby is currently valued at $6 Billion, and most of that would vaporize if Apple bought it and stopped licensing its tech to everyone else. Meridian sells very expensive boutique craft speakers. Klang does interesting things but where is the value to Apple? Apple is already building OS support for ambisonics.
Beats was already a popular brand, and attractively valued after HTC dumped its shares.
Why you would “let devices negotiate a profile”, rather than giving out completely neutral signal and building whatever compensation they might need directly into the output device is completely beyond me.
Because speakers & headphones are relatively dumb, passive, and cheap devices. They traditionally have not had processing units to do this sort of compensation. The computer has gobs of CPU cycles and power (voltage) to do the processing. Why do monitors have profiles? Why not just send a 'neutral' signal to them?
There are higher-end "digital" speakers that have built-in DACs and the sort of compensation you are talking about, but they are expensive.
You want Apple to crap up their digital signal to compensate for badly designed output hardware? Why on Earth?
Because such processing can be done very cleanly in the digital domain before the signal is turned into analog at the 3.5mm headphone jack.
If a speaker system has the logic built in to “negotiate for a profile”, it would be positively idiotic not to have that logic BE the profile.
Imagine this: You plug a device in and it sends a device ID in a quick pulse/burst. The device needs no other processing. Certainly not the sort of DSP power required to implement a profile.
Way cheaper, equally effective, and above all, not Apple’s problem.
I disagree.
The soundstaging by Klang looks interesting, but as long as Apple doesn’t even sell lossless downloads (and I’m not buying until they do), it’s ridiculous to suggest they purchase a hi-res audio distributor
Just as Apple bought Beats in part for their music service, Apple could by a hi-res audio distributor to get their lossless downloads going. Something like MQA would allow Apple to leap over mere CD quality and onto something "better". And MQA is involved from the mastering all the way to the consumer output. With Apple Music, Apple could encourage artists/companies to adopt the whiz-bang super-ultra-hi-res production process.
Hi-res is way overrated, anyway.
Empirically, that may be true. But it is perceived as a premium product - a space Apple likes to put itself in. You don't buy Apple stuff because it's cheap. Embracing hi-res audio, and in a way that puts Apple's fingerprints throughout the recording, mastering, & distribution process could raise their reputation as a brand of "the best".
edit: Oh, also - S/PDIF is only ever a “pro” format when it supports ADAT, which the consumer-grade lossy optical surround output on Macs never did.
The 3.5mm jacks on Macs have supported 96kHz/24bit output - and higher - for many years, both optically and on the wire. That's not "consumer-grade lossy".
DACs and SPDIF relate to audio output, not speakers.
I went back and reread the article. Agreed. The article's focus was on headphones & speakers - producing the sound, not on the audio in the digital domain. Before buying Beats, Apple certainly did not have much in the way of sound producing products. Beats gave them a high margin suite of headphones.
Dolby is currently valued at $6 Billion, and most of that would vaporize if Apple bought it and stopped licensing its tech to everyone else.
1. Apple could continue to license the tech.
2. It would be a risk that other companies would abandon Dolby tech if using it was seen as helping Apple (see Firewire).
But certainly Dolby has a suite of technology & patents that Apple could make good use of. What if Apple Music started selling Dolby Atmos encoded hi-res audio? And Dolby has a whole suite of image tech, too - some of which Apple is using.
Meridian sells very expensive boutique craft speakers.
They do a lot more than that.
Klang does interesting things but where is the value to Apple? Apple is already building OS support for ambisonics.
"Building"? As in not done yet? Or as in already there? Klang was just an example of a company with experience & tech that Apple could put to creative use. How about the option to buy Apple Music with ambisonic support? The end-user could position instruments & vocals around their head (or room) as they desired. Toss in a few HomePods & you have a surround-sound environment where the user gets to place things where they want. And the playing device could detect if it was connected to headphones, HomePods, or some other speaker configuration to provide optimized steering.
Beats was already a popular brand, and attractively valued after HTC dumped its shares.
Don't confuse fancy with marketable.
And don't dismiss the ability to market something fancy but thought useless by many - animojis?
Beats was certainly a wise purchase from a brand perspective. But it had very little to do with the "future" of sound - unless that future is middling-perfoming, high-priced, & celebrity endorsement driven.
Comments
I think with 2) he means the rip-off and Dr. Dre beat(s) up culture.
"the acquisition of Beats jumpstarted Apple's flatlined audio hardware ambitions. Whether that was due to an influx of Beats audio technicians or simply a strategic refocusing upon Apple Music as an ecosystem feature, sound reproduction at Apple has greatly improved across its product line since buying Beats."
Regarding audio quality, Apple has always had a reputation of putting good DACs in their equipment. And their inclusion of SPDIF out through the 3.5mm jacks was a nice touch for truly pro-quality.
But if they really wanted audio technology, they should have bought Dolby, Meridian, or KLANG.
The state of equalization on Apple's products is pitiful. Every speaker, earbud, headphone, etc. has a different sonic signature - just like different monitors have different color profiles. If Apple really wanted to drive some interesting audio tech they'd push a way for speakers & the machine to negotiate a profile. And provide system-wide equalization controls like those provided by Boom.
This article was pure fantasy.
Why you would “let devices negotiate a profile”, rather than giving out completely neutral signal and building whatever compensation they might need directly into the output device is completely beyond me.
You want Apple to crap up their digital signal to compensate for badly designed output hardware? Why on Earth? If a speaker system has the logic built in to “negotiate for a profile”, it would be positively idiotic not to have that logic BE the profile. Way cheaper, equally effective, and above all, not Apple’s problem. Really.
The soundstaging by Klang looks interesting, but as long as Apple doesn’t even sell lossless downloads (and I’m not buying until they do), it’s ridiculous to suggest they purchase a hi-res audio distributor. Hi-res is way overrated, anyway.
edit: Oh, also - S/PDIF is only ever a “pro” format when it supports ADAT, which the consumer-grade lossy optical surround output on Macs never did.
Dolby is currently valued at $6 Billion, and most of that would vaporize if Apple bought it and stopped licensing its tech to everyone else.
Meridian sells very expensive boutique craft speakers.
Klang does interesting things but where is the value to Apple? Apple is already building OS support for ambisonics.
Beats was already a popular brand, and attractively valued after HTC dumped its shares.
Don't confuse fancy with marketable.
2. It would be a risk that other companies would abandon Dolby tech if using it was seen as helping Apple (see Firewire).
But certainly Dolby has a suite of technology & patents that Apple could make good use of. What if Apple Music started selling Dolby Atmos encoded hi-res audio? And Dolby has a whole suite of image tech, too - some of which Apple is using. They do a lot more than that. "Building"? As in not done yet? Or as in already there? Klang was just an example of a company with experience & tech that Apple could put to creative use. How about the option to buy Apple Music with ambisonic support? The end-user could position instruments & vocals around their head (or room) as they desired. Toss in a few HomePods & you have a surround-sound environment where the user gets to place things where they want. And the playing device could detect if it was connected to headphones, HomePods, or some other speaker configuration to provide optimized steering. And don't dismiss the ability to market something fancy but thought useless by many - animojis? Beats was certainly a wise purchase from a brand perspective. But it had very little to do with the "future" of sound - unless that future is middling-perfoming, high-priced, & celebrity endorsement driven.
And here's an article about how Dolby is pushing the "Future of Sound and Vision".