Rumor: Beats CEO in talks to join Apple as 'special advisor' to Tim Cook
Building on an earlier rumor that Apple is in discussions to buy Beats Electronics, a new report claims the music company's cofounder and longtime music executive Jimmy Iovine is in talks to join the Cupertino tech giant as a special advisor to CEO Tim Cook.
After Apple's rumored interest in acquiring Beats for $3.2 billion set off a media firestorm on Thursday, a follow-up report from the New York Post claims Iovine is in discussions to take on a "special advisor" role at Apple.
As with the Beats buy, details are scarce, though the publication cites sources as saying Iovine will counsel Cook on "creative matters" if a deal is reached. The scope of the purported advisory position is unknown.
Also unknown is how the music mogul is planning to enter Apple. While mere speculation, Iovine could be brought on as a so-called "acqui-hire" if a buyout does happen.
Iovine, who currently serves as chairman of Universal Music Group's Interscope Geffen alongside his role at Beats, has a long history in music and carries a number of high-profile artists in his stable. Even with his background, it is unclear why Apple would need him on the roster.
In a 2013 interview, Iovine claimed he was "really close" to Steve Jobs and spent three years trying to sell the late Apple cofounder on a subscription-based music service. Beats subsequently launched Beats Music, while Apple debuted iTunes Radio; two very different takes on music streaming services.
Apple's rumored acquisition of Beats is already being questioned by pundits and industry watchers, making associated claims of Iovine's special advisory role similarly suspect.
After Apple's rumored interest in acquiring Beats for $3.2 billion set off a media firestorm on Thursday, a follow-up report from the New York Post claims Iovine is in discussions to take on a "special advisor" role at Apple.
As with the Beats buy, details are scarce, though the publication cites sources as saying Iovine will counsel Cook on "creative matters" if a deal is reached. The scope of the purported advisory position is unknown.
Also unknown is how the music mogul is planning to enter Apple. While mere speculation, Iovine could be brought on as a so-called "acqui-hire" if a buyout does happen.
Iovine, who currently serves as chairman of Universal Music Group's Interscope Geffen alongside his role at Beats, has a long history in music and carries a number of high-profile artists in his stable. Even with his background, it is unclear why Apple would need him on the roster.
In a 2013 interview, Iovine claimed he was "really close" to Steve Jobs and spent three years trying to sell the late Apple cofounder on a subscription-based music service. Beats subsequently launched Beats Music, while Apple debuted iTunes Radio; two very different takes on music streaming services.
Apple's rumored acquisition of Beats is already being questioned by pundits and industry watchers, making associated claims of Iovine's special advisory role similarly suspect.
Comments
I don't buy this rumour. I did read the other article, just not the 182 comments (yet) but I doubt Apple would triple overpay for the company. Besides, iTunes is doing well in spite of declining sales. I don't see any incentive for Apple to buy Beats Electronics. Heck, I don't see why Jimmy Iovine had a close relationship with Steve Jobs.
For some strange reason I get the feeling they want to sell the company and are trying to drive up its price. Purely unfounded on my part.
OT, but why is his last name all lowercase? Even on Wikipedia (yeah yeah, I know)
You can't see WHY Apple would need this guy??!! Apple, who is run by a bunch of stick-in-the-muds, needs a cool guy to front for them. With the loss of Steve, the keynotes have been dull as dirt... so dull, in fact that when Phil Schiller said, "Apple can't innovate, my ass!" it was the high-point of the whole event!
Apple needs a face that speaks for it that is memorable, like John Hodgman or Carly Foulkes, the girl-in-the-pink-dress was for T-mobile. Cook & crew may be the best managers, but they stink as the public face of Apple.
It threw me too but it's a i, not an L
In some fonts upper case I(i) looks like lower case l (L)
This is slightly unrelated to the topic perhaps, but I don't think that I've ever seen a picture of him without some sort of hat or cap on, he must be bald.
That was my first thought when opening this thread. He's like the Edge (from U2). Has anybody ever seen a picture of him without some hat on?
As for the topic, I guess that Iovine joining Apple as a "special advisor" sounds a lot better than Apple buying Beats for 3.2 Billion.
lol.
That makes a lot more sense.
Makes even more sense if Apple buys Beats as a wholly owned subsidiary. keeps licenses and successful brand in place, while Apple pulls the puppet strings in their favor.
For all those doubters, all I got to say, is evidence continues to mount from different media sources. Still think its an absurd rumor?
Why does this cost over $3 billion?
What evidence? More articles about a rumour is not evidence.
I said it's unsubstantiated and that I would like an explanation as what Apple would get for that purchase that it can't do it itself. So far no one has been able to even begin to answer that question and looking at what HTC paid for it over a 50% share, what HTC was paid to give up all it's shares, and knowledge of Apple's history of mergers and acquisitions it would be a unique occurrence in their history if Apple were to buy Beats for $3.2 billion dollars.
"So much for me preferring sans serif"
Thanks!
Heck, I don't see why Jimmy Iovine had a close relationship with Steve Jobs.
Jimmy Iovine was instrumental to allowing the first major music label to sign with Apple for the iTunes store back in 2001.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/apple-beats_n_2815676.html
"The meeting between Cook and Iovine, who is also chairman of music company Interscope-Geffen-A&M, was "informational" and covered a broad range of music-related topics, the sources said."
"Iovine, [...], has a long association with Apple and was one of the first music industry executives to sign onto what was then Apple's nascent iTunes initiative, announced in 2001."
Good to learn, thanks.
Makes even more sense if Apple buys Beats as a wholly owned subsidiary. keeps licenses and successful brand in place, while Apple pulls the puppet strings in their favor.
Why does this cost over $3 billion?
What evidence? More articles about a rumour is not evidence.
I said it's unsubstantiated and that I would like an explanation as what Apple would get for that purchase that it can't do it itself. So far no one has been able to even begin to answer that question and looking at what HTC paid for it over a 50% share, what HTC was paid to give up all it's shares, and knowledge of Apple's history of mergers and acquisitions it would be a unique occurrence in their history if Apple were to buy Beats for $3.2 billion dollars.
I don't work at Apple, nor was I a fly on the wall in past meetings between Apple and Beats. Both the initial meeting in March of 2013 and any subsequent ones. Thus ask me why $3.2B in a bit absurd, I am going to repeat what I said in the other thread. No one knows what was offered, what Beats has been being worked on prior to announcement and what the angle is, except people who were in those meetings. As to worth, too high or too low, as I stated in previous thread, Apple has proven time and time again that they are conservative with their money and pay a fair price. Beats has also prove they are thinking way beyond just headphone hardware. The company has legs and connections which is allowing them to succeed in ways Apple has not been able to do.
For you to sit here, be a doubter after we have had there separate reports now from three rebuable different sources, the odds are not in your favor. More over for you to doubt value here for Apple is a bit crazy. Frankly, and no disrespect intended, but I would wagger that if you or I had any true ability or talent to determine true evaluations of companies worth prior to acquisition we would be doing that as our primary jobs instead of sitting here and typing 10s of thousands of posts on Appleinsider.
^ post
Good to learn, thanks.
yeah.. this guy is connected.
Your other asinine comments aside, if you actually read what I wrote I have no favour. I have taken no stance as to what will or won't happen. I have provided information about historical data which you have discounted by replying with "well others are reporting on it, too." You're taking a side here by claiming there is evidence despite even providing evidence that Iovine has been talking with Apple for nearly 15 years.
I'm looking for a cogent concept that would make Beats be worth $3.2 billion to Apple and you et al. have repeatedly failed to do anything but state one. Note that I have repeatedly asked for one, not simply making statements that it must be true because rumours exist.
I think Apple is more likely to buy the design for the 1980s Chrysler LeBaron and start a gas-guzzler car division than it is to buy Beats for any reason. Just my opinion.
For you to sit here, be a doubter after we have had there separate reports now from three rebuable different sources, the odds are not in your favor.
Your other asinine comments aside, if you actually read what I wrote I have no favour. I have taken no stance as to what will or won't happen. I have provided information about historical data which you have discounted by replying with "well others are reporting on it, too." You're taking a side here by claiming there is evidence despite even providing evidence that Iovine has been talking with Apple for nearly 15 years.
I'm looking for a cogent concept that would make Beats be worth $3.2 billion to Apple and you et al. have repeatedly failed to do anything but state one.
Did you even look at the Huffington Post article which state there was a meeting 1 year ago between Beats (Iovine) and Apple (Cook)? Pretty sure 1 year ago is less than 15 years and quite relevant, no?
Here is what I see and I could be wrong, but to me it appears that you made bold statement that you think the first report was BS (from Financial Times and confirm by separate source from USAToday), and now after this second report NY Post report, you are trying to slowing back out of eating crow. Am I wrong? Perhaps its time to quit with the nay saying and go into observation mode with an open mind.
1) Did you see that Jobs and Apple spoke with Iovine many, many times over the years?
2) Again, I have no evidence to say that any report is or isn't BS. That's the difference between us; you want something exiting to happen so you get rambunctious when some rumour you approve of occurs, instead of actually trying to analyze its parts and than making a determination about its likelihood based on available information. There is absolutely no evidence to say this will or won't happen, all you can do is use the information available to create a most-likely case but it's pointless if you don't separate yourself from your desire. I have zero desire to see this happen or not happen. I am neutral. It means nothing to me either way; you, however, are clearly putting excess weight on that feather. You might end up being correct, but that's chance, not because you built a valid statistical model.
2) Again, I have no evidence to say that any report is or isn't BS.
Then wouldn't it be prudent to not say so in your post? again, looks like more and more like you are trying to gracefully back away from eating crow.
Im done. For a guy you tries very hard to look open minded, you failed today. Very uncharacteristic of you and surprising. I'm very surprised.