Reading my twitter feed is really depressed me. I see a lot of tweets from tech journalists and Apple bloggers/pundits that think this rumored deal is Apple wanting the revenue stream from an overpriced, high margin accessory and wanting the Beats brand. And what depresses me is not that they're thinking it but that it could be the reason. Sigh.
Tech bloggers consistently miss the importance of content deals. They're so fixated on all the eye candy and spec'y talk, that they forget about what people actually do on their devices in the first place. Not surprising considering how much of the tech blogosphere blindly follows the credo that content should be free. But, I think securing content is really the way for Apple to create truly valuable and interconnected hardware.
An Apple TV is just another set top box, with a better UI. But, a media device that integrates purchased, subscription, live, and on-demand content for both audio and video, with easy purchase and transaction verification? And integrated services that can be used at home or on the go? THAT would be revolutionary. Apple has more of the pieces in place for a truly integrated media service than anybody else, but Beats would actually fill a gap that iTunes Radio current leaves open and potentially improve the existing service, which has a lot of room for improvement. And if Apple secures a content deal with Comcast or a consortium of providers, then that fills the hole for live content that iTunes currently has on the video side.
I would hope that Apple isn't considering a $3 billion play primarily for Beats' product lineup. Yes, they are a highly visible (and likely highly profitable) brand at the Apple Store, so Apple has a good idea of the product margins. But, I just don't see headphones and Bluetooth speakers as a long-term benefit to Apple, given how much the Beats brand has already been diluted.
Apple
Apple never denied the Apple HDTV. Yet you can't but it anywhere.
The fact that Apple has not even given a no comment is good indications that this is BS.
Apple's history is more aligned with no rumours because they any outside talk of a deal could crush the deal, and if there is a deal the company usually seems to go dark.
More comments to file under "WTF?!" We get rumours about Apple every day. This is a fucking website that mostly deals with Apple rumours and you're trying to tell us that Apple has issued a statement to every single one of these BS rumours? :no:
There's a difference between "supply chain rumors say Pegatron is getting 15% of iPhone orders" or "Chinese website xxx says this is the new iPhone" and the Financial Times, Wall Street Journal, New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters reporting Apple will buy Beats for $3.2B. This story is everywhere - from news and financial sites to tech sites to media sites like Variety and Hollywood Reporter to Rolling Stone to TMZ. It's all over Twitter with most people's reaction as WTF? If there was nothing to this why would Apple want to leave the impression there was? When 9to5Mac reported that software designer Greg Christie was leaving Apple (and implied it was because he didn't get along with Jony Ive) it didn't take long for Apple to comment on it. Same thing when re/code broke the news that Katie Cotton was retiring. Obviously if Apple is in talks with Beats they're not going to comment, but if they're not and they have no intention of buying Beats why would they refuse to comment?
Thanks for the stupid comment. We can't have a thread go without one.
Oh really? Unlike you, I actually have a brain and can think about how Jobs reinvigorated Apple. It's not what this Clown Cook is doing. Let's take a look shall we?
Even though Jobs told Cook don't ask what would HE do, just do what's right. I think Jobs made a grave mistake when he told Cook that. As grave as when he decided to delay his Chemo treatment.
Since Jobs' passing this is what has transpired. First, too many damn leaks. The product surprises are gone. When was the last time you were surprised to see any new products? The surprise factor adds tremendous value to Apple's value. This has been proven. Cook basically destroyed value by letting the leaks happen. Steve would put a hit on anyone who leaked.
Second, Jobs ALWAYS kept a chokehold on CASH. There's a reason for that. Since you're clearly NOT a business/startup owner/founder, you obviously have no clue on this VERY important topic. CASH is KING! It's with CASH that Jobs was able to keep Pixar alive for a DECADE before their breakout hit Toy Story. Jobs spent nearly his entire Apple fortune propping up that company. What's the lesson there?
This is repeated at NEXT. Next was on the brink of going under as well. It was only with OTHER people's cash that he was able to keep it afloat for a DECADE before Apple acquired it. Again, what do you think was the takeaway there, genius? Yes, cash will give you the runway to keep your company afloat and give you the opportunity to find new markets and try new products. So what does this Cook clown do? He obviously has never started a company of his own or truly embrace the entrepreneur ethos to understand this. Like you, he thinks like an employee and not a boss. Even worse, he bows to bottom feeders like that greenmailer Icahn, to basically destroy the lifeblood of what Jobs slowly built up after his return to the company. Do you REALLY think he would approve of this? Jobs would have told Icahn where to go...
Third, Cook is a slouch. Jobs would have never let Apple go so long without a new product platform. He would have worked the employees day and night to come up with something new. Cook seems to be taking his sweet old time always using the sorry excuse, oh, we won't release something until it's right. Well, by the time it's released it'll be too late. This would have never happened under Jobs.
Fourth, senior execs are leaving left and right. This is always a bad sign. Cook is no Jobs and this is clearly a vote of no confidence.
Fifth, he's spending money for the sake of spending money. $3.2 billion for a crappy headphone company? Even if this is an aqua-hire, that's a ridicules amount to spend for Jimmy. Again, what would Jobs do? He'll tell Jimmy he'll give him a nickel.
So, all of these data points tells me something is drastically wrong at Apple. Cook is destroying Apple. Do you think bad CEO's are so easy to spot? No, they typically slowly destroy value over time. It's death by a thousand cuts. This is clearly what's happening at Apple. It's not going to die overnight but be more like MSFT. Slowly have its life and vitality drained from its system until it's no longer relevant or trend setting. Cook is just the man to do it.
It's all over Twitter with most people's reaction as WTF? If there was nothing to this why would Apple want to leave the impression there was?
It's on Twitter?!!! Well stop the fucking presses¡
When 9to5Mac reported that software designer Greg Christie was leaving Apple (and implied it was because he didn't get along with Jony Ive) it didn't take long for Apple to comment on it. Same thing when re/code broke the news that Katie Cotton was retiring.
That has to do with personnel. Beats is not personnel.
John Gruber says the rights aren't transferable. If so then this is just a bad acquisition by Apple.
More likely, it is a BS rumor.
why would Apple NEED to transfer the rights? All they need to do is acquire Beats as a wholly owned subsidiary. Leave the Beat brand alone and pull the puppet strings in their favor.
Thanks for sharing. I agree with everything Om wrote. If Apple thinks it needs the Beats brand to get back "cool" cred (which means they think they've lost some) then I am worried about its future. Even if they want Beats talent to improve iTunes that certainly can't be worth $3B.
Oh really? Unlike you, I actually have a brain and can think about how Jobs reinvigorated Apple. It's not what this Clown Cook is doing. Let's take a look shall we?
Even though Jobs told Cook don't ask what would HE do, just do what's right. I think Jobs made a grave mistake when he told Cook that. As grave as when he decided to delay his Chemo treatment.
Since Jobs' passing this is what has transpired. First, too many damn leaks. The product surprises are gone. When was the last time you were surprised to see any new products? The surprise factor adds tremendous value to Apple's value. This has been proven. Cook basically destroyed value by letting the leaks happen. Steve would put a hit on anyone who leaked.
I stopped reading after this because you seem to have a poor memory indeed. Back when Steve was still alive there was a fine lot of leaks too lmao. There weren't any surprises there either. All the supply chain leaks aren't much different now than it was when Steve was around.
So what? The point is Apple does comment. Why would Apple want this rumor to persist if it's complete BS?
So you're claiming that any rumour Apple doesn't remark on means it must want it to persist. OK, I'll bite, why does it want this rumour about a $3.2 billion acquisition of Beats to persist?
So you're claiming that any rumour Apple doesn't remark on means it must want it to persist. OK, I'll bite, why does it want this rumour about a $3.2 billion acquisition of Beats to persist?
I'm not talking about any rumor, I'm talking about this one. There were rumors about PrimeSense that Apple never commented on either. I think the reason Apple isn't commenting is because they are in negotiations with Beats.
YOU brought all rumours into it.
Now that's a reasonably stated opinion.
No, i didn't start that, I'm just stating my opinion that not all rumors are the same and I don't expect Apple to comment on every rumor that appears on this site.
I don't expect Apple to comment on every rumor that appears on this site.
Right, only the rumours that aren't real Apple should rush to comment on, as you've stated many times in this thread.
Rogifan wrote, "Obviously the rumor is legit otherwise Apple would have denied it by now."
Rogifan wrote,"If it's BS why isn't Apple denying it?"
Rogifan wrote,"Why would Apple want this rumor to persist if it's complete BS?"
You've also failed to realize how fucking new this rumour is and Apple's history of not operating with knee-jerk reactions to everything so even if they deny it tomorrow morning that's a more than adequate response time.
Thanks for the stupid comment. We can't have a thread go without one.
Oh really? Unlike you, I actually have a brain and can think about how Jobs reinvigorated Apple. It's not what this Clown Cook is doing. Let's take a look shall we?
Even though Jobs told Cook don't ask what would HE do, just do what's right. I think Jobs made a grave mistake when he told Cook that. As grave as when he decided to delay his Chemo treatment.
Since Jobs' passing this is what has transpired. First, too many damn leaks. The product surprises are gone. When was the last time you were surprised to see any new products? The surprise factor adds tremendous value to Apple's value. This has been proven. Cook basically destroyed value by letting the leaks happen. Steve would put a hit on anyone who leaked.
Second, Jobs ALWAYS kept a chokehold on CASH. There's a reason for that. Since you're clearly NOT a business/startup owner/founder, you obviously have no clue on this VERY important topic. CASH is KING! It's with CASH that Jobs was able to keep Pixar alive for a DECADE before their breakout hit Toy Story. Jobs spent nearly his entire Apple fortune propping up that company. What's the lesson there?
This is repeated at NEXT. Next was on the brink of going under as well. It was only with OTHER people's cash that he was able to keep it afloat for a DECADE before Apple acquired it. Again, what do you think was the takeaway there, genius? Yes, cash will give you the runway to keep your company afloat and give you the opportunity to find new markets and try new products. So what does this Cook clown do? He obviously has never started a company of his own or truly embrace the entrepreneur ethos to understand this. Like you, he thinks like an employee and not a boss. Even worse, he bows to bottom feeders like that greenmailer Icahn, to basically destroy the lifeblood of what Jobs slowly built up after his return to the company. Do you REALLY think he would approve of this? Jobs would have told Icahn where to go...
Third, Cook is a slouch. Jobs would have never let Apple go so long without a new product platform. He would have worked the employees day and night to come up with something new. Cook seems to be taking his sweet old time always using the sorry excuse, oh, we won't release something until it's right. Well, by the time it's released it'll be too late. This would have never happened under Jobs.
Fourth, senior execs are leaving left and right. This is always a bad sign. Cook is no Jobs and this is clearly a vote of no confidence.
Fifth, he's spending money for the sake of spending money. $3.2 billion for a crappy headphone company? Even if this is an aqua-hire, that's a ridicules amount to spend for Jimmy. Again, what would Jobs do? He'll tell Jimmy he'll give him a nickel.
So, all of these data points tells me something is drastically wrong at Apple. Cook is destroying Apple. Do you think bad CEO's are so easy to spot? No, they typically slowly destroy value over time. It's death by a thousand cuts. This is clearly what's happening at Apple. It's not going to die overnight but be more like MSFT. Slowly have its life and vitality drained from its system until it's no longer relevant or trend setting. Cook is just the man to do it.
I'll take a post (and point) from [@]mdriftmeyer[/@] over the likes of you any day. Even before having read anything after 'Clown Cook'.
You really don't make a good point in your post. Maybe you should keep stuff like this in a dairy, which no one else is allowed to read(?)
Beats offers nothing to Apple, the brand images are nearly polar, and their "technology" is nothing Apple couldn't create in house. Their music streaming service is weak and has little market share.
Buying would be an utter failure, especially at 3.2 B.
For sake...don't these rumors get filtered?
Nothing?
Really?
Instant cross platform streaming service that will get money out of Windows, Android, OSX, and iOS...
Instant foot in the growing streaming music market which is growing daily.
Instant hold of negotiated music contracts for content.
No need to disrupt and dilute the iTunes music purchase and radio model.
Get a piece of the Beats headphone profits with double branding potential (increased value and margins) on iOS devices that come with Beats headphones.
Comments
Apple never denied the Apple HDTV. Yet you can't but it anywhere.
The fact that Apple has not even given a no comment is good indications that this is BS.
Reading my twitter feed is really depressed me. I see a lot of tweets from tech journalists and Apple bloggers/pundits that think this rumored deal is Apple wanting the revenue stream from an overpriced, high margin accessory and wanting the Beats brand. And what depresses me is not that they're thinking it but that it could be the reason. Sigh.
Tech bloggers consistently miss the importance of content deals. They're so fixated on all the eye candy and spec'y talk, that they forget about what people actually do on their devices in the first place. Not surprising considering how much of the tech blogosphere blindly follows the credo that content should be free. But, I think securing content is really the way for Apple to create truly valuable and interconnected hardware.
An Apple TV is just another set top box, with a better UI. But, a media device that integrates purchased, subscription, live, and on-demand content for both audio and video, with easy purchase and transaction verification? And integrated services that can be used at home or on the go? THAT would be revolutionary. Apple has more of the pieces in place for a truly integrated media service than anybody else, but Beats would actually fill a gap that iTunes Radio current leaves open and potentially improve the existing service, which has a lot of room for improvement. And if Apple secures a content deal with Comcast or a consortium of providers, then that fills the hole for live content that iTunes currently has on the video side.
I would hope that Apple isn't considering a $3 billion play primarily for Beats' product lineup. Yes, they are a highly visible (and likely highly profitable) brand at the Apple Store, so Apple has a good idea of the product margins. But, I just don't see headphones and Bluetooth speakers as a long-term benefit to Apple, given how much the Beats brand has already been diluted.
Apple's history is more aligned with no rumours because they any outside talk of a deal could crush the deal, and if there is a deal the company usually seems to go dark.
Thanks for the stupid comment. We can't have a thread go without one.
Oh really? Unlike you, I actually have a brain and can think about how Jobs reinvigorated Apple. It's not what this Clown Cook is doing. Let's take a look shall we?
Even though Jobs told Cook don't ask what would HE do, just do what's right. I think Jobs made a grave mistake when he told Cook that. As grave as when he decided to delay his Chemo treatment.
Since Jobs' passing this is what has transpired. First, too many damn leaks. The product surprises are gone. When was the last time you were surprised to see any new products? The surprise factor adds tremendous value to Apple's value. This has been proven. Cook basically destroyed value by letting the leaks happen. Steve would put a hit on anyone who leaked.
Second, Jobs ALWAYS kept a chokehold on CASH. There's a reason for that. Since you're clearly NOT a business/startup owner/founder, you obviously have no clue on this VERY important topic. CASH is KING! It's with CASH that Jobs was able to keep Pixar alive for a DECADE before their breakout hit Toy Story. Jobs spent nearly his entire Apple fortune propping up that company. What's the lesson there?
This is repeated at NEXT. Next was on the brink of going under as well. It was only with OTHER people's cash that he was able to keep it afloat for a DECADE before Apple acquired it. Again, what do you think was the takeaway there, genius? Yes, cash will give you the runway to keep your company afloat and give you the opportunity to find new markets and try new products. So what does this Cook clown do? He obviously has never started a company of his own or truly embrace the entrepreneur ethos to understand this. Like you, he thinks like an employee and not a boss. Even worse, he bows to bottom feeders like that greenmailer Icahn, to basically destroy the lifeblood of what Jobs slowly built up after his return to the company. Do you REALLY think he would approve of this? Jobs would have told Icahn where to go...
Third, Cook is a slouch. Jobs would have never let Apple go so long without a new product platform. He would have worked the employees day and night to come up with something new. Cook seems to be taking his sweet old time always using the sorry excuse, oh, we won't release something until it's right. Well, by the time it's released it'll be too late. This would have never happened under Jobs.
Fourth, senior execs are leaving left and right. This is always a bad sign. Cook is no Jobs and this is clearly a vote of no confidence.
Fifth, he's spending money for the sake of spending money. $3.2 billion for a crappy headphone company? Even if this is an aqua-hire, that's a ridicules amount to spend for Jimmy. Again, what would Jobs do? He'll tell Jimmy he'll give him a nickel.
So, all of these data points tells me something is drastically wrong at Apple. Cook is destroying Apple. Do you think bad CEO's are so easy to spot? No, they typically slowly destroy value over time. It's death by a thousand cuts. This is clearly what's happening at Apple. It's not going to die overnight but be more like MSFT. Slowly have its life and vitality drained from its system until it's no longer relevant or trend setting. Cook is just the man to do it.
It's on Twitter?!!! Well stop the fucking presses¡
That has to do with personnel. Beats is not personnel.
John Gruber says the rights aren't transferable. If so then this is just a bad acquisition by Apple.
More likely, it is a BS rumor.
why would Apple NEED to transfer the rights? All they need to do is acquire Beats as a wholly owned subsidiary. Leave the Beat brand alone and pull the puppet strings in their favor.
Oh really? Unlike you, I actually have a brain and can think about how Jobs reinvigorated Apple. It's not what this Clown Cook is doing. Let's take a look shall we?
Even though Jobs told Cook don't ask what would HE do, just do what's right. I think Jobs made a grave mistake when he told Cook that. As grave as when he decided to delay his Chemo treatment.
Since Jobs' passing this is what has transpired. First, too many damn leaks. The product surprises are gone. When was the last time you were surprised to see any new products? The surprise factor adds tremendous value to Apple's value. This has been proven. Cook basically destroyed value by letting the leaks happen. Steve would put a hit on anyone who leaked.
I stopped reading after this because you seem to have a poor memory indeed. Back when Steve was still alive there was a fine lot of leaks too lmao. There weren't any surprises there either. All the supply chain leaks aren't much different now than it was when Steve was around.
So you're claiming that any rumour Apple doesn't remark on means it must want it to persist. OK, I'll bite, why does it want this rumour about a $3.2 billion acquisition of Beats to persist?
YOU brought all rumours into it.
Now that's a reasonably stated opinion.
Apple buys Beats (an April Fools joke): http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/04/01/apple-buys-beats/
hardly absurd considering Apple meet with Beats, one year prior to this "Fools" joke.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/apple-beats_n_2815676.html
Right, only the rumours that aren't real Apple should rush to comment on, as you've stated many times in this thread.
Rogifan wrote, "Obviously the rumor is legit otherwise Apple would have denied it by now."
Rogifan wrote,"If it's BS why isn't Apple denying it?"
Rogifan wrote,"Why would Apple want this rumor to persist if it's complete BS?"
You've also failed to realize how fucking new this rumour is and Apple's history of not operating with knee-jerk reactions to everything so even if they deny it tomorrow morning that's a more than adequate response time.
Because of their beautifully designed mail UI¿
Or Katie has left the building¡
I'll take a post (and point) from [@]mdriftmeyer[/@] over the likes of you any day. Even before having read anything after 'Clown Cook'.
You really don't make a good point in your post. Maybe you should keep stuff like this in a dairy, which no one else is allowed to read(?)
What?! This rumor is clearly false.
Beats offers nothing to Apple, the brand images are nearly polar, and their "technology" is nothing Apple couldn't create in house. Their music streaming service is weak and has little market share.
Buying would be an utter failure, especially at 3.2 B.
For sake...don't these rumors get filtered?
Nothing?
Really?
Instant cross platform streaming service that will get money out of Windows, Android, OSX, and iOS...
Instant foot in the growing streaming music market which is growing daily.
Instant hold of negotiated music contracts for content.
No need to disrupt and dilute the iTunes music purchase and radio model.
Get a piece of the Beats headphone profits with double branding potential (increased value and margins) on iOS devices that come with Beats headphones.