How many people remember Jobs' statement that he had made Jony Ive basically 'untouchable' at Apple? Surely I am not the only one who has noticed that all of the recent hires and action at Apple have to do with fashion and design, outside of and beyond the control of Jony and under the control of Tim? If I was a betting person, I'd see this as Tim's way around the most powerful person at Apple, who would be Jony. Call me paranoid, but internal disagreements and power struggles are really nothing new inside large organizations and my gut tells me money is being used to sidestep Apple's internal design team. Now quick, someone call me crazy and tell me I'm wrong.
While I don't like this news because of the Apple stock I owe, it's not because I don't think it's a good idea... in fact, I think it's a GREAT idea. The reason I don't like it is now the stock is going to take a huge dip because of the idiot analysts and tech pundits that don't have a brain that investors evidently think know everything. This just gave them fuel for the "Apple is doomed" monologue in their talking head video spots. Of course Tim Cook sneezing the wrong way does that. So the stock will drop and when the buyback happens Apple will basically be acquiring Beats for free.
The reason why no one understands the logic is because they aren't Apple. They are looking at things through the lens of Apple being a tech company. Apple, starting many moons ago under Steve Jobs, is transition AWAY from technology. Sure that's what they do, but not who they are. That's why you don't see Apple touting huge spec sheets on their phones. They are not marketing the devices based on numbers, they are marketing them based on form, function and the pursuit of happiness.
Apple is becoming, or more accurately, self-actualizing as a fashion company.
Look at the new hires and look at the products coming down the pipe. It is more important for most people that they buy the hot fashionable item that fills the need that they have. Apple is now working with experience like Burberry, Nike and many others because they are the brand to beat.
This places measly cell phone companies or tech giants in a huge conundrum of not being "cool" and having no idea how to get there. You'll always have fashion knock-offs and you'll always have pedestrian brands... Apple's is showing through this acquisition that they are going for the king position in branding to today's youth and that, my friends, is a longer term strategy.
Love it! Great post and I'm calculating the move along the same lines.
Would like to add: that rumor about the iWatch being far more a fashion accessory than most people can fathom... and being far more expensive than just an additional gadget for the iPhone... could be the other "rumor" to become reality soon.
The most profitable company on the planet... and somehow or another a bunch of posters think that NOW Apple has to acquire cool if they want to continue being profitable.
If it is true, I would imagine it has to do with preventing Google/Samsung etc from buying it.
Not to mention the headphone line regardless of current quality sells well, and is a high mark-up product, combine this established brand with Apple's technology, engineering and design and it can only improve. This to me is a similar product to what apple had with the iPod, a desirable and relatively affordable product that leads people to purchase more Apple products. (The headphones can also be re-designed with little changes to the technology resulting in upgrades for upgrades sake)
This deal is not about a product line. The trick to understanding this deal is to ask what services Beats has to offer.
Apple is not interested in the product line (if indeed this rumor is true). Apple learned everything they needed to know about accessories from selling printers.
A CNBC reporter said this morning that their sources are telling them this is all about the headphones. If it was about services like streaming music there are better companies Apple could have acquired.
If it is true, I would imagine it has to do with preventing Google/Samsung etc from buying it.
Not to mention the headphone line regardless of current quality sells well, and is a high mark-up product, combine this established brand with Apple's technology, engineering and design and it can only improve. This to me is a similar product to what apple had with the iPod, a desirable and relatively affordable product that leads people to purchase more Apple products. (The headphones can also be re-designed with little changes to the technology resulting in upgrades for upgrades sake)
Apple doesn't make defensive purchases. They don't do things to "prevent" others from doing it.
This deal is not about a product line. The trick to understanding this deal is to ask what services Beats has to offer.
I would say "services" and the "keys" to unlock the doors to make those services happen. Iovine has those keys. A whole big bunch of them around a ring the size of Beyoncé's hoops.
Apple is not interested in the product line (if indeed this rumor is true). Apple learned everything they needed to know about accessories from selling printers.
You're not serious... are you? Are YOU?
I'm gonna LOL with ya if you forgot the sarcasm tag, just in case....
A CNBC reporter said this morning that their sources are telling them this is all about the headphones. If it was about services like streaming music there are better companies Apple could have acquired.
Geez, relax people. Apple hardly spends a lot of money on a single company. You guys are acting as if apple spent all 150 billion lol. We are not in the meetings with Tim. Maybe Beats had some new technology that we don't know about.
I would say "services" and the "keys" to unlock the doors to make those services happen. Iovine has those keys. A whole big bunch of them around a ring the size of Beyoncé's hoops.
You're not serious... are you? Are YOU?
I'm gonna LOL with ya if you forgot the sarcasm tag, just in case....
It was a joke about the printers... so I guess I was being sarcastic. I'm just not sure if it's for the same reason attributed by you.
Beats has $1B in annual revenue. This purchase may not be about the headphones, but that's what's paying the current bills. I think it's clear this about a company who has serious street cred w/ the youth and no company, not even Apple can sit around and hope it remains fashionable, no matter how fickle the youth can be. I still think the synergies between the 2 are uncertain, but this could also mean the iTunes music revenue drop must be a pretty serious issue.
How many people remember Jobs' statement that he had made Jony Ive basically 'untouchable' at Apple? Surely I am not the only one who has noticed that all of the recent hires and action at Apple have to do with fashion and design, outside of and beyond the control of Jony and under the control of Tim? If I was a betting person, I'd see this as Tim's way around the most powerful person at Apple, who would be Jony. Call me paranoid, but internal disagreements and power struggles are really nothing new inside large organizations and my gut tells me money is being used to sidestep Apple's internal design team. Now quick, someone call me crazy and tell me I'm wrong.
Ok then, how do you explain Tim giving Jony fullcontrol over software design and Apple changing his official title from SVP Industrial Design to SVP Design? The only fashion hire under Tim's direct control (other than the leader of retail) is the former CEO of YSL. But we have no idea what he is working on. When he was previously employed at Apple he worked in sales. Beats design isn't done in house, it's contracted out to a 3rd party.
Ok then, how do you explain Tim giving Jony fullcontrol over software design and Apple changing his official title from SVP Industrial Design to SVP Design? The only fashion hire under Tim's direct control (other than the leader of retail) is the former CEO of YSL. But we have no idea what he is working on. When he was previously employed at Apple he worked in sales. Beats design isn't done in house, it's contracted out to a 3rd party.
No, it's my mistake. I should have wrote my original reply clearer. Apple patents it's own tech to stop others from copying them. You're right about that. But they don't do so to "prevent" other companies from something they wouldn't do themselves. I.E. A non-practicing entity.
But to the original reply: Yes, Apple doesn't buy other companies to "prevent" other companies from buying/doing something. They make purchases of companies that fit into an existing/upcoming product their releasing themselves.
Comments
Is someone comparing Louis Vuitton with Beats and Nike?
Yes, you saw it here first. lol
Love it! Great post and I'm calculating the move along the same lines.
Would like to add: that rumor about the iWatch being far more a fashion accessory than most people can fathom... and being far more expensive than just an additional gadget for the iPhone... could be the other "rumor" to become reality soon.
The most profitable company on the planet... and somehow or another a bunch of posters think that NOW Apple has to acquire cool if they want to continue being profitable.
Are you shitting me.
Not to mention the headphone line regardless of current quality sells well, and is a high mark-up product, combine this established brand with Apple's technology, engineering and design and it can only improve. This to me is a similar product to what apple had with the iPod, a desirable and relatively affordable product that leads people to purchase more Apple products. (The headphones can also be re-designed with little changes to the technology resulting in upgrades for upgrades sake)
If it is true, I would imagine it has to do with preventing Google/Samsung etc from buying it.
Not to mention the headphone line regardless of current quality sells well, and is a high mark-up product, combine this established brand with Apple's technology, engineering and design and it can only improve. This to me is a similar product to what apple had with the iPod, a desirable and relatively affordable product that leads people to purchase more Apple products. (The headphones can also be re-designed with little changes to the technology resulting in upgrades for upgrades sake)
Apple doesn't make defensive purchases. They don't do things to "prevent" others from doing it.
I would say "services" and the "keys" to unlock the doors to make those services happen. Iovine has those keys. A whole big bunch of them around a ring the size of Beyoncé's hoops.
You're not serious... are you? Are YOU?
I'm gonna LOL with ya if you forgot the sarcasm tag, just in case....
A CNBC reporter said this morning that their sources are telling them this is all about the headphones. If it was about services like streaming music there are better companies Apple could have acquired.
Then Tim Cook has lost his mind... imho.
They do, however, do that with patents.
May be Cook is copying HTC. That is not innovative.
I would say "services" and the "keys" to unlock the doors to make those services happen. Iovine has those keys. A whole big bunch of them around a ring the size of Beyoncé's hoops.
You're not serious... are you? Are YOU?
I'm gonna LOL with ya if you forgot the sarcasm tag, just in case....
It was a joke about the printers... so I guess I was being sarcastic. I'm just not sure if it's for the same reason attributed by you.
They do, however, do that with patents.
Apple doesn't buy patents to "prevent" other companies from doing something.
Oh, buy, no; you’re absolutely right.
I know, it's crazy... right?
Oh, buy, no; you’re absolutely right.
No, it's my mistake. I should have wrote my original reply clearer. Apple patents it's own tech to stop others from copying them. You're right about that. But they don't do so to "prevent" other companies from something they wouldn't do themselves. I.E. A non-practicing entity.
But to the original reply: Yes, Apple doesn't buy other companies to "prevent" other companies from buying/doing something. They make purchases of companies that fit into an existing/upcoming product their releasing themselves.