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 think you'll be excoriated for this post, but you are actually (crudely) putting into words what some of us may be nervously thinking as we've seen these recent hires and wonder quietly "what in the world..." while we all wait for WWDC and the next product introductions.
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.
Everyone on CNBC this morning is panning it. Becky Quick wondered if everyone who wants Beats headphones already has them and her sidekick Joe Kernan said his kids are on their 2nd pairs already because they're plastic and break easily. Jon Fortt can't figure it out. He thinks the headphones are crap and stuff Apple would never design, Beats doesn't have any valuable IP and he thinks it's backwards looking acquisition. Andrew Ross Sorkin was basically pleading with Tm Cook NOT to do this, calling Beats a fashion accessory and a crappy product; that if Apple's going to spend the money then buy the best like Spotify.
I'm sorry but if Apple wasn't talking to Beats, if none of this was true I think they would have denied it by now. Because it's not making Apple look good. It's making them look like they're worried about their "cool" factor and are buying a brand to try and get some of that back; it looks like a money grab - wanting the revenue/profit stream from overpriced crap headphones; and that Apple is out of ideas, especially when it comes to iTunes.
All we can hope for at this point is the deal falls through or Apple comes to their senses. If Apple goes through with it they will be the laughing stock of Silicon Valley.
Horrible idea. It would be the first time I'm truly concerned by a decision made by Cook
The hardware is crap
The brand is a joke
They are nowhere with music services
How does this not fall into the "no to a thousand things" bucket?
All we can hope is whoever came up with this idea has his/her senses knocked into them. I have a hard time believing Beats has some secret technology or stuff in the pipeline that is worth $3B.
Whatever happened to "skating to where the puck will be, not where it is right now"? Spotify is THE issue here. Whether or not a Beats deal would be good for Apple is up for debate (obviously). But the puck is not with iTunes anymore, despite the fact that it's still making (lots of) money. Spotify has no barriers to entry with their ad tier. iTunes Radio has nothing on Spotify's service.
All I can say is that I'd love to see Spotify choke on Apple, Beats or no Beats.
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.
I doubt the music companies would be so naive as to not have anticipated such a thing. I'd be shocked if a change in ownership didn't automatically trigger a renegotiation of licensing rights. This wouldn't be their first rodeo.
Do you think Apple would basically replace iTunes with someone else's music app?
I think they could to some extent -- especially the iCloud and mobile components.
We have lots of music from (impossible to find) old records * thai is now on iCloud via iTunes match -- it is quite user-unfriendly and slow to access via iTunes on the Mac or the Music app on iDevices. The Beats app UX is far superior -- it seems to anticipate what you want to do,
Also, they could combine the iTunes Match subscription, with a streaming Beats subscription & you could 1-tap add the song to your purchased iCloud media.
Beats, has a social component, that if well-implemented, could be quite attractive to the millennial and young adults.
* Here's what I mean by an impossible to find record:
[VIDEO]
We tried for years to buy this, with no luck -- all I could remember were the melody and a few lines of the lyrics. Finally, I ended up singing a few bars to a guy in a record store -- and he remembered it too -- and ordered it!
Shazam couldn't even find it!
Edit: Lovey is now in the iTunes Music store -- it wasn't there, the last time I looked. But, the iTunes version has slightly different lyrics.
Shazam recognized the iTunes version ... Odd!
Another use for old recordings is that they preserve a moment in history, For Example:
The whole family watched the Kentucky Derby last Sunday -- and everyone enjoys the official song "My Old Kentucky Home" by Stephan Foster. I took the occasion to show how some things have changed in my lifetime:
In my childhood, the song started:
"Oh, the sun shines bright in my old Kentucky home,
Tis summer -- the darkies are gay ... "
This is obviously racist and would/should not be used today. It is difficult to find a recording with the original words -- we happen to have one.
"My Old Kentucky Home" became the official state song of Kentucky on March 19, 1928, by an act of the Kentucky legislature.[6] In 1986, Japanese students visiting the Kentucky General Assembly sang the song as a gesture of respect, but Carl Hines (D-Louisville), the only black state representative at the time, was quoted as saying that the lyrics "convey connotations of racial discrimination that are not acceptable". Within days, Hines sponsored House Resolution 159, which revised the lyrics to emend the word "darkies" to "people" at all official state functions involving the performance of the song.[7]
Comments
I think you'll be excoriated for this post, but you are actually (crudely) putting into words what some of us may be nervously thinking as we've seen these recent hires and wonder quietly "what in the world..." while we all wait for WWDC and the next product introductions.
I hope this isn't true. What a terrible idea.
I don't believe it at all. I would start selling my Apple shares if it turns out to be true - it's incomprehensible.
I don't believe it either. I think someone at Beats is attempting to strong-arm Apple or create a bidding war for their trash audio product company.
USA Today has confirmed through their own sources that this is not a rumor.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2014/05/08/report-apple-to-acquire-beats/8868913/
Until Apple confirms it, it is nothing but a rumor.
The hardware is crap
The brand is a joke
They are nowhere with music services
How does this not fall into the "no to a thousand things" bucket?
Same here. The worst
http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world
The cat is almost out of the bag : http://thenextweb.com/apple/2014/05/09/dr-dre-just-confirm-apple-buying-beats-3-2-billion/
I'm sorry but if Apple wasn't talking to Beats, if none of this was true I think they would have denied it by now. Because it's not making Apple look good. It's making them look like they're worried about their "cool" factor and are buying a brand to try and get some of that back; it looks like a money grab - wanting the revenue/profit stream from overpriced crap headphones; and that Apple is out of ideas, especially when it comes to iTunes.
All we can hope for at this point is the deal falls through or Apple comes to their senses. If Apple goes through with it they will be the laughing stock of Silicon Valley.
All I can say is that I'd love to see Spotify choke on Apple, Beats or no Beats.
I doubt the music companies would be so naive as to not have anticipated such a thing. I'd be shocked if a change in ownership didn't automatically trigger a renegotiation of licensing rights. This wouldn't be their first rodeo.
Apple could learn a few things from this app.
It's faster than lightening -- touch and immediately hear!
Combine this with my existing iTunes match, about 20,000 songs, music videos, podcasts ... they may be on to something.
BTW, to begin to understand the "follow the money" aspect:
http://www.asymco.com/2014/05/09/measuring-not-getting-the-cloud/#disqus_thread
Do you think Apple would basically replace iTunes with someone else's music app?
http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world
Mind copying the text of that here? I’m not about to give Gizmodo a page hit.
Dr. Dre can buy the Clippers after all.
I thought Magic Johnson's group wanted to buy them?
I think they could to some extent -- especially the iCloud and mobile components.
We have lots of music from (impossible to find) old records * thai is now on iCloud via iTunes match -- it is quite user-unfriendly and slow to access via iTunes on the Mac or the Music app on iDevices. The Beats app UX is far superior -- it seems to anticipate what you want to do,
Also, they could combine the iTunes Match subscription, with a streaming Beats subscription & you could 1-tap add the song to your purchased iCloud media.
Beats, has a social component, that if well-implemented, could be quite attractive to the millennial and young adults.
* Here's what I mean by an impossible to find record:
[VIDEO]
We tried for years to buy this, with no luck -- all I could remember were the melody and a few lines of the lyrics. Finally, I ended up singing a few bars to a guy in a record store -- and he remembered it too -- and ordered it!
Shazam couldn't even find it!
Edit: Lovey is now in the iTunes Music store -- it wasn't there, the last time I looked. But, the iTunes version has slightly different lyrics.
Shazam recognized the iTunes version ... Odd!
Another use for old recordings is that they preserve a moment in history, For Example:
The whole family watched the Kentucky Derby last Sunday -- and everyone enjoys the official song "My Old Kentucky Home" by Stephan Foster. I took the occasion to show how some things have changed in my lifetime:
In my childhood, the song started:
"Oh, the sun shines bright in my old Kentucky home,
Tis summer -- the darkies are gay ... "
This is obviously racist and would/should not be used today. It is difficult to find a recording with the original words -- we happen to have one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/My_Old_Kentucky_Home
[LIST]
[*] http://www.worldstarhiphop.com/videos/video.php?v=wshhcENDrRg3pjDyQNYV
[/LIST]