Still waiting for @snova to show where I made an absolute statement against this acquisition happening just to do a near 180 saying it will happen.
I don't waste my time with people who are trying to set me up with weasel games. Anyone who has (or wants to) carefully review our dialog can see your change in positioning. very surprised to see you taking on this approach, I am shocked to see you heading down this path used so often by trolls here and the things you have been posting about this for the past 2 days. It's out of character for you.
So NOT every 2 years? You can't even keep you lie straight with a less than 10 word response. Shameful.
And that 3 year difference between the iOS-based iPhone and iOS-based iPad was only ONCE, NOT the very 3 year occurrence you have claimed.
ANNND on top of that the iPad was in dev before the iPhone, it was just on the back burner, so the one "concession" you could give him doesn't hold up well either. He's just factually wrong.
I don't waste my time with people who are trying to set me up with weasel games. Anyhow who is carefully reading our dialog can see your change in positioning. very surprised to see you taking on this approach, I am shocked to see you heading down this path used so often by trolls here.
You've accused me of lying on many occasions now and have yet to back up these claims.
I think your problem is a lack of reading comprehension (as opposed to just being a troll). I was trying to get you to come to that realization yourself, however, you seem adamantly opposed to backing up your accusations.
This is what I see from you: I write, "I don't see how this benefits Apple. Could someone clue me in?" Yet you seem to read, "Apple won't buy Beats and anyone that thinks so is an asshole."
So, please, show me where I made an absolute statement that the deal won't happen and where I'm now saying it will happen. I'll take either one of those. I'm certainly not going to back off since you've made it your mission to call me a liar.
If you're telling me that a $500B company like Apple, a company responsible for one of the most radical reinventions and redefinitions of the music industry in decades, doesn't have the internal talent to take on a task like the one you're getting at any better than a headphones maker and start-up streaming service, then Apple has far worse problems that I thought.
I think it's become one of those conundrums that nobody really knows how to advance the business. I'll say this, if Apple really is buying Beats, it's not for the company at its present, but for its future. They would need to have substantial and articulate visions that Apple has bought into philosophically. Then, even if Apple thought they could do it on their own, something obvious, it might be too late. They heard the pitch, probably under some Non-Disclosure Agreement scenario and in order to keep the vision away from competitors or run afoul of violating the IP of Beats, they have to now be the buyer. (just my little theory)
But if Beats could market regular headphones for a premium, what can they do when Apple put its build quality and high tech into Beats ? ^_^
As much as I am convinced this has absolutely nothing to do with Beats's second-rate headphones ... you are absolutely, 100% correct. Beats is currently able to sell crap as gold. Imagine if Apple were to take that brand and actually make that crap not crap anymore, and still sell it at a premium? (Of course, the counterargument is that Apple could in all likelihood do that already without spending the extra money on the Beats brand.)
Again, I don't think the headphones are a primary, or even secondary, concern for Apple. It may just be an added bonus.
Or, and here's a fun thought: maybe Apple is trying to save us all from Beats by Dre? This could be their way of cleansing the world of that brand.
But if Beats could market regular headphones for a premium, what can they do when Apple put its build quality and high tech into Beats ? ^_^
What experience does Apple have in high quality audio? Buzzfeed claims Jimmy Iovine will oversee Apple's music strategy. If true that means Cook and the Board don't have confidence in Eddy Cue's ability to oversee Apple's future music strategy.
Hmm... that interview with Walt explains a lot. Apple is buying a person. But come on! $3.2 billion?! Is Tim going to have Jimmy Iovine run iTunes like a completely separate business, like how 3M has many diverse divisions that all need to prove their worth to the company or they are spun off or shut down?
If Apple is going to be in the business of acquiring other businesses now for growth, versus growing the business themselves, shouldn't they also be seriously looking into buying AT&T, Hulu (or Netflix), and other such core (as in the case of iPhone business) or peripherally important (as in headphones) businesses?
Personally, I see this as a defining and significant departure from Apple's strategy until now.
Buzzfeed claims Jimmy Iovine will oversee Apple's music strategy. If true that means Cook and the Board don't have confidence in Eddy Cue's ability to oversee Apple's future music strategy.
That's an interesting proposition. Getting a bona fide music guy who has had success with running a company sounds like a brilliant move to me. Apple clearly has the infrastructure for iTunes set up so could this be the next step? Still wonder what the $3.2 billion would be for but I do love the idea of getting Iovine as an executive.
Come on! You can't be that daft?! You're "If Apple was smart they would..." is right up with "If Steve Jobs were alive…" comments. Here's a more reasonable way you could have written your sentence. "This might be a good time for Apple to buy back some stock."
Come on! You can't be that daft?! You're "If Apple was smart they would..." is right up with "If Steve Jobs were alive…" comments. Here's a more reasonable way you could have written your sentence. "This might be a good time for Apple to buy back some stock."
I guess I am daft then per your analysis and expert guidance. After all, you have 16000 posts in the same period I have only had 1100. I know when to quit trying to reason with an addict . You win. I'm done.
and if the poster wanted to put things into full context, they would have posted my entire sentence which stated the condition at the very end.
"If Apple was smart they would choose today as a day to buyback some more stock if the lowered stock price had anything to do with people who don't know shit about the deal and true value to the company in the future."
If you're telling me that a $500B company like Apple, a company responsible for one of the most radical reinventions and redefinitions of the music industry in decades, doesn't have the internal talent to take on a task like the one you're getting at any better than a headphones maker and start-up streaming service, then Apple has far worse problems that I thought.
I think it's become one of those conundrums that nobody really knows how to advance the business. I'll say this, if Apple really is buying Beats, it's not for the company at its present, but for its future. They would need to have substantial and articulate visions that Apple has bought into philosophically. Then, even if Apple thought they could do it on their own, something obvious, it might be too late. They heard the pitch, probably under some Non-Disclosure Agreement scenario and in order to keep the vision away from competitors or run afoul of violating the IP of Beats, they have to now be the buyer. (just my little theory)
I think that that's a reasoned assessment.
Most here, including myself, are looking at this from the perspective of a techie, shareholder, experienced Apple customer with an understanding of their products and services.
But there are different perspectives -- the creatives -- the consumers of music/media ...
And, yes, the self-entitled youth of today who believe they are due the constant satisfaction of every need and desire (a never-ending I'm so bored, are we there yet?).
This latter group will mature and moderate their sense of entitlement to a degree ... but, these are the customers and leaders of the future.
But if Beats could market regular headphones for a premium, what can they do when Apple put its build quality and high tech into Beats ? ^_^
What experience does Apple have in high quality audio? Buzzfeed claims Jimmy Iovine will oversee Apple's music strategy. If true that means Cook and the Board don't have confidence in Eddy Cue's ability to oversee Apple's future music strategy.
Jimmy has 40 plus years of experience and connections in the music industry -- Eddy doesn't have the time to attain equivalent chops!
As much as I am convinced this has absolutely nothing to do with Beats's second-rate headphones ... you are absolutely, 100% correct. Beats is currently able to sell crap as gold. Imagine if Apple were to take that brand and actually make that crap not crap anymore, and still sell it at a premium? (Of course, the counterargument is that Apple could in all likelihood do that already without spending the extra money on the Beats brand.)
The outcome would be different.
Beats is cross platform, and music specific. It is available on iOS, Android, and Windows Phone.
Apple and iTunes are heavily associated with iOS and Macs, plus some Windows.
it is not their earnings .. It is their total rev revenue!
A guesstimate to their earnings would be about aprox 250 tp 300 million !
Apples New mantra if deal goes through!
We will sell you mediocracy but make you feel you have the best.
This is the new apple !? An illusion of the best ! And we are proud of it !
A $250-300 million net gain for 2013 without Apple seems like more than enough profit to make a $3.2 billion deal viable. That's just for one year but you consider their growth without Apple and what Apple could do to make that gene better and it's possible for Apple to see this as a net gain within a couple years.
Comments
Still waiting for @snova to show where I made an absolute statement against this acquisition happening just to do a near 180 saying it will happen.
I don't waste my time with people who are trying to set me up with weasel games. Anyone who has (or wants to) carefully review our dialog can see your change in positioning. very surprised to see you taking on this approach, I am shocked to see you heading down this path used so often by trolls here and the things you have been posting about this for the past 2 days. It's out of character for you.
Yes, then we are in "violent" agreement.
So NOT every 2 years? You can't even keep you lie straight with a less than 10 word response. Shameful.
And that 3 year difference between the iOS-based iPhone and iOS-based iPad was only ONCE, NOT the very 3 year occurrence you have claimed.
ANNND on top of that the iPad was in dev before the iPhone, it was just on the back burner, so the one "concession" you could give him doesn't hold up well either. He's just factually wrong.
You've accused me of lying on many occasions now and have yet to back up these claims.
I think your problem is a lack of reading comprehension (as opposed to just being a troll). I was trying to get you to come to that realization yourself, however, you seem adamantly opposed to backing up your accusations.
This is what I see from you: I write, "I don't see how this benefits Apple. Could someone clue me in?" Yet you seem to read, "Apple won't buy Beats and anyone that thinks so is an asshole."
So, please, show me where I made an absolute statement that the deal won't happen and where I'm now saying it will happen. I'll take either one of those. I'm certainly not going to back off since you've made it your mission to call me a liar.
If Apple was smart they would....
Just so you know...this is when the world stops listening.
If you're telling me that a $500B company like Apple, a company responsible for one of the most radical reinventions and redefinitions of the music industry in decades, doesn't have the internal talent to take on a task like the one you're getting at any better than a headphones maker and start-up streaming service, then Apple has far worse problems that I thought.
I think it's become one of those conundrums that nobody really knows how to advance the business. I'll say this, if Apple really is buying Beats, it's not for the company at its present, but for its future. They would need to have substantial and articulate visions that Apple has bought into philosophically. Then, even if Apple thought they could do it on their own, something obvious, it might be too late. They heard the pitch, probably under some Non-Disclosure Agreement scenario and in order to keep the vision away from competitors or run afoul of violating the IP of Beats, they have to now be the buyer. (just my little theory)
In Ft. Leavenworth, KS (yeah, yeah, I know, I know), they have the famous Junior Junior High school:
General George S. Patton Jr. Junior High School
We may laugh now.
But if Beats could market regular headphones for a premium, what can they do when Apple put its build quality and high tech into Beats ? ^_^
As much as I am convinced this has absolutely nothing to do with Beats's second-rate headphones ... you are absolutely, 100% correct. Beats is currently able to sell crap as gold. Imagine if Apple were to take that brand and actually make that crap not crap anymore, and still sell it at a premium? (Of course, the counterargument is that Apple could in all likelihood do that already without spending the extra money on the Beats brand.)
Again, I don't think the headphones are a primary, or even secondary, concern for Apple. It may just be an added bonus.
Or, and here's a fun thought: maybe Apple is trying to save us all from Beats by Dre? This could be their way of cleansing the world of that brand.
If Apple was smart they would....
Just so you...this is when the world stops listening.
sorry? come again? what are you trying to say?
You misunderstand -- What beats does human-driven curation based on you, your, mood, the moment!
Watch the linked Walt/Jimmy video!
http://video-api.wsj.com/api-video/player/iframe.html?guid=B135580F-2DC6-47CD-8BAD-924E07AB6C21&mg=reno64-wsj
Hmm... that interview with Walt explains a lot. Apple is buying a person. But come on! $3.2 billion?! Is Tim going to have Jimmy Iovine run iTunes like a completely separate business, like how 3M has many diverse divisions that all need to prove their worth to the company or they are spun off or shut down?
If Apple is going to be in the business of acquiring other businesses now for growth, versus growing the business themselves, shouldn't they also be seriously looking into buying AT&T, Hulu (or Netflix), and other such core (as in the case of iPhone business) or peripherally important (as in headphones) businesses?
Personally, I see this as a defining and significant departure from Apple's strategy until now.
That's an interesting proposition. Getting a bona fide music guy who has had success with running a company sounds like a brilliant move to me. Apple clearly has the infrastructure for iTunes set up so could this be the next step? Still wonder what the $3.2 billion would be for but I do love the idea of getting Iovine as an executive.
Come on! You can't be that daft?! You're "If Apple was smart they would..." is right up with "If Steve Jobs were alive…" comments. Here's a more reasonable way you could have written your sentence. "This might be a good time for Apple to buy back some stock."
sorry? come again? what are you trying to say?
Come on! You can't be that daft?! You're "If Apple was smart they would..." is right up with "If Steve Jobs were alive…" comments. Here's a more reasonable way you could have written your sentence. "This might be a good time for Apple to buy back some stock."
I guess I am daft then per your analysis and expert guidance. After all, you have 16000 posts in the same period I have only had 1100. I know when to quit trying to reason with an addict . You win. I'm done.
and if the poster wanted to put things into full context, they would have posted my entire sentence which stated the condition at the very end.
"If Apple was smart they would choose today as a day to buyback some more stock if the lowered stock price had anything to do with people who don't know shit about the deal and true value to the company in the future."
I think that that's a reasoned assessment.
Most here, including myself, are looking at this from the perspective of a techie, shareholder, experienced Apple customer with an understanding of their products and services.
But there are different perspectives -- the creatives -- the consumers of music/media ...
And, yes, the self-entitled youth of today who believe they are due the constant satisfaction of every need and desire (a never-ending I'm so bored, are we there yet?).
This latter group will mature and moderate their sense of entitlement to a degree ... but, these are the customers and leaders of the future.
Jimmy has 40 plus years of experience and connections in the music industry -- Eddy doesn't have the time to attain equivalent chops!
it is not their earnings .. It is their total rev revenue!
A guesstimate to their earnings would be about aprox 250 tp 300 million !
Apples New mantra if deal goes through!
We will sell you mediocracy but make you feel you have the best.
This is the new apple !? An illusion of the best ! And we are proud of it !
The outcome would be different.
Beats is cross platform, and music specific. It is available on iOS, Android, and Windows Phone.
Apple and iTunes are heavily associated with iOS and Macs, plus some Windows.
A $250-300 million net gain for 2013 without Apple seems like more than enough profit to make a $3.2 billion deal viable. That's just for one year but you consider their growth without Apple and what Apple could do to make that gene better and it's possible for Apple to see this as a net gain within a couple years.