Beats deal defenders cite 'humanized' music subscription service as benefit to Apple

178101213

Comments

  • Reply 181 of 243
    saintstryfesaintstryfe Posts: 142member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

     

    Indeed it is.

     

    I use Apple product's because they're the best around.

     

    I would never use anything low end like Beats.


    Can we stop with this?

     

    Beats are good headphones. Overpriced but good. Many people who have no idea what they're listening to will proclaim them bad because other people said they're bad.

     

    They're good quality, stylish headphones that sell good, and attract an attractive market who have disposable cash. Whatever tech they have can go into improving earpods and Apple can take the knees out of competitors like HP who made the Beats brand a big part of their identity (especially in those profitable Ultrabooks). 

     

    I still think this is mostly about the streaming service, however. 

  • Reply 182 of 243
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    I wasn't able to watch the video, since they're doing some work in my area, and my connection is really slow at the moment, but your #3 scares me, because that means that Apple is just buying into a trend. So they don't have any valuable IP that is worth buying, but Apple just wants their brand name?

    Some Apple haters claim that Apple is successful just because of marketing or that it's trendy, but that couldn't be further from the truth of course, because we all know that Apple's success is based on decades of delivering stellar products.

    Beats were whoring themselves out to any two bit Android player who wanted to include it on their phones. I don't see anything special at all about Apple acquiring that brand. It would devalue the Apple brand and lower my opinion of the company. And I don't think that I'm the only one who believes that, because this rumor and this whole beats deal is pretty polarizing, no matter which forum you go to read about it.

    Well just whoring themselves to Android devices would be something complementary to Apple since the latter won't do it.

    As a separate brand, Beats will have more leeway and flexibility in execution.


    They certainly won't brand crappy products as Apple products though. That's just common sense.
  • Reply 183 of 243
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by saintstryfe View Post

     

    Can we stop with this?

     

    Beats are good headphones. Overpriced but good. Many people who have no idea what they're listening to will proclaim them bad because other people said they're bad.

     

    They're good quality, stylish headphones that sell good, and attract an attractive market who have disposable cash. Whatever tech they have can go into improving earpods and Apple can take the knees out of competitors like HP who made the Beats brand a big part of their identity (especially in those profitable Ultrabooks). 

     

    I still think this is mostly about the streaming service, however. 


     

    What a great strategy for Apple to try and emulate what their failed competitors have been doing, like including the beats brand into their products. 

     

    And if beats are considered high end, then I must be ultra-high end, because I would never use any beats headphones. I don't really care about their price, I have plenty more expensive headphones than any beats, it's just that I don't like their image. I'm not urban, I don't listen to hip hop and I don't associate beats with quality or good audio. Beats is a newcomer and I see it more as a trend.

     

    I'll stick with quality brands like AKG, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamics etc., that have been around for a long time and know what they're doing, and that have proven themselves.

  • Reply 184 of 243
    dick applebaumdick applebaum Posts: 12,527member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    apple ][ wrote: »
    If this is about the streaming biz, or music curating, then I'll feel a lot better about the whole situation. I just hope that the hardware part is not involved in any way, shape or form.

    Redux: The Verge has a 90 second video clip where they 1) state it all as a fact which "could be announced as early as next week," 2) comment on how Beats owns over half the premium headphone market, and 3) how Apple would be buying Beats for the brand name, not the IP. Very interesting stuff and an incredible investment for a company Dre and Iovine started in 2008.


    Going on the second point alone, and the previous comment about Beats pulling in around $250 to $300 million in profits last year a $3.2 billion purchase wouldn't be crazy, unless a lot of the multiple billion dollar buys we usually see with companies that are lucky to turn a profit.

    Here's an article was exactly the opposite take than the verge video:

    http://www.macworld.com/article/2153702/get-to-know-beats-music-the-streaming-service-that-could-make-apple-spend-billions.html
  • Reply 185 of 243
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    Can we stop with this?

    Beats are good headphones. Overpriced but good. Many people who have no idea what they're listening to will proclaim them bad because other people said they're bad.

    They're good quality, stylish headphones that sell good, and attract an attractive market who have disposable cash. Whatever tech they have can go into improving earpods and Apple can take the knees out of competitors like HP who made the Beats brand a big part of their identity (especially in those profitable Ultrabooks). 

    I still think this is mostly about the streaming service, however. 

    I dug around a bit. The earlier headphones may be crappy but the newer ones seem pretty good. So that's good to know.
  • Reply 186 of 243
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    I personally wouldn't pay for a music subscription. I would pay for an iBooks subscription though - read all you can eat for $5/month, that would be awesome. If all music purchasing were to become online subscription, and no one offered tracks for sale any more (i.e. there was just no way to own music any more), it would be interesting to see to see how the public reacts to that.

  • Reply 187 of 243
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    What a great strategy for Apple to try and emulate what their failed competitors have been doing, like including the beats brand into their products. 

    It's the execution that count. Apple also used an OEM MP3 platform but iPod ends up in a different place from the rest.
    And if beats are considered high end, then I must be ultra-high end, because I would never use any beats headphones. I don't really care about their price, I have plenty more expensive headphones than any beats, it's just that I don't like their image. I'm not urban, I don't listen to hip hop and I don't associate beats with quality or good audio. Beats is a newcomer and I see it more as a trend.

    I'll stick with quality brands like AKG, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamics etc., that have been around for a long time and know what they're doing, and that have proven themselves.

    Beats is considered high end because people paid good money for their products, and quality is decent now. Some people may not like it because it's "bassy". Then again perhaps that's what the teens want. If Beats tune their headset as neutral as everyone else, they would lose their attractiveness to these people.

    I use Sennheiser myself. I probably will use Beats headphone too after Apple have worked their magic. Apple was the new kid on the block to MP3 players at one point.
  • Reply 188 of 243
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

     

    I'll stick with quality brands like AKG, Sennheiser, Beyerdynamics etc., that have been around for a long time and know what they're doing, and that have proven themselves.


     

    I haven't checked, but does Apple sell other high-end headphones in the Apple Store or online?

  • Reply 189 of 243
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by patsu View Post





    I use Sennheiser myself. I probably will use Beats headphone too after Apple have worked their magic. Apple was the new kid on the block to MP3 players at one point.

     

    I'm assuming Beats will stay Beats (with little to no measurable difference compared to what they sell now).

  • Reply 190 of 243
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by patsu View Post





    I dug around a bit. The earlier headphones may be crappy but the newer ones seem pretty good. So that's good to know.

     

    Everything I've read indicates their headphones are still bass-heavy, which might be fine for hip-hop, but bad for rock, classical, etc.

  • Reply 191 of 243
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    I haven't checked, but does Apple sell other high-end headphones in the Apple Store or online?


    They do have some various different brands that they sell, but not all brands are represented of course.

     

    The most expensive headphones that Apple sells seems to be the Beats Pro, which is $450. The top seller is the Apple earpods with remote for $29.

     

    http://store.apple.com/us/accessories/all-accessories/headphones#!&s=topSellers

  • Reply 192 of 243
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member


    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    I'm assuming Beats will stay Beats (with little to no measurable difference compared to what they sell now).

     



     

    Nah, Apple have bigger scale. Compared to pre-acquisition, new Beats will be able to source better parts at the same price because of the volume and other Apple contracts. If they have tech sharing, then there will be other improvements as well.



    Their production schedule can also be tightened *significantly* (basically roll out h/w faster and more predictably). This is because suppliers prioritize their orders for strategic customers.

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post

     

     

    Everything I've read indicates their headphones are still bass-heavy, which might be fine for hip-hop, but bad for rock, classical, etc.




    Yes I don't expect that part to change because that's the personality of the Beats headphones. They should be good for gaming and watching movies too, which is probably why the teens like it.



    It is fine because if they want, Apple may roll out its own brand of neutral sounding gears.



    I would not be surprised if headphones become the first wearable gears Apple rollout.

  • Reply 193 of 243
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    apple ][ wrote: »
    I wasn't able to watch the video, since they're doing some work in my area, and my connection is really slow at the moment, but your #3 scares me, because that means that Apple is just buying into a trend. So they don't have any valuable IP that is worth buying, but Apple just wants their brand name?

    Some Apple haters claim that Apple is successful just because of marketing or that it's trendy, but that couldn't be further from the truth of course, because we all know that Apple's success is based on decades of delivering stellar products.

    Beats were whoring themselves out to any two bit Android player who wanted to include it on their phones. I don't see anything special at all about Apple acquiring that brand. It would devalue the Apple brand and lower my opinion of the company. And I don't think that I'm the only one who believes that, because this rumor and this whole beats deal is pretty polarizing, no matter which forum you go to read about it.
    if Apple is buying Beats for the brand or because they think it will inject some cool factor into Apple them we have problems in Cupertino and I fear for the future of the company.
  • Reply 194 of 243
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Or the contrarian view is Cook the bean counter won't touch beats headphones

    I disagree with this comment.
    if Apple is buying Beats for the brand or because they think it will inject some cool factor into Apple them we have problems in Cupertino and I fear for the future of the company.

    I agree with this comment.
  • Reply 195 of 243
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    if Apple is buying Beats for the brand or because they think it will inject some cool factor into Apple them we have problems in Cupertino and I fear for the future of the company.



    Buying Beats for the brand is not a problem. What they do with the acquired brand is more interesting to see. We don't know it yet.





    I don't know why you think Cook is a bean counter. This $3.2b acquisition rumor (if confirmed), and the investment in Sapphire manufacturing say otherwise.

     

  • Reply 196 of 243
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I'm assuming Beats will stay Beats (with little to no measurable difference compared to what they sell now).
    It blows my mind why Apple would want to be associated with an overpriced crap product. Every negative stereotype of Apple fits Beats to a T.
  • Reply 197 of 243
    patsupatsu Posts: 430member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    It blows my mind why Apple would want to be associated with an overpriced crap product. Every negative stereotype of Apple fits Beats to a T.



    Have you used a Beats headphone say... for movies and gaming ? I am going to try soon.

  • Reply 198 of 243
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    patsu wrote: »

    Buying Beats for the brand is not a problem. What they do with the acquired brand is more interesting to see. We don't know it yet.



    I don't know why you think Cook is a bean counter. This $3.2b acquisition rumor, and the investment in Sapphire manufacturing says otherwise.

     
    When has Apple ever purchased another company for its brand? From everything we can tell there is no valuable IP or other technology that Beats has. Maybe it's the deals they have with the record companies but how likely is it that those would transfer to Apple? So basically you have Apple spending $3B to get young people whose parents overpay for crappy headphones to think Apple is cool.
  • Reply 199 of 243
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    if Apple is buying Beats for the brand or because they think it will inject some cool factor into Apple them we have problems in Cupertino and I fear for the future of the company.

     

    All Apple has to do is continue making the best products that they can. If they do that, then the rest takes care of itself. 

     

    If Apple tries to buy something mainly based on it's perceived "coolness" factor, then I would argue that Apple has abandoned their mission directive and lost it's soul.

  • Reply 200 of 243
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    patsu wrote: »

    Have you used a Beats headphone say... for movies and gaming ? I am going to try soon.
    I had two pairs of Beats when they were affiliated with Monster. Build quality was awful. After the cable on the second pair started to fray I returned them and got a pair of Klipsch instead and never looked back. I hope if Apple continues to sell the headphones they'll improve the build quality.
Sign In or Register to comment.