Search is one of the most important aspects of what we do on a daily basis. We search for information. It's just a matter of what content we are searching for and what app we use. Websites that have lots of information have search boxes to search within the website. Internet searches is what we do when we are looking for information on the internet. Siri is more like a front end for it, but the searches are a lot of times different than why we would use Google, Yahoo or Bing search. to me, siri is more defined by what we are asking for and what it's good at returning. I've used Siri where I thought it was good and sometimes it was horrible. Same thing with Google's Now product. They both were about 50/50 and I didn't really use them anymore because they BOTH weren't that reliable. I still have a tough time asking my tablet for information when I'm sitting down using my tablet. I'm sure if I was driving in my car and needed directions, that's a useful type of search. But if I wanted to see information about a subject where I was looking for documents I could go to, then Siri is kind of useless for that search and that is more suited for me to use the traditional internet search.
I think if Apple wanted to get into what Bing, Google and Yahoo! have, it might be worthwhile for Apple to buy Yahoo!. I see some value in that if they can make it so it's profitable on some level. Yahoo just needs work on their front end and their email system is horrible and I just simply get WAY too much spam on my Yahoo! account, which is more than frustrating. I'm thinking about getting a new name/email address on Yahoo! and try to figure out how NOT to get spam. Plus Yahoo! customer service is HORRIBLE. I get no assistance in trying to get these spam ads to stop. Nothing worse than having to deal with 200 spam emails daily. It's worse than junk mail, which I now get VERY little in my physical mail box. Interesting change in some ways for the better and some ways for the worse.
I don't think Apple needs to (or should bother) getting into the search business.
My point was that when Apple bought Siri, some assumed that Apple were diving into search - in a possibly similar way, many assume that an acquisition of Beats is primarily about headphones, when it is potentially (and I think, more likely) about something much bigger and more strategic than that.
I don't think Apple needs to (or should bother) getting into the search business.
My point was that when Apple bought Siri, some assumed that Apple were diving into search - in a possibly similar way, many assume that an acquisition of Beats is primarily about headphones, when it is potentially (and I think, more likely) about something much bigger and more strategic than that.
Once Apple decided to do Apple maps, Apple search is inevitable, Siri, Carplay, and iTunes store demand it. And Apple is probably already doing limited search as is to support what they already have.
Once Apple decided to do Apple maps, Apple search is inevitable, Siri, Carplay, and iTunes store demand it. And Apple is probably already doing limited search as is to support what they already have.
I don't think it's inevitable, because search is a very different business to maps, Siri, Carplay, and iTunes.
Of course, things may have changed with Tim Cook in charge, but I don't see an automatic connection between search and these other product areas.
In any case, that's kind of separate to the topic at hand. I will be very interested to see how Apple takes advantage of the new relationship with Beats, beyond the obvious stuff that people have been discussing so far.
I don't think Apple needs to (or should bother) getting into the search business.
My point was that when Apple bought Siri, some assumed that Apple were diving into search - in a possibly similar way, many assume that an acquisition of Beats is primarily about headphones, when it is potentially (and I think, more likely) about something much bigger and more strategic than that.
I just think they bought Beats to rebrand the headphones with the name Apple on it so Google, Samsung or Microsoft didn't buy them first. Google bought Nest out from under Apple, so maybe that's why they bought Beats first. But typically speaking, Apple will HOPEFULLY rebrand everything Apple related since Apple brand is far more recognizable than anyone else's. This way they can increase their profit margin on headphone sales and if they want to add the Beats subscription service to iTunes, it will just be rebranded under iTunes and the Beats name will be dropped. That's what I would do., and then Dr. Dre can't use his name anymore to compete. And then it would make it more difficult for someone else to come out with something competitive other than the headphone mfg that already compete in that market space.
The thing I notice is that these billion dollar purchases of companies many times don't really do much. Beats wasn't really bought for their unique technology. ANYONE can make a set of headphones that sounds like a Beats headphone, it's just nothing that special and unique that can't be duplicated. Their subscription service is nothing that unique other than they have one and Apple doesn't. I think it's more of a hype acquisition than anything else.
The real unique and strategic acquisitions Apple does are usually the most quiet. Remember Anobit acquisition? That's for better SSD controller chips. You may not know how much more competitive it made Apple because they don't tell anyone. Same thing with these other technology purchases they've done, they keep that stuff pretty quiet. Remember the Fingerprint ID? That was definitely a strategic move as was the sensor company they bought that makes sensors for the Kinect product. But they don't talk much about it until the release something with it.
I think it's more of a hype acquisition than anything else.
The real unique and strategic acquisitions Apple does are usually the most quiet. Remember Anobit acquisition? That's for better SSD controller chips. You may not know how much more competitive it made Apple because they don't tell anyone. Same thing with these other technology purchases they've done, they keep that stuff pretty quiet. Remember the Fingerprint ID? That was definitely a strategic move as was the sensor company they bought that makes sensors for the Kinect product. But they don't talk much about it until the release something with it.
The reason I don't think it is a hype acquisition is because a) I haven't known Apple to operate in that way and b) Apple are an inherently strategic company. Spending $3bn on hype doesn't make logical sense.
My thinking is that there's still plenty of "quiet stuff" going on here. There's the surface level hype (generated by the media rather than Apple, who have been virtually silent about this as far as I can tell), but then there's all the strategic planning in the background.
If Apple simply took Beats headphones and slapped the Apple logo on them, I'd be incredibly surprised. That approach makes zero business sense, and again, is very contrary to the way Apple operates. That's not to say Apple won't work with Beats on new hardware of some kind, but I doubt it'll be as simple as a mere logo change.
Of course nobody really knows the answer yet, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple don't utilise the connection with Beats on multiple levels in the future (I am intrigued by the possibility of the two pairing up for working on wearables for example - this may not happen, but it makes a huge amount of sense to me).
The reason I don't think it is a hype acquisition is because a) I haven't known Apple to operate in that way and b) Apple are an inherently strategic company. Spending $3bn on hype doesn't make logical sense.
My thinking is that there's still plenty of "quiet stuff" going on here. There's the surface level hype (generated by the media rather than Apple, who have been virtually silent about this as far as I can tell), but then there's all the strategic planning in the background.
If Apple simply took Beats headphones and slapped the Apple logo on them, I'd be incredibly surprised. That approach makes zero business sense, and again, is very contrary to the way Apple operates. That's not to say Apple won't work with Beats on new hardware of some kind, but I doubt it'll be as simple as a mere logo change.
Of course nobody really knows the answer yet, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple don't utilise the connection with Beats on multiple levels in the future (I am intrigued by the possibility of the two pairing up for working on wearables for example - this may not happen, but it makes a huge amount of sense to me).
Why? Iovine isn't an engineer and neither is Dr. Dre. They are music producers that have lots of celebrity friends. They saw a niche in the headphone and earbud market. That's all Beats Technology is. It's just a fashion type product with artificially enhanced Bass, that's nothing special. ANY audio technology company can do that. It's nothing but designing the drivers and maybe something else to have more enhanced bass. BIG DEAL. Bose had simlar crap too. The problem is that in the audio world. The masses are easily manipulated into what is referred to as LOW FI or MID FI. This is what is marketed to the masses because they listen to mostly audio that's been heavily signal processed in the recording and mastering of the content with all kinds of things that artificially make it sound the way it sounds. With the rap stuff, they like lots and lots of enhanced bass. But in the audio world, if you talk to the high end audio people that was super accurate sound reproduction, they don't want artificially enhanced because it sounds like crap when you listen to higher quality recordings that don't have any artificial signal processing during the recording and mastering process. The high end audio crowd wants ACCURACY and not artificially enhanced, but the masses don't really know or even care at this point.
I don't think there is any quiet stuff going on at Beats. The algorithms might be about a technology based as they can get and they just 50 programmers working on that from what i heard in an interview with Iovine, but that's about it. They are STILL trying to figure out what works best, so it's an ongoing issue.
At this point in time, I wouldn't expect anything that amazing coming from this particular deal. Apple bought 73% of the headphone earbud market, plain and simple and they bought a subscription service they can roll into iTunes if they want to and that's really all it is.
Beats, to my knowledge, wasn't working on anything related to wearables. Apple has been involved with wearables for a long time and they've been hiring people over the years in that space and I don't think Beats is really that big of a deal for wearables. I don't know what they could put inside a headphone to monitor anything. it would be great if the headphones shut off when it sensed you have ear damage, but I don't think that would fly in the market place. That would funny if they had that. It would be interesting if they could monitor the actual sound pressure levels people have their headphones jacked up to so people could set their volume as to not cause hearing damage, which typically starts occurring at around 96dB+ for more than about 15 minutes of listening time or more. Most people don't care about that. The rap guys don't care since they'll crank their systems up until the speakers and amplifiers melt and then they just get bigger speakers with more power and keep on doing it until their ears bleed.
Why? Iovine isn't an engineer and neither is Dr. Dre. They are music producers that have lots of celebrity friends. They saw a niche in the headphone and earbud market. That's all Beats Technology is. It's just a fashion type product with artificially enhanced Bass, that's nothing special. ANY audio technology company can do that. It's nothing but designing the drivers and maybe something else to have more enhanced bass. BIG DEAL.
So, for a moment I want to get away from the question of what Beats headphones actually are at a technological level. I agree with you that this is irrelevant. I also agree that Iovine and Dr. Dre aren't engineers; the thing is, they don't need to be. That isn't the point. Apple has plenty of engineers.
I think what we have to do is shift the focus slightly.
What Beats did was to take a pretty ordinary product (headphones, which are nothing terribly special) and turn it into a high-end brand that crosses the intersections between technology and fashion. There is a sense in which "Beats" has started to replace "high-end headphone", at least in terms of perception.
So what Apple are buying here is more than just the component parts of hardware, brand, software services, and so on: they are really buying an entire brand approach and a set of skills that very much align with what Apple does (the fusion or intersection between technology and liberal arts, to put it another way).
Quote:
Originally posted by drblank:
I don't think there is any quiet stuff going on at Beats. The algorithms might be about a technology based as they can get and they just 50 programmers working on that from what i heard in an interview with Iovine, but that's about it. They are STILL trying to figure out what works best, so it's an ongoing issue.
I'm sure there's plenty of quiet stuff going on. I mean, again, I think the discussion should be a lot broader than just their tech (I don't mean to diminish the importance of the tech, but I'm trying to express a wider idea).
But to move into your next point...
Quote:
Originally posted by drblank:
Beats, to my knowledge, wasn't working on anything related to wearables. Apple has been involved with wearables for a long time and they've been hiring people over the years in that space and I don't think Beats is really that big of a deal for wearables.
Yes, I agree - although I'd make two points:
1) Beats are very accustomed to certain aspects of design that are relevant for wearables. Think about their headphones for a moment, and think about the materials they use (especially thinks like the stitching and leather - or faux leather, I'm not sure which). They very much have one foot (or one toe?) in the fashion space.
2) I also wouldn't entirely judge this deal based on what Beats has done previously. Apple are strategic thinkers, remember. They will have some goals in mind in terms of how the expertise at Beats can connect with the work Apple is doing.
So, for a moment I want to get away from the question of what Beats headphones actually are at a technological level. I agree with you that this is irrelevant. I also agree that Iovine and Dr. Dre aren't engineers; the thing is, they don't need to be. That isn't the point. Apple has plenty of engineers.
I think what we have to do is shift the focus slightly.
What Beats did was to take a pretty ordinary product (headphones, which are nothing terribly special) and turn it into a high-end brand that crosses the intersections between technology and fashion. There is a sense in which "Beats" has started to replace "high-end headphone", at least in terms of perception.
So what Apple are buying here is more than just the component parts of hardware, brand, software services, and so on: they are really buying an entire brand approach and a set of skills that very much align with what Apple does (the fusion or intersection between technology and liberal arts, to put it another way).
I'm sure there's plenty of quiet stuff going on. I mean, again, I think the discussion should be a lot broader than just their tech (I don't mean to diminish the importance of the tech, but I'm trying to express a wider idea).
But to move into your next point...
Yes, I agree - although I'd make two points:
1) Beats are very accustomed to certain aspects of design that are relevant for wearables. Think about their headphones for a moment, and think about the materials they use (especially thinks like the stitching and leather - or faux leather, I'm not sure which). They very much have one foot (or one toe?) in the fashion space.
2) I also wouldn't entirely judge this deal based on what Beats has done previously. Apple are strategic thinkers, remember. They will have some goals in mind in terms of how the expertise at Beats can connect with the work Apple is doing.
Let me see if I can address this. Now, in the designing of audio equipment, it is common practice to take engineers with a technical background in the engineering that is required to make a certain product, whether it's a speaker, amp, etc. And what is common is to take prototypes of these products to people that have various levels of skills in listening to see what they like and dislike about the product to help the engineers make whatever improvements. Now, some companies will go to people in the recording industry like mastering engineers like a Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg, or someone of this caliber to help with product development. Iovine has an recording engineering background, but I will tell you he isn't even a gnat fart when compared to Bob Ludwig, Goerge Massenburg, and many others that have done some MAJOR recording work, as well as other lessor known engineers that do mostly classical recordings that are extremely accurate capturing of a live acoustic performance without any altercation of the signal. These guys have VERY experienced and trained ears, they use equipment that can sometimes exceed what Iovine is normally used to listening to. Bob Ludwig, for instance is responsible for just about every MAJOR recording and he helps design speaker that cost in excess of $100K, and he's using some of the most accurate and expensive equipment for what he feels is about as accurate as he can get because the mastering process demands this level of accuracy when doing his job. There are others that use similar equipment and I guarantee you, I don't think Bob Ludwig is called to rap music, to my knowledge it's not in his wheel house. I don't think George Massenburg does that stuff either. Some of these guys can pick and choose what they want to because they are the best of the best and people seek these guys out because they know they will get a great end product. It's why they are some of the most in demand guys in the world. Now, if THESE guys helped design headphones, it wouldn't end up sounding like Beats because they would probably end up with something more along the lines of a HD800, but to my knowledge they really don't use headphones that I'm aware of. Some engineers specifically master the recordings to sound good on cheap headphones, stereo speakers because the music they are creating is catering to that crowd. Hence why Iovine and Dr. Dre are doing the Beats Headphones. The music these other people do are more for adult listening because they work with the music that's catering to a different demographic and they are dealing with more serious and demanding producers and artists that demand better sound quality. Now, Iovine worked on Springsteen's Born to Run album but he was one of 8 engineers, but the finished product ended up with Bob Ludwig. Bob kind makes whatever they give him sound better. He does that end result sweetening to make it sound proper because he's working with higher end more precise mastering equipment than what these other engineers are working with. So, in terms of looking up to someone in the industry that is going to help design a product or use a product, I would probably be more inclined to look up to someone like a Bob Ludwig to find out what THEY recommend and not listen to someone like an Iovine, that simply doesn't have the same level of skill set as a Bob Ludwig.
I honestly don't know of anything else Beats was working on. They didn't buy out any other company other than that MOG system that failed, but Beats made no acquisitions of any technology based company and I can't think they are doing much more than the headphones, earbuds and the car speaker systems, which can EASILY be done by anyone. i think they just did a great job in marketing to the masses and came up with fashion based headphones and used enhanced bass as their marketing BS. NOTHING SPECIAL AT ALL. They kind of took the BOSE marketing mentality and made it a little more fashionable and that was about all they did.
Stitching of leather is nothing new, a lot of other companies do this and have done this for many years with headphones, I just think a lot of people that buy Beats just haven't been exposed to these other brands since they typically don't venture out to the high end audio stores or audio shows with any frequency which is where you see the more esoteric stuff that is higher priced, but caters to the VERY serious listeners that demand accuracy than artificially enhanced bass. I seem to remember a company called Cerwin Vega used to use bass as their marketing tool back in the 70's and 80's, but they are more Pro Audio and generally considered not that big of deal anymore because they still sound like crap.
I still think Apple bought them because it would be better than if Google or Microsoft bought them. Since Apple has the money, maybe they thought it would help in what they have planned with the future of iTunes and Music and nothing else.
People want there to be more than that, but highly doubt there is.
You wrote a fairly long (and interesting) preamble about the background of the technology - I don't dispute any of that, but again, it's really pretty irrelevant to my point. As I said, I think Apple can access top-tier engineers as required, so I don't see this apparent gap as a point of concern (or even a focal point for Apple itself).
Quote:
Originally posted by drblank:
Stitching of leather is nothing new, a lot of other companies do this and have done this for many years with headphones, I just think a lot of people that buy Beats just haven't been exposed to these other brands since they typically don't venture out to the high end audio stores or audio shows with any frequency which is where you see the more esoteric stuff that is higher priced, but caters to the VERY serious listeners that demand accuracy than artificially enhanced bass.
Okay, so, that's great and I don't disagree.
But, it's kind of missing the point of what I'm saying (and maybe I'm just not being clear enough, I'll grant that).
What you're saying is akin on some level to those who say things like "Apple didn't invent the tablet, the iPad came along after X or Y products made by X or Y companies". Yes, fine. Granted. But again, not the point we're after here.
I don't doubt that there are much better headphones out there in terms of sound quality. And I don't doubt that many consumers who buy Beats products haven't been exposed to those other products. Again, fine.
I think the relevant point here is that Beats - as a brand - has almost started to become quite ubiquitous. They are starting to own the conversations around high-end headphones, and they are starting to lead and define the perception of these devices. There's a lot more to it than just marketing - Beats have really understood the fusion between marketing and industrial design, for example.
Now again - let me be really really clear - this is not me making a comment about how good or bad the technology is. That's a separate question.
Quote:
Originally posted by drblank:
I still think Apple bought them because it would be better than if Google or Microsoft bought them. Since Apple has the money, maybe they thought it would help in what they have planned with the future of iTunes and Music and nothing else.
You could be very right about both those points.
I'd just repeat that nobody should discount other possibilities as well - again, Apple are a very strategic player, and a big purchase needs to have big payoffs at the other end to be justifiable.
As observers, we can only guess what these may be.
But we should not be surprised if there's more going on than we know about - this is incredibly likely.
But, it's kind of missing the point of what I'm saying (and maybe I'm just not being clear enough, I'll grant that).
What you're saying is akin on some level to those who say things like "Apple didn't invent the tablet, the iPad came along after X or Y products made by X or Y companies". Yes, fine. Granted. But again, not the point we're after here.
I don't doubt that there are much better headphones out there in terms of sound quality. And I don't doubt that many consumers who buy Beats products haven't been exposed to those other products. Again, fine.
I think the relevant point here is that Beats - as a brand - has almost started to become quite ubiquitous. They are starting to own the conversations around high-end headphones, and they are starting to lead and define the perception of these devices. There's a lot more to it than just marketing - Beats have really understood the fusion between marketing and industrial design, for example.
Now again - let me be really really clear - this is not me making a comment about how good or bad the technology is. That's a separate question.
You could be very right about both those points.
I'd just repeat that nobody should discount other possibilities as well - again, Apple are a very strategic player, and a big purchase needs to have big payoffs at the other end to be justifiable.
As observers, we can only guess what these may be.
But we should not be surprised if there's more going on than we know about - this is incredibly likely.
I agree that Beats was able to create a headphone with a sense of fashion style. Others have done this, but they really didn't do as good of a job with it. Apple hasn't really done anything with headphones only earbuds on a VERY superficial level. There are a LOT of earbud mfg that have some VERY SERIOUSLY technology which again, go after the high end, some are custom fitted for better isolation and fit. But again, those are expensive but in any industry there are products that cater to all levels of the consumer.
Yeah, Beats has become a household word to a LOT of people, but I think Apple is a BIGGER brand name overall and I think it would probably be what Apple ultimately does is to rebrand everything Apple and removing Beats over time. I just know that Apple doesn't like OTHER brands on their products. You don't see Apple products with stickers on the outside saying Intel Inside. Apple doesn't do that. I don't recall if they've ever done that, but they certainly don't do it now, so that's why I think over time as they redesign and APPLE-IZE the product line, we'll probably see the Beats brand go bye bye and the Apple brand replace it. That's just a PURE guess on my part. Now, how they market the headphones is another thing. Obviously Apple has a FIRM rule of not giving free products away or paying people to endorse their products. They loan equipment for product placement in TV, Movies, etc., but those are returned and they have a loaner pool like that. Beats on the other hand, probably gave a lot of free headphones away, wore them on TV on American Idol, and other TV shows and marketing and other photo opportunities, etc. So they kind of didn't play with the same rules Apple plays under with regards to marketing. If I were Apple, MY first reaction to selling something is if you want to attract an audience, you get your product in the hands of people that that audience looks up to for guidance. The fans of rap look up to people like Dr. Dre and he LOVES promoting himself. If i were to market a pair of headphones that is supposed to be high quality in terms of sound quality, I actually would DEFINITELY seek the advice, and maybe some marketing opportunities by who is considered some of the best ears in the business. Who is that? Well, to me people that I have mentioned before, Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg and various others that are responsible to doing mastering and engineering on what is considered the best SOUNDING recordings. So I would consult with a variety of people where it would get a cross section of industry experts. Now, if they are trying to make it fashionable, then you have the fashion industry to seek, since they have Angela from Burberry, I'm SURE she can help in that area.
I know people want Apple to continue with branding the Beats name because they might have an emotional attachment to the products they already bought, but I highly doubt Apple will continue that in the future. Apple likes their logo on ALL of their products and they have always used the minimalist approach to having the product with lots of words, stickers, etc. They have industrial engineers on staff and they can certainly take cues from B&O, which makes higher end fashion based products that do use lots of metal and leather that's luxurious, same with B&W, and the same with others. Apple may, guessing, make a line of lower priced color models to go after the teenager crowd and then some more expensive models that go after maybe a prosumer/professional/executive that wants that higher end model. One thing I can say was brilliant design was the high end Beats have the earpiece that flips up. That IS a great design since musicians in the studio and DJ's like to have one ear on and one ear off with the headphones so they can hear what's coming out of the headphones, plus their own playing at the same time they are tracking their part and that's a PERFECT design. I will freely admit that that design is killer for those applications, but I don't know how good isolation they have for studio use since there are headphones specifically designed that have a high amount of isolation which is what some musicians use, and I don't know how well the Beats are for sound isolation when compared to the other brands that are considered the best for that application. Headphones can get VERY personal on what someone likes and Apple generally doesn't make a kagillion different version of a product, they like to keep to a low, med, and high end range to keep things simple. But keeping the Beats namesake, I just think they'll eventually phase it out and rebrand everything with the Apple logo which is recognizable.
Ingsoc and drblank: you both make many good points on this subject. Drblank: I agree with most of what you say, but I think that you are being presumptious, because, as Ingsoc says, Apple always buys companies strategically. It's hard to imagine that Apple are simply buying Beats for their headphones and streaming service and will leave it at that. There must be more.
We may find out soon, or we may have to wait longer. Patience is required.
Ingsoc and drblank: you both make many good points on this subject. Drblank: I agree with most of what you say, but I think that you are being presumptious, because, as Ingsoc says, Apple always buys companies strategically. It's hard to imagine that Apple are simply buying Beats for their headphones and streaming service and will leave it at that. There must be more.
We may find out soon, or we may have to wait longer. Patience is required.
Here's the dilemma, Apple has never bought a company that's had a product line of established hardware with this much name recognition before. Now, they've bought software companies and they might have kept the name of the software Final Cut and Logic for example, but the name of the company they bought they removed. And they kept the names for lack of anything else. Filemaker they run differently, which I always thought was weird. They should have brought Filemaker under the Apple name and offer it on their site. I have NO IDEA why they haven't done this. The Filemaker story is weird. Anyway, my point is either they can let the Beats Electronics run by itself as is, rebrand the entire product Apple Style, or shut it down and run out of business like the vile scum that they are and forget that the company existed in the first place while they take what they want out of Beats Music and fold it into iTunes and shut down the Beats Music Store and act like the company Beats never existed. I hate to say this to Beats fans, that's what happens when a big company swallows a little company, they rebrand and toss the brand they bought in the trash bin.
Now, Apple has NEVER had ANY product using the name of a person involved with the name of a product or even labeled on a product, so I'm sure Apple will just keep the existing products they have in the stores as is until they run out of stock and they are ready to release the refreshed product line. The same goes for the name. I really don't see Apple putting Beats By Apple. So, they have a choice. Run them independently like Filemaker is run and leave that portion alone. OR rebrand everything under the Apple name and $hit can Beats/Dr. Dre and call the new products the iHeadphone line. For lack of anything else. They can't use iCans, I think that's taken. There's a headphone company in the UK called iHeadphone, so they might have troubles in the UK. Either way, I don't use headphones and if I were to buy a pair, I'd be looking at higher end products because that's just what I would be interested.
Ingsoc and drblank: you both make many good points on this subject. Drblank: I agree with most of what you say, but I think that you are being presumptious, because, as Ingsoc says, Apple always buys companies strategically. It's hard to imagine that Apple are simply buying Beats for their headphones and streaming service and will leave it at that. There must be more.
We may find out soon, or we may have to wait longer. Patience is required.
Here's the dilemma, Apple has never bought a company that's had a product line of established hardware with this much name recognition before. Now, they've bought software companies and they might have kept the name of the software Final Cut and Logic for example, but the name of the company they bought they removed. And they kept the names for lack of anything else. Filemaker they run differently, which I always thought was weird. They should have brought Filemaker under the Apple name and offer it on their site. I have NO IDEA why they haven't done this. The Filemaker story is weird. Anyway, my point is either they can let the Beats Electronics run by itself as is, rebrand the entire product Apple Style, or shut it down and run out of business like the vile scum that they are and forget that the company existed in the first place while they take what they want out of Beats Music and fold it into iTunes and shut down the Beats Music Store and act like the company Beats never existed. I hate to say this to Beats fans, that's what happens when a big company swallows a little company, they rebrand and toss the brand they bought in the trash bin.
Now, Apple has NEVER had ANY product using the name of a person involved with the name of a product or even labeled on a product, so I'm sure Apple will just keep the existing products they have in the stores as is until they run out of stock and they are ready to release the refreshed product line. The same goes for the name. I really don't see Apple putting Beats By Apple. So, they have a choice. Run them independently like Filemaker is run and leave that portion alone. OR rebrand everything under the Apple name and $hit can Beats/Dr. Dre and call the new products the iHeadphone line. For lack of anything else. They can't use iCans, I think that's taken. There's a headphone company in the UK called iHeadphone, so they might have troubles in the UK. Either way, I don't use headphones and if I were to buy a pair, I'd be looking at higher end products because that's just what I would be interested.
I think it would probably be what Apple ultimately does is to rebrand everything Apple and removing Beats over time. I just know that Apple doesn't like OTHER brands on their products. You don't see Apple products with stickers on the outside saying Intel Inside. Apple doesn't do that.
Yes, I agree. But this assumes that Apple want to integrate Beats products into their own business - that may not remotely be the case.
I can envisage a scenario where Beats retains its independence as a brand (this is very likely actually, because a big part of a company's value is goodwill - and goodwill is tied to brand value, and Apple is acutely aware of this), but that the companies collaborate in a number of areas. It's not outside the realms of possibility.
Quote:
Obviously Apple has a FIRM rule of not giving free products away or paying people to endorse their products. They loan equipment for product placement in TV, Movies, etc., but those are returned and they have a loaner pool like that. Beats on the other hand, probably gave a lot of free headphones away, wore them on TV on American Idol, and other TV shows and marketing and other photo opportunities, etc. So they kind of didn't play with the same rules Apple plays under with regards to marketing.
Sure, but I don't see why the two companies wouldn't have slightly different marketing approaches. I think that this is highly contingent on the earlier question about whether or not Apple will allow Beats to remain an independent brand. Once that question is answered, we are likely to have a sense of how the marketing approach may or may not change.
Quote:
Now, if they are trying to make it fashionable, then you have the fashion industry to seek, since they have Angela from Burberry, I'm SURE she can help in that area.
See, this is where it's important to have clear distinctions.
Angela was not a fashion designer - she was responsible for retail, and that's precisely where Apple are using her.
Beats designs products that have a foot in the fashion space, and that have a direct "wearable" appeal. That is quite different.
Anyway, I'm responding to something a little old, let me address some newer points here.
Quote:
I hate to say this to Beats fans, that's what happens when a big company swallows a little company, they rebrand and toss the brand they bought in the trash bin.
No, that's not always what happens. Not at all. It is sometimes what happens, yes.
But sometimes one company buys another in large part because of brand appeal. It may be that Apple does get rid of the Beats brand entirely, but this makes little sense and we should not automatically assume that they will.
Quote:
Now, Apple has NEVER had ANY product using the name of a person involved with the name of a product or even labeled on a product, so I'm sure Apple will just keep the existing products they have in the stores as is until they run out of stock and they are ready to release the refreshed product line. The same goes for the name. I really don't see Apple putting Beats By Apple.
You are right about Apple's own branding, but you're still making an assumption that Apple's only real option is to either dump the Beats name, or say something lik e"Beats by Apple". This is a false dichotomy!
There is a third and fourth option.
The third option is that Apple leaves Beats existing product lines as independent lines which retain the Beats brand.
The fourth option is the same as the third option, but with an additional component: Apple and Beats remain separate brands with their own product lines, but the two companies collaborate on specific projects (which may carry either brand, or be dual-branded).
I'm sure there are many other options besides these.
We have to slightly widen our frame of reference on this one, in part because (as you indicated), this is a fairly unprecedented situation.
Yes, I agree. But this assumes that Apple want to integrate Beats products into their own business - that may not remotely be the case.
I can envisage a scenario where Beats retains its independence as a brand (this is very likely actually, because a big part of a company's value is goodwill - and goodwill is tied to brand value, and Apple is acutely aware of this), but that the companies collaborate in a number of areas. It's not outside the realms of possibility.
Sure, but I don't see why the two companies wouldn't have slightly different marketing approaches. I think that this is highly contingent on the earlier question about whether or not Apple will allow Beats to remain an independent brand. Once that question is answered, we are likely to have a sense of how the marketing approach may or may not change.
See, this is where it's important to have clear distinctions.
Angela was not a fashion designer - she was responsible for retail, and that's precisely where Apple are using her.
Beats designs products that have a foot in the fashion space, and that have a direct "wearable" appeal. That is quite different.
Anyway, I'm responding to something a little old, let me address some newer points here.
No, that's not always what happens. Not at all. It is sometimes what happens, yes.
But sometimes one company buys another in large part because of brand appeal. It may be that Apple does get rid of the Beats brand entirely, but this makes little sense and we should not automatically assume that they will.
You are right about Apple's own branding, but you're still making an assumption that Apple's only real option is to either dump the Beats name, or say something lik e"Beats by Apple". This is a false dichotomy!
There is a third and fourth option.
The third option is that Apple leaves Beats existing product lines as independent lines which retain the Beats brand.
The fourth option is the same as the third option, but with an additional component: Apple and Beats remain separate brands with their own product lines, but the two companies collaborate on specific projects (which may carry either brand, or be dual-branded).
I'm sure there are many other options besides these.
We have to slightly widen our frame of reference on this one, in part because (as you indicated), this is a fairly unprecedented situation.
I just don't know how Apple is going to do this any more than anyone else outside of Apple. The thing that we don't have any frame of reference is that they have never bought a hardware product line company before. With the s/w they typically rebranded it Apple with the exception of Filemaker, which runs independently. I'm sure they might decide to run that group independently until they get a form of rebranding plan initiated. When they make the final announcement, we might hear what their plans are, so its all speculation at this point. But I'm just examining what their options are and what I feel would be in their best interest using the mindset that Apple typically has with branding of product.
I'm sure they are probably going to bring Iovine in because he would be able to navigate the waters with the record labels because he knows the business end of it better than anyone at Apple, so he might be able to better negotiate that end of the business. If that happens, I'm wondering how they might shift Eddy Cue unless they just use Iovine more as an advisory position rather than an actually full time employee of Apple. I read that Iovine would be leaving his position at Interscope. I've always been surprised how he can own and run a music store download site company AND be top management at a record label at the same time, since that's normally considered conflict of interest.
I just don't know how Apple is going to do this any more than anyone else outside of Apple. The thing that we don't have any frame of reference is that they have never bought a hardware product line company before. With the s/w they typically rebranded it Apple with the exception of Filemaker, which runs independently. I'm sure they might decide to run that group independently until they get a form of rebranding plan initiated. When they make the final announcement, we might hear what their plans are, so its all speculation at this point. But I'm just examining what their options are and what I feel would be in their best interest using the mindset that Apple typically has with branding of product.
Yes, you're right. I guess my only point is that some people have really been second-guessing this whole purchase, but they have been doing it based on fairly dodgy assumptions about what is most likely to happen.
Problem is, many of these assumptions don't make business sense, and don't even reflect Apple's own behaviour.
So my thinking is definitely to take a wait and see approach, but at the same time, to remember that Apple is a clever and strategic company; they aren't going to spend $3bn simply for some kind of celebrity endorsement. There's always more to it than that (and whatever that is may only become clear bit-by-bit, over time).
Dr Dre is going to be an Apple executive. Cook has lost his fucking mind.
Careful Rog, your racism is showing. Well... also your lack of tolerance, and business sense as well. Lovine fits in "your ummmm... mind (using mind when referring to you is difficult) but that is because Dr. Dre shouldn't be there since he is the clear underdog, and you have more than a billion places you would rather see him.
That makes Dr. Dre the CLEAR PICK, since he has been successful in spite of socially retarded people like yourself who strive to make it almost impossible for him to succeed. Lovine only has to be present, and he's somehow the winner, you loser.
Comments
Search is one of the most important aspects of what we do on a daily basis. We search for information. It's just a matter of what content we are searching for and what app we use. Websites that have lots of information have search boxes to search within the website. Internet searches is what we do when we are looking for information on the internet. Siri is more like a front end for it, but the searches are a lot of times different than why we would use Google, Yahoo or Bing search. to me, siri is more defined by what we are asking for and what it's good at returning. I've used Siri where I thought it was good and sometimes it was horrible. Same thing with Google's Now product. They both were about 50/50 and I didn't really use them anymore because they BOTH weren't that reliable. I still have a tough time asking my tablet for information when I'm sitting down using my tablet. I'm sure if I was driving in my car and needed directions, that's a useful type of search. But if I wanted to see information about a subject where I was looking for documents I could go to, then Siri is kind of useless for that search and that is more suited for me to use the traditional internet search.
I think if Apple wanted to get into what Bing, Google and Yahoo! have, it might be worthwhile for Apple to buy Yahoo!. I see some value in that if they can make it so it's profitable on some level. Yahoo just needs work on their front end and their email system is horrible and I just simply get WAY too much spam on my Yahoo! account, which is more than frustrating. I'm thinking about getting a new name/email address on Yahoo! and try to figure out how NOT to get spam. Plus Yahoo! customer service is HORRIBLE. I get no assistance in trying to get these spam ads to stop. Nothing worse than having to deal with 200 spam emails daily. It's worse than junk mail, which I now get VERY little in my physical mail box. Interesting change in some ways for the better and some ways for the worse.
I don't think Apple needs to (or should bother) getting into the search business.
My point was that when Apple bought Siri, some assumed that Apple were diving into search - in a possibly similar way, many assume that an acquisition of Beats is primarily about headphones, when it is potentially (and I think, more likely) about something much bigger and more strategic than that.
I don't think Apple needs to (or should bother) getting into the search business.
My point was that when Apple bought Siri, some assumed that Apple were diving into search - in a possibly similar way, many assume that an acquisition of Beats is primarily about headphones, when it is potentially (and I think, more likely) about something much bigger and more strategic than that.
Once Apple decided to do Apple maps, Apple search is inevitable, Siri, Carplay, and iTunes store demand it. And Apple is probably already doing limited search as is to support what they already have.
Once Apple decided to do Apple maps, Apple search is inevitable, Siri, Carplay, and iTunes store demand it. And Apple is probably already doing limited search as is to support what they already have.
I don't think it's inevitable, because search is a very different business to maps, Siri, Carplay, and iTunes.
Of course, things may have changed with Tim Cook in charge, but I don't see an automatic connection between search and these other product areas.
In any case, that's kind of separate to the topic at hand. I will be very interested to see how Apple takes advantage of the new relationship with Beats, beyond the obvious stuff that people have been discussing so far.
I don't think Apple needs to (or should bother) getting into the search business.
My point was that when Apple bought Siri, some assumed that Apple were diving into search - in a possibly similar way, many assume that an acquisition of Beats is primarily about headphones, when it is potentially (and I think, more likely) about something much bigger and more strategic than that.
I just think they bought Beats to rebrand the headphones with the name Apple on it so Google, Samsung or Microsoft didn't buy them first. Google bought Nest out from under Apple, so maybe that's why they bought Beats first. But typically speaking, Apple will HOPEFULLY rebrand everything Apple related since Apple brand is far more recognizable than anyone else's. This way they can increase their profit margin on headphone sales and if they want to add the Beats subscription service to iTunes, it will just be rebranded under iTunes and the Beats name will be dropped. That's what I would do., and then Dr. Dre can't use his name anymore to compete. And then it would make it more difficult for someone else to come out with something competitive other than the headphone mfg that already compete in that market space.
The thing I notice is that these billion dollar purchases of companies many times don't really do much. Beats wasn't really bought for their unique technology. ANYONE can make a set of headphones that sounds like a Beats headphone, it's just nothing that special and unique that can't be duplicated. Their subscription service is nothing that unique other than they have one and Apple doesn't. I think it's more of a hype acquisition than anything else.
The real unique and strategic acquisitions Apple does are usually the most quiet. Remember Anobit acquisition? That's for better SSD controller chips. You may not know how much more competitive it made Apple because they don't tell anyone. Same thing with these other technology purchases they've done, they keep that stuff pretty quiet. Remember the Fingerprint ID? That was definitely a strategic move as was the sensor company they bought that makes sensors for the Kinect product. But they don't talk much about it until the release something with it.
I think it's more of a hype acquisition than anything else.
The real unique and strategic acquisitions Apple does are usually the most quiet. Remember Anobit acquisition? That's for better SSD controller chips. You may not know how much more competitive it made Apple because they don't tell anyone. Same thing with these other technology purchases they've done, they keep that stuff pretty quiet. Remember the Fingerprint ID? That was definitely a strategic move as was the sensor company they bought that makes sensors for the Kinect product. But they don't talk much about it until the release something with it.
The reason I don't think it is a hype acquisition is because a) I haven't known Apple to operate in that way and b) Apple are an inherently strategic company. Spending $3bn on hype doesn't make logical sense.
My thinking is that there's still plenty of "quiet stuff" going on here. There's the surface level hype (generated by the media rather than Apple, who have been virtually silent about this as far as I can tell), but then there's all the strategic planning in the background.
If Apple simply took Beats headphones and slapped the Apple logo on them, I'd be incredibly surprised. That approach makes zero business sense, and again, is very contrary to the way Apple operates. That's not to say Apple won't work with Beats on new hardware of some kind, but I doubt it'll be as simple as a mere logo change.
Of course nobody really knows the answer yet, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple don't utilise the connection with Beats on multiple levels in the future (I am intrigued by the possibility of the two pairing up for working on wearables for example - this may not happen, but it makes a huge amount of sense to me).
The reason I don't think it is a hype acquisition is because a) I haven't known Apple to operate in that way and b) Apple are an inherently strategic company. Spending $3bn on hype doesn't make logical sense.
My thinking is that there's still plenty of "quiet stuff" going on here. There's the surface level hype (generated by the media rather than Apple, who have been virtually silent about this as far as I can tell), but then there's all the strategic planning in the background.
If Apple simply took Beats headphones and slapped the Apple logo on them, I'd be incredibly surprised. That approach makes zero business sense, and again, is very contrary to the way Apple operates. That's not to say Apple won't work with Beats on new hardware of some kind, but I doubt it'll be as simple as a mere logo change.
Of course nobody really knows the answer yet, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if Apple don't utilise the connection with Beats on multiple levels in the future (I am intrigued by the possibility of the two pairing up for working on wearables for example - this may not happen, but it makes a huge amount of sense to me).
Why? Iovine isn't an engineer and neither is Dr. Dre. They are music producers that have lots of celebrity friends. They saw a niche in the headphone and earbud market. That's all Beats Technology is. It's just a fashion type product with artificially enhanced Bass, that's nothing special. ANY audio technology company can do that. It's nothing but designing the drivers and maybe something else to have more enhanced bass. BIG DEAL. Bose had simlar crap too. The problem is that in the audio world. The masses are easily manipulated into what is referred to as LOW FI or MID FI. This is what is marketed to the masses because they listen to mostly audio that's been heavily signal processed in the recording and mastering of the content with all kinds of things that artificially make it sound the way it sounds. With the rap stuff, they like lots and lots of enhanced bass. But in the audio world, if you talk to the high end audio people that was super accurate sound reproduction, they don't want artificially enhanced because it sounds like crap when you listen to higher quality recordings that don't have any artificial signal processing during the recording and mastering process. The high end audio crowd wants ACCURACY and not artificially enhanced, but the masses don't really know or even care at this point.
I don't think there is any quiet stuff going on at Beats. The algorithms might be about a technology based as they can get and they just 50 programmers working on that from what i heard in an interview with Iovine, but that's about it. They are STILL trying to figure out what works best, so it's an ongoing issue.
At this point in time, I wouldn't expect anything that amazing coming from this particular deal. Apple bought 73% of the headphone earbud market, plain and simple and they bought a subscription service they can roll into iTunes if they want to and that's really all it is.
Beats, to my knowledge, wasn't working on anything related to wearables. Apple has been involved with wearables for a long time and they've been hiring people over the years in that space and I don't think Beats is really that big of a deal for wearables. I don't know what they could put inside a headphone to monitor anything. it would be great if the headphones shut off when it sensed you have ear damage, but I don't think that would fly in the market place. That would funny if they had that. It would be interesting if they could monitor the actual sound pressure levels people have their headphones jacked up to so people could set their volume as to not cause hearing damage, which typically starts occurring at around 96dB+ for more than about 15 minutes of listening time or more. Most people don't care about that. The rap guys don't care since they'll crank their systems up until the speakers and amplifiers melt and then they just get bigger speakers with more power and keep on doing it until their ears bleed.
So, for a moment I want to get away from the question of what Beats headphones actually are at a technological level. I agree with you that this is irrelevant. I also agree that Iovine and Dr. Dre aren't engineers; the thing is, they don't need to be. That isn't the point. Apple has plenty of engineers.
I think what we have to do is shift the focus slightly.
What Beats did was to take a pretty ordinary product (headphones, which are nothing terribly special) and turn it into a high-end brand that crosses the intersections between technology and fashion. There is a sense in which "Beats" has started to replace "high-end headphone", at least in terms of perception.
So what Apple are buying here is more than just the component parts of hardware, brand, software services, and so on: they are really buying an entire brand approach and a set of skills that very much align with what Apple does (the fusion or intersection between technology and liberal arts, to put it another way).
I'm sure there's plenty of quiet stuff going on. I mean, again, I think the discussion should be a lot broader than just their tech (I don't mean to diminish the importance of the tech, but I'm trying to express a wider idea).
But to move into your next point...
Yes, I agree - although I'd make two points:
1) Beats are very accustomed to certain aspects of design that are relevant for wearables. Think about their headphones for a moment, and think about the materials they use (especially thinks like the stitching and leather - or faux leather, I'm not sure which). They very much have one foot (or one toe?) in the fashion space.
2) I also wouldn't entirely judge this deal based on what Beats has done previously. Apple are strategic thinkers, remember. They will have some goals in mind in terms of how the expertise at Beats can connect with the work Apple is doing.
So, for a moment I want to get away from the question of what Beats headphones actually are at a technological level. I agree with you that this is irrelevant. I also agree that Iovine and Dr. Dre aren't engineers; the thing is, they don't need to be. That isn't the point. Apple has plenty of engineers.
I think what we have to do is shift the focus slightly.
What Beats did was to take a pretty ordinary product (headphones, which are nothing terribly special) and turn it into a high-end brand that crosses the intersections between technology and fashion. There is a sense in which "Beats" has started to replace "high-end headphone", at least in terms of perception.
So what Apple are buying here is more than just the component parts of hardware, brand, software services, and so on: they are really buying an entire brand approach and a set of skills that very much align with what Apple does (the fusion or intersection between technology and liberal arts, to put it another way).
I'm sure there's plenty of quiet stuff going on. I mean, again, I think the discussion should be a lot broader than just their tech (I don't mean to diminish the importance of the tech, but I'm trying to express a wider idea).
But to move into your next point...
Yes, I agree - although I'd make two points:
1) Beats are very accustomed to certain aspects of design that are relevant for wearables. Think about their headphones for a moment, and think about the materials they use (especially thinks like the stitching and leather - or faux leather, I'm not sure which). They very much have one foot (or one toe?) in the fashion space.
2) I also wouldn't entirely judge this deal based on what Beats has done previously. Apple are strategic thinkers, remember. They will have some goals in mind in terms of how the expertise at Beats can connect with the work Apple is doing.
Let me see if I can address this. Now, in the designing of audio equipment, it is common practice to take engineers with a technical background in the engineering that is required to make a certain product, whether it's a speaker, amp, etc. And what is common is to take prototypes of these products to people that have various levels of skills in listening to see what they like and dislike about the product to help the engineers make whatever improvements. Now, some companies will go to people in the recording industry like mastering engineers like a Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg, or someone of this caliber to help with product development. Iovine has an recording engineering background, but I will tell you he isn't even a gnat fart when compared to Bob Ludwig, Goerge Massenburg, and many others that have done some MAJOR recording work, as well as other lessor known engineers that do mostly classical recordings that are extremely accurate capturing of a live acoustic performance without any altercation of the signal. These guys have VERY experienced and trained ears, they use equipment that can sometimes exceed what Iovine is normally used to listening to. Bob Ludwig, for instance is responsible for just about every MAJOR recording and he helps design speaker that cost in excess of $100K, and he's using some of the most accurate and expensive equipment for what he feels is about as accurate as he can get because the mastering process demands this level of accuracy when doing his job. There are others that use similar equipment and I guarantee you, I don't think Bob Ludwig is called to rap music, to my knowledge it's not in his wheel house. I don't think George Massenburg does that stuff either. Some of these guys can pick and choose what they want to because they are the best of the best and people seek these guys out because they know they will get a great end product. It's why they are some of the most in demand guys in the world. Now, if THESE guys helped design headphones, it wouldn't end up sounding like Beats because they would probably end up with something more along the lines of a HD800, but to my knowledge they really don't use headphones that I'm aware of. Some engineers specifically master the recordings to sound good on cheap headphones, stereo speakers because the music they are creating is catering to that crowd. Hence why Iovine and Dr. Dre are doing the Beats Headphones. The music these other people do are more for adult listening because they work with the music that's catering to a different demographic and they are dealing with more serious and demanding producers and artists that demand better sound quality. Now, Iovine worked on Springsteen's Born to Run album but he was one of 8 engineers, but the finished product ended up with Bob Ludwig. Bob kind makes whatever they give him sound better. He does that end result sweetening to make it sound proper because he's working with higher end more precise mastering equipment than what these other engineers are working with. So, in terms of looking up to someone in the industry that is going to help design a product or use a product, I would probably be more inclined to look up to someone like a Bob Ludwig to find out what THEY recommend and not listen to someone like an Iovine, that simply doesn't have the same level of skill set as a Bob Ludwig.
I honestly don't know of anything else Beats was working on. They didn't buy out any other company other than that MOG system that failed, but Beats made no acquisitions of any technology based company and I can't think they are doing much more than the headphones, earbuds and the car speaker systems, which can EASILY be done by anyone. i think they just did a great job in marketing to the masses and came up with fashion based headphones and used enhanced bass as their marketing BS. NOTHING SPECIAL AT ALL. They kind of took the BOSE marketing mentality and made it a little more fashionable and that was about all they did.
Stitching of leather is nothing new, a lot of other companies do this and have done this for many years with headphones, I just think a lot of people that buy Beats just haven't been exposed to these other brands since they typically don't venture out to the high end audio stores or audio shows with any frequency which is where you see the more esoteric stuff that is higher priced, but caters to the VERY serious listeners that demand accuracy than artificially enhanced bass. I seem to remember a company called Cerwin Vega used to use bass as their marketing tool back in the 70's and 80's, but they are more Pro Audio and generally considered not that big of deal anymore because they still sound like crap.
I still think Apple bought them because it would be better than if Google or Microsoft bought them. Since Apple has the money, maybe they thought it would help in what they have planned with the future of iTunes and Music and nothing else.
People want there to be more than that, but highly doubt there is.
You wrote a fairly long (and interesting) preamble about the background of the technology - I don't dispute any of that, but again, it's really pretty irrelevant to my point. As I said, I think Apple can access top-tier engineers as required, so I don't see this apparent gap as a point of concern (or even a focal point for Apple itself).
Quote:
Okay, so, that's great and I don't disagree.
But, it's kind of missing the point of what I'm saying (and maybe I'm just not being clear enough, I'll grant that).
What you're saying is akin on some level to those who say things like "Apple didn't invent the tablet, the iPad came along after X or Y products made by X or Y companies". Yes, fine. Granted. But again, not the point we're after here.
I don't doubt that there are much better headphones out there in terms of sound quality. And I don't doubt that many consumers who buy Beats products haven't been exposed to those other products. Again, fine.
I think the relevant point here is that Beats - as a brand - has almost started to become quite ubiquitous. They are starting to own the conversations around high-end headphones, and they are starting to lead and define the perception of these devices. There's a lot more to it than just marketing - Beats have really understood the fusion between marketing and industrial design, for example.
Now again - let me be really really clear - this is not me making a comment about how good or bad the technology is. That's a separate question.
You could be very right about both those points.
I'd just repeat that nobody should discount other possibilities as well - again, Apple are a very strategic player, and a big purchase needs to have big payoffs at the other end to be justifiable.
As observers, we can only guess what these may be.
But we should not be surprised if there's more going on than we know about - this is incredibly likely.
Okay, so, that's great and I don't disagree.
But, it's kind of missing the point of what I'm saying (and maybe I'm just not being clear enough, I'll grant that).
What you're saying is akin on some level to those who say things like "Apple didn't invent the tablet, the iPad came along after X or Y products made by X or Y companies". Yes, fine. Granted. But again, not the point we're after here.
I don't doubt that there are much better headphones out there in terms of sound quality. And I don't doubt that many consumers who buy Beats products haven't been exposed to those other products. Again, fine.
I think the relevant point here is that Beats - as a brand - has almost started to become quite ubiquitous. They are starting to own the conversations around high-end headphones, and they are starting to lead and define the perception of these devices. There's a lot more to it than just marketing - Beats have really understood the fusion between marketing and industrial design, for example.
Now again - let me be really really clear - this is not me making a comment about how good or bad the technology is. That's a separate question.
You could be very right about both those points.
I'd just repeat that nobody should discount other possibilities as well - again, Apple are a very strategic player, and a big purchase needs to have big payoffs at the other end to be justifiable.
As observers, we can only guess what these may be.
But we should not be surprised if there's more going on than we know about - this is incredibly likely.
I agree that Beats was able to create a headphone with a sense of fashion style. Others have done this, but they really didn't do as good of a job with it. Apple hasn't really done anything with headphones only earbuds on a VERY superficial level. There are a LOT of earbud mfg that have some VERY SERIOUSLY technology which again, go after the high end, some are custom fitted for better isolation and fit. But again, those are expensive but in any industry there are products that cater to all levels of the consumer.
Yeah, Beats has become a household word to a LOT of people, but I think Apple is a BIGGER brand name overall and I think it would probably be what Apple ultimately does is to rebrand everything Apple and removing Beats over time. I just know that Apple doesn't like OTHER brands on their products. You don't see Apple products with stickers on the outside saying Intel Inside. Apple doesn't do that. I don't recall if they've ever done that, but they certainly don't do it now, so that's why I think over time as they redesign and APPLE-IZE the product line, we'll probably see the Beats brand go bye bye and the Apple brand replace it. That's just a PURE guess on my part. Now, how they market the headphones is another thing. Obviously Apple has a FIRM rule of not giving free products away or paying people to endorse their products. They loan equipment for product placement in TV, Movies, etc., but those are returned and they have a loaner pool like that. Beats on the other hand, probably gave a lot of free headphones away, wore them on TV on American Idol, and other TV shows and marketing and other photo opportunities, etc. So they kind of didn't play with the same rules Apple plays under with regards to marketing. If I were Apple, MY first reaction to selling something is if you want to attract an audience, you get your product in the hands of people that that audience looks up to for guidance. The fans of rap look up to people like Dr. Dre and he LOVES promoting himself. If i were to market a pair of headphones that is supposed to be high quality in terms of sound quality, I actually would DEFINITELY seek the advice, and maybe some marketing opportunities by who is considered some of the best ears in the business. Who is that? Well, to me people that I have mentioned before, Bob Ludwig, George Massenburg and various others that are responsible to doing mastering and engineering on what is considered the best SOUNDING recordings. So I would consult with a variety of people where it would get a cross section of industry experts. Now, if they are trying to make it fashionable, then you have the fashion industry to seek, since they have Angela from Burberry, I'm SURE she can help in that area.
I know people want Apple to continue with branding the Beats name because they might have an emotional attachment to the products they already bought, but I highly doubt Apple will continue that in the future. Apple likes their logo on ALL of their products and they have always used the minimalist approach to having the product with lots of words, stickers, etc. They have industrial engineers on staff and they can certainly take cues from B&O, which makes higher end fashion based products that do use lots of metal and leather that's luxurious, same with B&W, and the same with others. Apple may, guessing, make a line of lower priced color models to go after the teenager crowd and then some more expensive models that go after maybe a prosumer/professional/executive that wants that higher end model. One thing I can say was brilliant design was the high end Beats have the earpiece that flips up. That IS a great design since musicians in the studio and DJ's like to have one ear on and one ear off with the headphones so they can hear what's coming out of the headphones, plus their own playing at the same time they are tracking their part and that's a PERFECT design. I will freely admit that that design is killer for those applications, but I don't know how good isolation they have for studio use since there are headphones specifically designed that have a high amount of isolation which is what some musicians use, and I don't know how well the Beats are for sound isolation when compared to the other brands that are considered the best for that application. Headphones can get VERY personal on what someone likes and Apple generally doesn't make a kagillion different version of a product, they like to keep to a low, med, and high end range to keep things simple. But keeping the Beats namesake, I just think they'll eventually phase it out and rebrand everything with the Apple logo which is recognizable.
We may find out soon, or we may have to wait longer. Patience is required.
Ingsoc and drblank: you both make many good points on this subject. Drblank: I agree with most of what you say, but I think that you are being presumptious, because, as Ingsoc says, Apple always buys companies strategically. It's hard to imagine that Apple are simply buying Beats for their headphones and streaming service and will leave it at that. There must be more.
We may find out soon, or we may have to wait longer. Patience is required.
Here's the dilemma, Apple has never bought a company that's had a product line of established hardware with this much name recognition before. Now, they've bought software companies and they might have kept the name of the software Final Cut and Logic for example, but the name of the company they bought they removed. And they kept the names for lack of anything else. Filemaker they run differently, which I always thought was weird. They should have brought Filemaker under the Apple name and offer it on their site. I have NO IDEA why they haven't done this. The Filemaker story is weird. Anyway, my point is either they can let the Beats Electronics run by itself as is, rebrand the entire product Apple Style, or shut it down and run out of business like the vile scum that they are and forget that the company existed in the first place while they take what they want out of Beats Music and fold it into iTunes and shut down the Beats Music Store and act like the company Beats never existed. I hate to say this to Beats fans, that's what happens when a big company swallows a little company, they rebrand and toss the brand they bought in the trash bin.
Now, Apple has NEVER had ANY product using the name of a person involved with the name of a product or even labeled on a product, so I'm sure Apple will just keep the existing products they have in the stores as is until they run out of stock and they are ready to release the refreshed product line. The same goes for the name. I really don't see Apple putting Beats By Apple. So, they have a choice. Run them independently like Filemaker is run and leave that portion alone. OR rebrand everything under the Apple name and $hit can Beats/Dr. Dre and call the new products the iHeadphone line. For lack of anything else. They can't use iCans, I think that's taken. There's a headphone company in the UK called iHeadphone, so they might have troubles in the UK. Either way, I don't use headphones and if I were to buy a pair, I'd be looking at higher end products because that's just what I would be interested.
iBuds?
iBuds?
Good one! iBeats.
Yes, I agree. But this assumes that Apple want to integrate Beats products into their own business - that may not remotely be the case.
I can envisage a scenario where Beats retains its independence as a brand (this is very likely actually, because a big part of a company's value is goodwill - and goodwill is tied to brand value, and Apple is acutely aware of this), but that the companies collaborate in a number of areas. It's not outside the realms of possibility.
Sure, but I don't see why the two companies wouldn't have slightly different marketing approaches. I think that this is highly contingent on the earlier question about whether or not Apple will allow Beats to remain an independent brand. Once that question is answered, we are likely to have a sense of how the marketing approach may or may not change.
See, this is where it's important to have clear distinctions.
Angela was not a fashion designer - she was responsible for retail, and that's precisely where Apple are using her.
Beats designs products that have a foot in the fashion space, and that have a direct "wearable" appeal. That is quite different.
Anyway, I'm responding to something a little old, let me address some newer points here.
No, that's not always what happens. Not at all. It is sometimes what happens, yes.
But sometimes one company buys another in large part because of brand appeal. It may be that Apple does get rid of the Beats brand entirely, but this makes little sense and we should not automatically assume that they will.
You are right about Apple's own branding, but you're still making an assumption that Apple's only real option is to either dump the Beats name, or say something lik e"Beats by Apple". This is a false dichotomy!
There is a third and fourth option.
The third option is that Apple leaves Beats existing product lines as independent lines which retain the Beats brand.
The fourth option is the same as the third option, but with an additional component: Apple and Beats remain separate brands with their own product lines, but the two companies collaborate on specific projects (which may carry either brand, or be dual-branded).
I'm sure there are many other options besides these.
We have to slightly widen our frame of reference on this one, in part because (as you indicated), this is a fairly unprecedented situation.
Yes, I agree. But this assumes that Apple want to integrate Beats products into their own business - that may not remotely be the case.
I can envisage a scenario where Beats retains its independence as a brand (this is very likely actually, because a big part of a company's value is goodwill - and goodwill is tied to brand value, and Apple is acutely aware of this), but that the companies collaborate in a number of areas. It's not outside the realms of possibility.
Sure, but I don't see why the two companies wouldn't have slightly different marketing approaches. I think that this is highly contingent on the earlier question about whether or not Apple will allow Beats to remain an independent brand. Once that question is answered, we are likely to have a sense of how the marketing approach may or may not change.
See, this is where it's important to have clear distinctions.
Angela was not a fashion designer - she was responsible for retail, and that's precisely where Apple are using her.
Beats designs products that have a foot in the fashion space, and that have a direct "wearable" appeal. That is quite different.
Anyway, I'm responding to something a little old, let me address some newer points here.
No, that's not always what happens. Not at all. It is sometimes what happens, yes.
But sometimes one company buys another in large part because of brand appeal. It may be that Apple does get rid of the Beats brand entirely, but this makes little sense and we should not automatically assume that they will.
You are right about Apple's own branding, but you're still making an assumption that Apple's only real option is to either dump the Beats name, or say something lik e"Beats by Apple". This is a false dichotomy!
There is a third and fourth option.
The third option is that Apple leaves Beats existing product lines as independent lines which retain the Beats brand.
The fourth option is the same as the third option, but with an additional component: Apple and Beats remain separate brands with their own product lines, but the two companies collaborate on specific projects (which may carry either brand, or be dual-branded).
I'm sure there are many other options besides these.
We have to slightly widen our frame of reference on this one, in part because (as you indicated), this is a fairly unprecedented situation.
I just don't know how Apple is going to do this any more than anyone else outside of Apple. The thing that we don't have any frame of reference is that they have never bought a hardware product line company before. With the s/w they typically rebranded it Apple with the exception of Filemaker, which runs independently. I'm sure they might decide to run that group independently until they get a form of rebranding plan initiated. When they make the final announcement, we might hear what their plans are, so its all speculation at this point. But I'm just examining what their options are and what I feel would be in their best interest using the mindset that Apple typically has with branding of product.
I'm sure they are probably going to bring Iovine in because he would be able to navigate the waters with the record labels because he knows the business end of it better than anyone at Apple, so he might be able to better negotiate that end of the business. If that happens, I'm wondering how they might shift Eddy Cue unless they just use Iovine more as an advisory position rather than an actually full time employee of Apple. I read that Iovine would be leaving his position at Interscope. I've always been surprised how he can own and run a music store download site company AND be top management at a record label at the same time, since that's normally considered conflict of interest.
Yes, you're right. I guess my only point is that some people have really been second-guessing this whole purchase, but they have been doing it based on fairly dodgy assumptions about what is most likely to happen.
Problem is, many of these assumptions don't make business sense, and don't even reflect Apple's own behaviour.
So my thinking is definitely to take a wait and see approach, but at the same time, to remember that Apple is a clever and strategic company; they aren't going to spend $3bn simply for some kind of celebrity endorsement. There's always more to it than that (and whatever that is may only become clear bit-by-bit, over time).
Dr Dre is going to be an Apple executive. Cook has lost his fucking mind.
Careful Rog, your racism is showing. Well... also your lack of tolerance, and business sense as well. Lovine fits in "your ummmm... mind (using mind when referring to you is difficult) but that is because Dr. Dre shouldn't be there since he is the clear underdog, and you have more than a billion places you would rather see him.
That makes Dr. Dre the CLEAR PICK, since he has been successful in spite of socially retarded people like yourself who strive to make it almost impossible for him to succeed. Lovine only has to be present, and he's somehow the winner, you loser.