All I can say is I hope Jony Ive understands and approves of this deal. One Jony Ive is worth 100 Dr. Dres and 50 Jimmy Iovines IMO. Good luck Apple, whatever you're doing!
Maybe when he's asked to start designing Beats headphones he'll offer his resignation.
Maybe when he's asked to start designing Beats headphones he'll offer his resignation.
I honestly want to hear what Jony's opinion is on this matter. I remember the virtual grimace of his when discussing the skeuomorphism of certain Apple apps, pre-iOS 7.
Couldn't they have just bought this for $500mil and left the headphones out of it? I assume they tried their damndest but to get Iovine, they had to buy the headphones...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The answer to that is maybe but it sounds like you're assuming Apple doesn't want their HW brand, IP, revenue or profits.
In the end this is a small buy for the world's wealthiest company when you compare it to excessive purchases that others have made for companies that either can barely turn a profit, or more often, are taking a heavy loss each quarter. Based on the rumored data Beats is makign a lot of revenue and profits that will not result in a net loss for the company. Can the same be said for Google's Motorola purchase?
Something people often miss is that a small company, on its own is worth X, but in the hands of a huge company, that same business can be 10X or more. Apple will multiply the value of Beats by simply amping up the marketing of those premium-price Beats headphones globally to Apple's enormous installed base of iPhone and iPod owners. Beats, on its own, doesn't have direct access to those folks and Apple would not likely give access to one external peripherals vendor over another. But as an Apple-owned brand, Beats will get top billing among Apple's marketing space. Ka-Ching! Suddenly, Beats is selling $2 billion, then 3, then 4 billion of headphones, portable speakers and in-car audio solutions. Could this be what Tim Cook has in mind when he said the Beats acquisition will be accretive in 2015? Heck, that's pretty soon given hat the deal won;t close until the end of Apple's fiscal 2014 (another thing Cook said today).
After Beats revamped and started shutting down MOG, they made sure Sonos and others could continue to stream Beats Music content. Will Apple cut the ability to stream Beats Music on non-Apple devices? I think that would be unfortunate.
I don't think that would happen in the near term. Perhaps a "Made for Beats" is in the offering
If Apple were after a music streaming service to buy, why didn't they go after Spotify instead? Now that would of been worth closer to that 3 billion dollar purchase price.
I agree, there has to be a lot I am missing on this as I think this is a bad buy on Apple's part. I hope Tim has a plan that I either can't comprehend or know about yet to make this acquisition a good one for Apple.
I feel the same way. I get the need to have a huge music mogul on board and Apple's interest in Beats subscription service, but did they really need to spend $3 billion for that? Beats subscription numbers aren't anything to write home about. It sounds like music was the main reason behind this purchase. If that's the case, Apple should have bought Sony/ATV music.
If Apple were after a music streaming service to buy, why didn't they go after Spotify instead? Now that would of been worth closer to that 3 billion dollar purchase price.
I'm sure Spotify would have asked for twice that.
I guess Tim believes that he can use Beats streaming service to eventually bankrupt Spotify and have Beats headphones pay for the whole show.
I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of opposition to this deal is due to the association with hip-hop culture and the fear that it will somehow taint Apple (I'll admit, this occurred to me as well).
But don't see it as Apple being tainted, I see this as Apple lifting it up. The hip-hop culture does have some faults (components of womanizing, glorifying drug use, violence etc.), but it has also improved over the years, and this is a way to further help it move forward. Not to mention that appealing to hip-hop culture, as well as the younger demographic, could help Apple significantly expand it's influence and user base. This acquisition will likely be seen by many in those demographics as an acknowledgement of the merits of that culture, and Apple will be rewarded by loyalty, social media attention, and product sales.
There's nothing "blockbuster" about hiring of 2 people for $3 B. It just shows how poorly Cook manages Apple.
You know what . . . I'm quite sure Apple knows *exactly* what they're doing. Not just "kinda", or "sorta", but EXACTLY - and to the effect that it's almost scary. This is the Apple of Tim Cook and Jony Ive. You really can't ask for a better.
If Tim cook managed Apple only half as well as he's doing now, I'd *still* be impressed.
I'd be far more worried about the perennial also-rans in this industry than Apple . . . the "well-run" organizations that *didn't* do a June 2007 or a January 2010; that didn't do an iPhone 5; that didn't do a (new) Mac Pro; that didn't even do an iPhone 5C; that didn't do an iPad Air; that didn't do an iOS 7. The list goes on.
Apple probably knows *exactly* how that $3 billion purchase will translate into many more billions.
I honestly want to hear what Jony's opinion is on this matter. I remember the virtual grimace of his when discussing the skeuomorphism of certain Apple apps, pre-iOS 7.
I would imagine this quote would give him heartburn:
They’ve also built an incredible premium headphone business that’s been tuned by experts and critical ears. We’re fans of that. It’s a reasonable-size business that’s fast-growing.
Even more comical is Cook saying that iTunes IS at the forefront of digital music. WTF? It was but it certainly isn't anymore. Not with Spotify, Pandora, YouTube, etc.
Comments
I'm sure the lack of long term thinking in the business world has brought you far. You should probably stick with the free phones, smart or not.
Apple got something a whole lot more tangible then Facebook got for the $19 billion that they paid for WhatsApp.
But we've come to expect Zuckerberg to make bad deals.
Maybe when he's asked to start designing Beats headphones he'll offer his resignation.
I honestly want to hear what Jony's opinion is on this matter. I remember the virtual grimace of his when discussing the skeuomorphism of certain Apple apps, pre-iOS 7.
Couldn't they have just bought this for $500mil and left the headphones out of it? I assume they tried their damndest but to get Iovine, they had to buy the headphones...
Quote:
The answer to that is maybe but it sounds like you're assuming Apple doesn't want their HW brand, IP, revenue or profits.
In the end this is a small buy for the world's wealthiest company when you compare it to excessive purchases that others have made for companies that either can barely turn a profit, or more often, are taking a heavy loss each quarter. Based on the rumored data Beats is makign a lot of revenue and profits that will not result in a net loss for the company. Can the same be said for Google's Motorola purchase?
Something people often miss is that a small company, on its own is worth X, but in the hands of a huge company, that same business can be 10X or more. Apple will multiply the value of Beats by simply amping up the marketing of those premium-price Beats headphones globally to Apple's enormous installed base of iPhone and iPod owners. Beats, on its own, doesn't have direct access to those folks and Apple would not likely give access to one external peripherals vendor over another. But as an Apple-owned brand, Beats will get top billing among Apple's marketing space. Ka-Ching! Suddenly, Beats is selling $2 billion, then 3, then 4 billion of headphones, portable speakers and in-car audio solutions. Could this be what Tim Cook has in mind when he said the Beats acquisition will be accretive in 2015? Heck, that's pretty soon given hat the deal won;t close until the end of Apple's fiscal 2014 (another thing Cook said today).
Maybe when he's asked to start designing Beats headphones he'll offer his resignation.
Not then... but when Dr. Dre steps into the design department and starts giving him design tips.
I don't think that would happen in the near term. Perhaps a "Made for Beats" is in the offering
I agree, there has to be a lot I am missing on this as I think this is a bad buy on Apple's part. I hope Tim has a plan that I either can't comprehend or know about yet to make this acquisition a good one for Apple.
I feel the same way. I get the need to have a huge music mogul on board and Apple's interest in Beats subscription service, but did they really need to spend $3 billion for that? Beats subscription numbers aren't anything to write home about. It sounds like music was the main reason behind this purchase. If that's the case, Apple should have bought Sony/ATV music.
So here comes the part where suddenly / magically $299 Studio headphones will be labeled "overpriced" because they're in the Apple ecosystem...
If Apple were after a music streaming service to buy, why didn't they go after Spotify instead? Now that would of been worth closer to that 3 billion dollar purchase price.
I'm sure Spotify would have asked for twice that.
I guess Tim believes that he can use Beats streaming service to eventually bankrupt Spotify and have Beats headphones pay for the whole show.
I have a strong feeling that the vast majority of opposition to this deal is due to the association with hip-hop culture and the fear that it will somehow taint Apple (I'll admit, this occurred to me as well).
But don't see it as Apple being tainted, I see this as Apple lifting it up. The hip-hop culture does have some faults (components of womanizing, glorifying drug use, violence etc.), but it has also improved over the years, and this is a way to further help it move forward. Not to mention that appealing to hip-hop culture, as well as the younger demographic, could help Apple significantly expand it's influence and user base. This acquisition will likely be seen by many in those demographics as an acknowledgement of the merits of that culture, and Apple will be rewarded by loyalty, social media attention, and product sales.
There's nothing "blockbuster" about hiring of 2 people for $3 B. It just shows how poorly Cook manages Apple.
You know what . . . I'm quite sure Apple knows *exactly* what they're doing. Not just "kinda", or "sorta", but EXACTLY - and to the effect that it's almost scary. This is the Apple of Tim Cook and Jony Ive. You really can't ask for a better.
If Tim cook managed Apple only half as well as he's doing now, I'd *still* be impressed.
I'd be far more worried about the perennial also-rans in this industry than Apple . . . the "well-run" organizations that *didn't* do a June 2007 or a January 2010; that didn't do an iPhone 5; that didn't do a (new) Mac Pro; that didn't even do an iPhone 5C; that didn't do an iPad Air; that didn't do an iOS 7. The list goes on.
Apple probably knows *exactly* how that $3 billion purchase will translate into many more billions.
http://recode.net/2014/05/28/tim-cook-explains-why-apple-is-buying-beats-qa/
Even more comical is Cook saying that iTunes IS at the forefront of digital music. WTF? It was but it certainly isn't anymore. Not with Spotify, Pandora, YouTube, etc.
Just in time for WWDC !
More than 100 technical sessions presented by Dr Dre !
If you look under your seats, you'll find a complimentary 18 pack of Heineken. Let's get this session started!
Why? Care to explain?
Apple's catalog, last I checked, was on the order of 26 million tracks,
iTunes has a 37 million song catalog, I believe 28 million are licensed for streaming thru iTunes Radio.