This is actually surprisingly good analysis by the analysts. I too have come to the conclusion that this acquisition is basically a "worst case, not much to lose; best case, a lot to gain" type of deal. Between them, these analysts have articulated the logic well.
The naysayers here can stuff it. Or stew in it. But the nays are really getting old. Enough already.
Have you considered a "best case, not much to gain" scenario?
It will remain to be see if Cook can to do Beats subscriptions services what Jobs did when Apple purchased SoundJam and turned it into iTunes.
The bar is high.
Anyone know what Apple paid for SoundJam? Talk about a return on investment.
I've never seen a price for SoundJam but Jobs had a two year secrecy deal with Robin Casady and Michael Greene. Maybe Cook should have done the same thing with the Good Dr.
iTunes will continue to be an important part of the ecosystem, and Beats will only bolster its role. Beats will simply help more people access Apple's entire music library, if only on a subscription basis, but will also "market" that same music to those inclined to buy, all while increasing royalties to artists.
The ecosystem is possibly the biggest reason people buy Apple products and buy into its culture.
But Beats was already in the ecosystem before the acquisition (through their app).
I guess it depends what your ultimate corporate goals are. Do you want to spread certain products, with a certain design, or do you just want to get bigger and bigger even if it's selling other people's stuff. I believe Elon Musk has said he will sell Tesla once electric cars reach a certain critical mass, which is an example of the first kind of philosophy, as against the beats acquisition which is just about maintaining a position in a certain market regardless of whether it actually makes your own products better.
That's a weird assertion. What evidence do you have for it?!
It's a Wall Street focused deal, whether you agree or not. Stylistically and philosophically it's a mismatch. Does Beats represent best-of-breed product? Nope. Is it trendy? Yep. Does Beats embody the intersection of technology and liberal arts? Hell no. It's style over substance and "the kids" could decide tomorrow that they no longer like Beats because they lost their "edge."
I actually noticed kids wearing over the ear Beats headphones when they first appeared because I thought they looked so stupid and unsafe. Wearing a completely enclosed set of cans in public is a signal (IMO) that one has no interest in interacting with the world. They looked extraordinarily rude to me then and I still don't like them.
Also, I have a theory that kind of headphones will cause hair loss due to the rubbing on top of the head. ????
Why all this incessant stupid quibbling over what has already happened, and what others think? Apple paid $3B for something. That means it meant quite a bit to more than a few at the company. So move on, people!
I just signed up for my free trial of Beats Music, which I wouldn't have done if not for this acquisition. I figured this is what Apple is interested in. I wanted to see what there was to it.
So far, I like it. It's kinda like the "gap" the iPad filled in Apple's hardware lineup, but this is a "gap" now filled in Apple's music lineup. It's not going to replace music purchases. But it may just boost them. I'm finding that, with Beats, I can now listen to more than just 120-sec clips of a lot of music, and without having to buy. I can re-discover a lot of stuff I used to enjoy listening to in years past. And then I will most likely buy some of what I discover with Beats. I'm sure Apple will do what it can not to stiff the artists out of Beats royalties, either.
I'm sure that's the genius of this acquisition.
". . . all this incessant stupid quibbling . . ." —well said. Meanwhile, reasonable people will be calmly analyzing to see what Apple saw in this new chunk of ecosystem they acquired.
I like this analogy with the iPad as a platform which fills a gap. (The iPad was given the same kind of treatment by the chihuahua brigade when it appeared.)
Apple bought two new platforms here, both with a huge future: curated audio streaming, plus the first successful wearable audio for the world's urban environments.
The incessant quibblers can't stand the thought of sharing their world with people who have more street smarts than they do. That's what's got their fear hormones raging.
What "image" does Apple currently have among the "black community"? What exactly does Apple need to "build"?
It's not clear what you're getting at. Are you some type of sociologist of the "black community"?
No, I'm not a sociologist, but I do see the numbers where the young black community buys Android based phones between 70 and 80 percent of the time instead of an iPhone.
There's another aspect to the Beats purchase and the increased focus on the youth demographic at Apple (the hire of Ahrendts, former CEO of youth clothing brand, is another dimension of this). It all feels like chasing marketshare, while the largest segment of the population, the aging Boomers, are less of a focus. Will they only be served with the imagined Apple health and fitness band, iPad and iPhone? Surely they will be completely uninterested in Beats headphones.
Apple should use Beats to create a downmarket brand that is cheaper and that they can have fun with and target a different demographic. Don't taint the Apple brand trying to pander to young people. Use Beats to create a hip, colorful, fun sub-brand. A brand with more focus on music and style. Harken back to the iPod silhouette campaigns which were hugely successful. I think Apple absolutely could pull this off and it would be a way of not tainting the premium Apple brand which has a more affluent, slightly older demographic.
". . . all this incessant stupid quibbling . . ." —well said. Meanwhile, reasonable people will be calmly analyzing to see what Apple saw in this new chunk of ecosystem they acquired.
I like this analogy with the iPad as a platform which fills a gap. (The iPad was given the same kind of treatment by the chihuahua brigade when it appeared.)
Apple bought two new platforms here, both with a huge future: curated audio streaming, plus the first successful wearable audio for the world's urban environments.
The incessant quibblers can't stand the thought of sharing their world with people who have more street smarts than they do. That's what's got their fear hormones raging.
i was one of the naysayers, and I'm still not sold on the deal. But if Apple used Beats as a sub-brand as a way to go down market and target a younger demographic then it might be worth it.
No, I'm not a sociologist, but I do see the numbers where the young black community buys Android based phones between 70 and 80 percent of the time instead of an iPhone.
There's another aspect to the Beats purchase and the increased focus on the youth demographic at Apple (the hire of Ahrendts, former CEO of youth clothing brand, is another dimension of this). It all feels like chasing marketshare, while the largest segment of the population, the aging Boomers, are less of a focus. Will they only be served with the imagined Apple health and fitness band, iPad and iPhone? Surely they will be completely uninterested in Beats headphones.
Maybe you're right. As a proud AAPL owner myself, I'm pleased that Apple wants the business of old people and the business of young people. Is that OK with you?
It was in a recent (within the past couple days) article that looked at the deal from beyond just the bare nuts and bolts. I don't have time to dig through them all to find it, but it's out there.
I find it interesting you zero in on perhaps the least of the comments and ignore the rest.
Maybe you're right. As a proud AAPL owner myself, I'm pleased that Apple wants the business of old people and the business of young people. Is that OK with you?
It's a Wall Street focused deal, whether you agree or understand that aspect.
It's more likely that you (and the other tiresome naysayers here) refuse to understand because you don't agree.
The overwhelming reaction from analysts, financial media, financial commentators, and talking heads to the deal when it was first announced (as a rumor by the Financial Times) was negative. (For the record, I was quite negative about it too -- you're welcome to go back and check my posts.) Apple's stock price fell by much more than the market's did when this rumor came out.
Look at the reaction of both the analysts and the market today.
I think you guys are totally blinded by your hissy-fits.
I can see some value in Iovine but what's the value of Dre? And no it's not because he's black.
They both feel the same way about music, and have the same reach. One in Rock, the other in Hip Hop and R&B. More importantly, Dre ran a record label where he made artist give it their best. He signed dozens of artists that worked on CDs, but if the CDs weren't great (remember this is subjective, not everyone likes hip-hop) he would never release them. Think of his label as, Aftermath, as Apple. He wasn't going to release a new CD(product) every month, he took his time, and sometimes the products got dropped, sometimes people complained about the amount of time he took to release a product, but he just said he wouldn't release it until it was perfect.
This is actually surprisingly good analysis by the analysts. I too have come to the conclusion that this acquisition is basically a "worst case, not much to lose; best case, a lot to gain" type of deal. Between them, these analysts have articulated the logic well.
The naysayers here can stuff it. Or stew in it. But the nays are really getting old. Enough already.
I agree with you. It seems to me that you really have to be able to "think different" to appreciate this deal. Apple did it first, some of these analysts came along 2nd, and eventually there might even be a consensus amongst the AI commenters. OK OK, maybe it was the drugs talking about that last one, but two out of three aint bad!
I could maybe get behind this deal if Apple decided to use the Beats brand to create cheaper, downmarket products. Everyone is screaming about how Apple needs a cheaper smartphone. Well maybe create something with 5C type styling under the Beats brand. Market it along side new and improved Beats headphones and maybe offer a free trial of Beats music. Use Beats as a cheaper sub-brand of Apple.
Finally, reason has returned. You could have saved everybody a lot of time by thinking (instead of reacting) from the beginning. Congratulations.
"Cheaper sub-brand" still reeks of your class-based prissiness, though. And we don't "use" Beats. We are fortunate to have Apple management that knows a wave to surf when it sees one.
But Beats was already in the ecosystem before the acquisition (through their app).
I guess it depends what your ultimate corporate goals are. Do you want to spread certain products, with a certain design, or do you just want to get bigger and bigger even if it's selling other people's stuff. I believe Elon Musk has said he will sell Tesla once electric cars reach a certain critical mass, which is an example of the first kind of philosophy, as against the beats acquisition which is just about maintaining a position in a certain market regardless of whether it actually makes your own products better.
No, it wasn't. NOW it is. Though there may have to be continuing licensing deals, Apple's new subscription service could ultimately include its entire music library. I see the acquisition as a very savvy marketing move. The subscription service will not only reach more people, artists may see the opportunities, too and get on board the new train.
Comments
Have you considered a "best case, not much to gain" scenario?
....or a ploy to build an image among the black community...
What "image" does Apple currently have among the "black community"? What exactly does Apple need to "build"?
It's not clear what you're getting at. Are you some type of sociologist of the "black community"?
Have you considered a "best case, not much to gain" scenario?
No, I just wrote it for fun.
/s
It will remain to be see if Cook can to do Beats subscriptions services what Jobs did when Apple purchased SoundJam and turned it into iTunes.
The bar is high.
Anyone know what Apple paid for SoundJam? Talk about a return on investment.
I've never seen a price for SoundJam but Jobs had a two year secrecy deal with Robin Casady and Michael Greene. Maybe Cook should have done the same thing with the Good Dr.
Fantastic ROI.
Totally disagree.
iTunes will continue to be an important part of the ecosystem, and Beats will only bolster its role. Beats will simply help more people access Apple's entire music library, if only on a subscription basis, but will also "market" that same music to those inclined to buy, all while increasing royalties to artists.
The ecosystem is possibly the biggest reason people buy Apple products and buy into its culture.
But Beats was already in the ecosystem before the acquisition (through their app).
I guess it depends what your ultimate corporate goals are. Do you want to spread certain products, with a certain design, or do you just want to get bigger and bigger even if it's selling other people's stuff. I believe Elon Musk has said he will sell Tesla once electric cars reach a certain critical mass, which is an example of the first kind of philosophy, as against the beats acquisition which is just about maintaining a position in a certain market regardless of whether it actually makes your own products better.
It's a Wall Street focused deal, whether you agree or not. Stylistically and philosophically it's a mismatch. Does Beats represent best-of-breed product? Nope. Is it trendy? Yep. Does Beats embody the intersection of technology and liberal arts? Hell no. It's style over substance and "the kids" could decide tomorrow that they no longer like Beats because they lost their "edge."
I actually noticed kids wearing over the ear Beats headphones when they first appeared because I thought they looked so stupid and unsafe. Wearing a completely enclosed set of cans in public is a signal (IMO) that one has no interest in interacting with the world. They looked extraordinarily rude to me then and I still don't like them.
Also, I have a theory that kind of headphones will cause hair loss due to the rubbing on top of the head. ????
". . . all this incessant stupid quibbling . . ." —well said. Meanwhile, reasonable people will be calmly analyzing to see what Apple saw in this new chunk of ecosystem they acquired.
I like this analogy with the iPad as a platform which fills a gap. (The iPad was given the same kind of treatment by the chihuahua brigade when it appeared.)
Apple bought two new platforms here, both with a huge future: curated audio streaming, plus the first successful wearable audio for the world's urban environments.
The incessant quibblers can't stand the thought of sharing their world with people who have more street smarts than they do. That's what's got their fear hormones raging.
What "image" does Apple currently have among the "black community"? What exactly does Apple need to "build"?
It's not clear what you're getting at. Are you some type of sociologist of the "black community"?
No, I'm not a sociologist, but I do see the numbers where the young black community buys Android based phones between 70 and 80 percent of the time instead of an iPhone.
No, I'm not a sociologist, but I do see the numbers where the young black community buys Android based phones between 70 and 80 percent of the time instead of an iPhone.
Cite?
There's another aspect to the Beats purchase and the increased focus on the youth demographic at Apple (the hire of Ahrendts, former CEO of youth clothing brand, is another dimension of this). It all feels like chasing marketshare, while the largest segment of the population, the aging Boomers, are less of a focus. Will they only be served with the imagined Apple health and fitness band, iPad and iPhone? Surely they will be completely uninterested in Beats headphones.
Maybe you're right. As a proud AAPL owner myself, I'm pleased that Apple wants the business of old people and the business of young people. Is that OK with you?
Cite?
It was in a recent (within the past couple days) article that looked at the deal from beyond just the bare nuts and bolts. I don't have time to dig through them all to find it, but it's out there.
I find it interesting you zero in on perhaps the least of the comments and ignore the rest.
Maybe you're right. As a proud AAPL owner myself, I'm pleased that Apple wants the business of old people and the business of young people. Is that OK with you?
Apple doesn't have business from young people?
It's a Wall Street focused deal, whether you agree or understand that aspect.
It's more likely that you (and the other tiresome naysayers here) refuse to understand because you don't agree.
The overwhelming reaction from analysts, financial media, financial commentators, and talking heads to the deal when it was first announced (as a rumor by the Financial Times) was negative. (For the record, I was quite negative about it too -- you're welcome to go back and check my posts.) Apple's stock price fell by much more than the market's did when this rumor came out.
Look at the reaction of both the analysts and the market today.
I think you guys are totally blinded by your hissy-fits.
I can see some value in Iovine but what's the value of Dre? And no it's not because he's black.
They both feel the same way about music, and have the same reach. One in Rock, the other in Hip Hop and R&B. More importantly, Dre ran a record label where he made artist give it their best. He signed dozens of artists that worked on CDs, but if the CDs weren't great (remember this is subjective, not everyone likes hip-hop) he would never release them. Think of his label as, Aftermath, as Apple. He wasn't going to release a new CD(product) every month, he took his time, and sometimes the products got dropped, sometimes people complained about the amount of time he took to release a product, but he just said he wouldn't release it until it was perfect.
This is actually surprisingly good analysis by the analysts. I too have come to the conclusion that this acquisition is basically a "worst case, not much to lose; best case, a lot to gain" type of deal. Between them, these analysts have articulated the logic well.
The naysayers here can stuff it. Or stew in it. But the nays are really getting old. Enough already.
I agree with you. It seems to me that you really have to be able to "think different" to appreciate this deal. Apple did it first, some of these analysts came along 2nd, and eventually there might even be a consensus amongst the AI commenters. OK OK, maybe it was the drugs talking about that last one, but two out of three aint bad!
Finally, reason has returned. You could have saved everybody a lot of time by thinking (instead of reacting) from the beginning. Congratulations.
"Cheaper sub-brand" still reeks of your class-based prissiness, though. And we don't "use" Beats. We are fortunate to have Apple management that knows a wave to surf when it sees one.
But Beats was already in the ecosystem before the acquisition (through their app).
I guess it depends what your ultimate corporate goals are. Do you want to spread certain products, with a certain design, or do you just want to get bigger and bigger even if it's selling other people's stuff. I believe Elon Musk has said he will sell Tesla once electric cars reach a certain critical mass, which is an example of the first kind of philosophy, as against the beats acquisition which is just about maintaining a position in a certain market regardless of whether it actually makes your own products better.
No, it wasn't. NOW it is. Though there may have to be continuing licensing deals, Apple's new subscription service could ultimately include its entire music library. I see the acquisition as a very savvy marketing move. The subscription service will not only reach more people, artists may see the opportunities, too and get on board the new train.