"...we can't rule out that Apple is skating to where the puke will be..."
I know that was a typo, but I LOL'ed.
Here's another way to look at this. Tim Cook is an operations guy at heart. He's all about finding single points of failure and creating a safety net so the company can deliver the goods. Jony Ive and the design department represent a bottleneck for Tim. By hiring Ahrendts, by buying Beats, Cook in many respects is making an end run around their own internal 'single point of failure' where it is now taking a full year or more to update product. (Just a theory that might explain some of these recent actions from Cook's perspective)
Ahrendts was hired to run retail. As far as I know she has nothing to do with product updates. And Beats severed ties with its 3rd party design firm. Design is transitioning from Ammunition to Ive's group. You really think Ive and the design department are the only ones responsible for bringing products to market?
Ahrendts was hired to run retail. As far as I know she has nothing to do with product updates. And Beats severed ties with its 3rd party design firm. Design is transitioning from Ammunition to Ive's group. You really think Ive and the design department are the only ones responsible for bringing products to market?
Oh, I know what Ahrendts was hired for, but she was hired at a CEOs pay level and she ran a world class fashion company. She won't remain restricted to retail for long.
No, I agree that Apple can reach another huge market here, but I wouldn't call it "downmarket" by going "cheaper."
It's a matter of mindset, which Apple has shown us over and over again to be the primary starting point in this business of improving peoples' lives through artful technology.
Beats has already accomplished this with their headphones by going against sound reproduction principles and making an acoustic environment that can be taken out in the world. Their market, which is huge, wants this, and it's why the headphones are a success, not because they are "trendy" —awful, white-yuppy word.
So to suggest that Apple is going cheap and downmarket reveals a class bias that we don't want associated anywhere near this company. No, they are going outmarket, horizontally, into the majority of the earth's people, the post-colonial, post-industrial (including whites) young and ascendant aspirationals with attitude.
And this is what has been driving people crazy about this deal. You have to share your Apple with a new unfamiliar group of people. Calling it cheap and downmarket allows you to accept it without giving up your class superiority. Unacceptable. Better than before, but you're still hanging back.
Oh please what a load of BS. This has nothing to do with class or race. And going downmarket doesn't mean making cheap crap. Apple products have a certain design language. Maybe Ive can use the Beats brand as a whole other design language. Think back to colored iMacs and iPods. Use Beats as a brand where the designers can have more fun, be more expressive. And yes, perhaps create a line of products that are less expensive. These new inexpensive Motorola phones are actually getting good reviews. I think Ive and the hardware engineering team could absolutely create a really nice $350 off contract 5C style smartphone that would be a gateway into the iOS ecosystem. Use Beats as the brand for this. Coordinate the design with Beats headphones and hand it off to Angela Anrendts to make everyone who walks by an Apple store want to stop in and see it. And hand it off to Schiller to make sure it gets prime advertising. And it doesn't just have to be phones. This could includes iPods, speakers wearables, etc. This wouldn't be Apple just trying to buy cool but creating their own new cool and increasing traffic into Apple stores.
Oh, I know what Ahrendts was hired for, but she was hired at a CEOs pay level and she ran a world class fashion company. She won't remain restricted to retail for long.
So what are you suggesting? That Jony Ive is going to start taking product design orders from her? Or that Cook is going to move certain aspects of design away from Ive and under her?
Gene Munster was originally confused by the Beats deal when rumors first surfaced, but like others, he's begun to warm up to the marriage with Apple. In particular, he believes that adding Iovine and Dre could "help propel Apple into the next level in its content offering, particularly in video."
This is complete BS!
Iovine said yesterday during that recode interview that he will not be involved with any video, it's just about the music.
Gene Munster was originally confused by the Beats deal when rumors first surfaced, but like others, he's begun to warm up to the marriage with Apple. In particular, he believes that adding Iovine and Dre could "help propel Apple into the next level in its content offering, particularly in video."
This is complete BS!
Iovine said yesterday during that recode interview that he will not be involved with any video, it's just about the music.
All the more reason Apple should focus on expanding Beats hardware (while improving it of course). I don't see Iovine as Apple's meal ticket to content deals. And streaming music isn't sexy like new hardware is.
It's hard to say what you were implying or saying because Rogifan and Spam (who I was referring to) were saying completely different things... and yet you lumped them both together in that reply.
I wonder when Apple is going to release their own sneaker line?
If grabbing money from urban people and people with darker complexions is the main goal here, according to certain defenders of this deal, then Apple should definitely make a sneaker line. Certain people will literally stab and kill for sneakers and trendy sneakers are a high profit, high margin business, and this is all about making money according to certain people, isn't it?
I also have a hard time telling the difference between what certain defenders of this deal are saying and what Samsung trolls usually say, because the messages are both similar. Apple has lost their cool and they need to capture the youth market. I find that reasoning to be absurd, because when somebody is spouting Samsung propaganda, then that is not somebody who I can take seriously.
I don't think that Apple has lost their cool at all, and I also don't think that Apple needs to pander to any certain markets. Just make the best devices and people will buy them.
Sure they do, they say Apple should have outbid them. It's some weird aberration of the positional good by proxy where they only want Apple to buy it because it's desired by another company. If Samsung had wanted Beats those same people would probably be ecstatic that Apple bought them first.
A few days ago, I mentioned an article out of South Korea stating on unnamed source in the know mentioned Samsung had been interested in Beats and Apple decided to purchase Beats to keep it out of the hands of Samsung! Up until that point no other company (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.) had been mentioned as having any interest whatsoever in Beats. Then suddenly an unnamed source in the know mentions Samsung. Go figure! The funny thing about that mention is it seemed very dishonest and thankfully died very quickly.
I just can't wrap my head around the decision to maintain the beats brand. People are virtually ignoring the enormous sea change that this represents for Apple. A year ago, Cook consolidated product development for software and hardware and put both under Ive. And at the time, the reason given was that he wanted to ensure that every product Apple builds works together seamlessly across all aspects of the human interface, with the same attention to detail and design thoughtfulness that the hardware has.
Now flash forward a year, and Apple has not only acquired an entire brand, they plan to continue to operate that brand, which is for Apple a gigantic change in and of itself. And even more interesting, they aren't putting the hardware or software design for this entirely new brand under Ive, they are putting it under Phil Schiller, a marketing guy.
So, we have two dueling realities. One is the reality where Apple is fanatical to detail and to anything that may sully its brand, and where they have vested tremendous power over the design of their products in just one individual, ostensibly all in service of protecting the core design centric ethos of the company. And then we have this entirely separate reality, where not only is Apple's brand irrelevant, they have completely sidestepped the authority over design that is pervasive in the core brand.
What is up with that?
Everyone is talking about the streaming music app, the headphones, Jimmy Iovine, etc. and trying to make sense of this from the perspective of revenue. But people seem to be ignoring the fundamental nature of the change in Apple's business practice that this acquisition represents. This is a significant departure for Apple from the fundamental nature of how they have run their business. And I don't think that change can be properly understood by framing it with arguments about talent acquisition, digital rights, streaming music, or any of that. Either this represents a highly strategic move which will see Apple heavily leverage the Beats brand going forward... or it is an enormous mistake.
Honestly I'm not really sure which this is at this point - genius or disaster. But I cannot believe that Apple would make these very significant changes to the core of how they do business just to get at some headphones and a streaming app. There has to be much more to this picture.
There is absolutely no downside. It's like me spending $3. If they shutter Beats tomorrow it won't hurt Apple. I'm optimistic that good can come of the acquisition. The vast majority of analysts agree...for what that's worth.
In fact, Hall said he wouldn't be surprised to see Apple sell off Beats Electronics at some point in the future, allowing the headphone making side of the business to stand on its own while Apple would keep the talent and Beats Music service it has acquired.
Interesting point here. Even if it sells for 1.5-2b, isn't that worth what iovine, dre, and beats music bring to the table. This is a definite possibility down the road potentially.
Quote:
Gene Munster...
Munster also noted that because the $3 billion Beats purchase is Apple's largest acquisition in history, it could open the door for other purchases, including potential Internet services outside of content.
As if this freakin' blow-hard needed any more rumor ammunition...
There is absolutely no downside. It's like me spending $3. If they shutter Beats tomorrow it won't hurt Apple. I'm optimistic that good can come of the acquisition. The vast majority of analysts agree...for what that's worth.
If that's the case, then I would strongly suggest that he doesn't spend his $3.00, because he'll likely need it." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I just can't wrap my head around the decision to maintain the beats brand. People are virtually ignoring the enormous sea change that this represents for Apple. A year ago, Cook consolidated product development for software and hardware and put both under Ive. And at the time, the reason given was that he wanted to ensure that every product Apple builds works together seamlessly across all aspects of the human interface, with the same attention to detail and design thoughtfulness that the hardware has.
Now flash forward a year, and Apple has not only acquired an entire brand, they plan to continue to operate that brand, which is for Apple a gigantic change in and of itself. And even more interesting, they aren't putting the hardware or software design for this entirely new brand under Ive, they are putting it under Phil Schiller, a marketing guy.
So, we have two dueling realities. One is the reality where Apple is fanatical to detail and to anything that may sully its brand, and where they have vested tremendous power over the design of their products in just one individual, ostensibly all in service of protecting the core design centric ethos of the company. And then we have this entirely separate reality, where not only is Apple's brand irrelevant, they have completely sidestepped the authority over design that is pervasive in the core brand.
What is up with that?
Everyone is talking about the streaming music app, the headphones, Jimmy Iovine, etc. and trying to make sense of this from the perspective of revenue. But people seem to be ignoring the fundamental nature of the change in Apple's business practice that this acquisition represents. This is a significant departure for Apple from the fundamental nature of how they have run their business. And I don't think that change can be properly understood by framing it with arguments about talent acquisition, digital rights, streaming music, or any of that. Either this represents a highly strategic move which will see Apple heavily leverage the Beats brand going forward... or it is an enormous mistake.
Honestly I'm not really sure which this is at this point - genius or disaster. But I cannot believe that Apple would make these very significant changes to the core of how they do business just to get at some headphones and a streaming app. There has to be much more to this picture.
Robert Brunner who is currently responsible for Beats design said that over the coming months his firms duties will be transitioned to Apple's design team. Putting this under Schiller may have more to do with marketing and sales. Or it could be that Ive has more than enough on his plate and dealing with more than product design would stretch him too thin.
If that's the case, then I would strongly suggest that he doesn't spend his $3.00, because he'll likely need it." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Just to clarify -- although I am fairly sure that you did not at all intend to imply it -- I am not saying, as some here and many in the analyst community have, that the $3B is trivial for Apple. The only argument I have is over whether Apple gets at least $3B in value from the Beats purchase, that's all.
Some people here are funny... "I don't like Beats headphones - they're cheap and stink, therefore this is a horrible deal! They should buy the headphones I personally use." Good thing you don't run a billion dollar company if that's your rationale, to only invest in what you personally like, eff the public majority or the companies assets.
How is this any different than under Jobs? Remember the Mac mini was going to die? AI had umpteen stories about its imminent death because it went so long between updates. The only thing that has moved to a longer release cycle is the iPod, for obvious reasons, but I believe Jobs was still in control when they started that model. I think it's been user Cook that Mac OS X has moved to a yearly release cycle… which I love.
I'm still just trying to get a handle on the nature of this deal and working through possible "unadvertised" scenarios helps to do that.
Imagine this... Apple discovered their patents were not enough to prevent copycats like Samsung from stealing business, so they decide to buy Beats as entry to the currently Samsung-dominated (by quantity, not by profit) global "smartphone" market. Suppose in a couple of years Apple introduces a Beats line of phones...(wait for it)... and some of those Beats phones also run Android. This would give Apple the trojan horse to sneak in and undercut Samsung and destroy them from the inside. In fact, Apple could mimic Samsung "note for note" and basically pull a Samsung on Samsung! And this would have the added benefit of favoring Apple's Android apps that siphon away Google's advertising revenue.
Comments
Oh, I know what Ahrendts was hired for, but she was hired at a CEOs pay level and she ran a world class fashion company. She won't remain restricted to retail for long.
Gene Munster was originally confused by the Beats deal when rumors first surfaced, but like others, he's begun to warm up to the marriage with Apple. In particular, he believes that adding Iovine and Dre could "help propel Apple into the next level in its content offering, particularly in video."
This is complete BS!
Iovine said yesterday during that recode interview that he will not be involved with any video, it's just about the music.
All the data in the world doesn't guarantee that your plan will work.
I never said or implied that in any of my posts.
I never said or implied that in any of my posts.
It's hard to say what you were implying or saying because Rogifan and Spam (who I was referring to) were saying completely different things... and yet you lumped them both together in that reply.
I wonder when Apple is going to release their own sneaker line?
If grabbing money from urban people and people with darker complexions is the main goal here, according to certain defenders of this deal, then Apple should definitely make a sneaker line. Certain people will literally stab and kill for sneakers and trendy sneakers are a high profit, high margin business, and this is all about making money according to certain people, isn't it?
I also have a hard time telling the difference between what certain defenders of this deal are saying and what Samsung trolls usually say, because the messages are both similar. Apple has lost their cool and they need to capture the youth market. I find that reasoning to be absurd, because when somebody is spouting Samsung propaganda, then that is not somebody who I can take seriously.
I don't think that Apple has lost their cool at all, and I also don't think that Apple needs to pander to any certain markets. Just make the best devices and people will buy them.
Sure they do, they say Apple should have outbid them.
A few days ago, I mentioned an article out of South Korea stating on unnamed source in the know mentioned Samsung had been interested in Beats and Apple decided to purchase Beats to keep it out of the hands of Samsung! Up until that point no other company (Amazon, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc.) had been mentioned as having any interest whatsoever in Beats. Then suddenly an unnamed source in the know mentions Samsung. Go figure! The funny thing about that mention is it seemed very dishonest and thankfully died very quickly.
I just can't wrap my head around the decision to maintain the beats brand. People are virtually ignoring the enormous sea change that this represents for Apple. A year ago, Cook consolidated product development for software and hardware and put both under Ive. And at the time, the reason given was that he wanted to ensure that every product Apple builds works together seamlessly across all aspects of the human interface, with the same attention to detail and design thoughtfulness that the hardware has.
Now flash forward a year, and Apple has not only acquired an entire brand, they plan to continue to operate that brand, which is for Apple a gigantic change in and of itself. And even more interesting, they aren't putting the hardware or software design for this entirely new brand under Ive, they are putting it under Phil Schiller, a marketing guy.
So, we have two dueling realities. One is the reality where Apple is fanatical to detail and to anything that may sully its brand, and where they have vested tremendous power over the design of their products in just one individual, ostensibly all in service of protecting the core design centric ethos of the company. And then we have this entirely separate reality, where not only is Apple's brand irrelevant, they have completely sidestepped the authority over design that is pervasive in the core brand.
What is up with that?
Everyone is talking about the streaming music app, the headphones, Jimmy Iovine, etc. and trying to make sense of this from the perspective of revenue. But people seem to be ignoring the fundamental nature of the change in Apple's business practice that this acquisition represents. This is a significant departure for Apple from the fundamental nature of how they have run their business. And I don't think that change can be properly understood by framing it with arguments about talent acquisition, digital rights, streaming music, or any of that. Either this represents a highly strategic move which will see Apple heavily leverage the Beats brand going forward... or it is an enormous mistake.
Honestly I'm not really sure which this is at this point - genius or disaster. But I cannot believe that Apple would make these very significant changes to the core of how they do business just to get at some headphones and a streaming app. There has to be much more to this picture.
There is absolutely no downside. It's like me spending $3. If they shutter Beats tomorrow it won't hurt Apple. I'm optimistic that good can come of the acquisition. The vast majority of analysts agree...for what that's worth.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
While analyst Rod Hall...
In fact, Hall said he wouldn't be surprised to see Apple sell off Beats Electronics at some point in the future, allowing the headphone making side of the business to stand on its own while Apple would keep the talent and Beats Music service it has acquired.
Interesting point here. Even if it sells for 1.5-2b, isn't that worth what iovine, dre, and beats music bring to the table. This is a definite possibility down the road potentially.
Munster also noted that because the $3 billion Beats purchase is Apple's largest acquisition in history, it could open the door for other purchases, including potential Internet services outside of content.
As if this freakin' blow-hard needed any more rumor ammunition...
There is absolutely no downside. It's like me spending $3. If they shutter Beats tomorrow it won't hurt Apple. I'm optimistic that good can come of the acquisition. The vast majority of analysts agree...for what that's worth.
You're worth all of $544?
You're worth all of $544?
If that's the case, then I would strongly suggest that he doesn't spend his $3.00, because he'll likely need it.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
You're worth all of $544?
If that's the case, then I would strongly suggest that he doesn't spend his $3.00, because he'll likely need it.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Just to clarify -- although I am fairly sure that you did not at all intend to imply it -- I am not saying, as some here and many in the analyst community have, that the $3B is trivial for Apple. The only argument I have is over whether Apple gets at least $3B in value from the Beats purchase, that's all.
Some people here are funny... "I don't like Beats headphones - they're cheap and stink, therefore this is a horrible deal! They should buy the headphones I personally use." Good thing you don't run a billion dollar company if that's your rationale, to only invest in what you personally like, eff the public majority or the companies assets.
How is this any different than under Jobs? Remember the Mac mini was going to die? AI had umpteen stories about its imminent death because it went so long between updates. The only thing that has moved to a longer release cycle is the iPod, for obvious reasons, but I believe Jobs was still in control when they started that model. I think it's been user Cook that Mac OS X has moved to a yearly release cycle… which I love.
I'm still just trying to get a handle on the nature of this deal and working through possible "unadvertised" scenarios helps to do that.
Imagine this... Apple discovered their patents were not enough to prevent copycats like Samsung from stealing business, so they decide to buy Beats as entry to the currently Samsung-dominated (by quantity, not by profit) global "smartphone" market. Suppose in a couple of years Apple introduces a Beats line of phones...(wait for it)... and some of those Beats phones also run Android. This would give Apple the trojan horse to sneak in and undercut Samsung and destroy them from the inside. In fact, Apple could mimic Samsung "note for note" and basically pull a Samsung on Samsung! And this would have the added benefit of favoring Apple's Android apps that siphon away Google's advertising revenue.
Stock is up 2% today.
Stock is up $12,000,000,000 today.
Much more than the Beats sale price. Wow.
That is something, isn't it? Wall Street has very narrow expectations.