I've no interest in "connected home" solutions. That's something that would be better controlled by Siri or some kind of artificial intelligence that learns from the home dweller's patterns.
It's disappointing to me. The FT rumor made it sound much more expansive than a MFI sticker on a product. Hopefully there is more to it than that.
Good enough for the masses is not a benchmark that Apple should be aspiring to. I hold them to higher standards than that, or at least I used to.
But hey they're profitable, so I guess that's all that matters these days. The fact that Apple is bringing the design in-house gives me some hope that they'll work to make the products better.
No idea how to judge the transaction - except I have to say that as much as I like most Apple products, for me, Apple Radio is useless. Never ceases to amaze me by playing songs unrelated the station I created. I mean, such bad matches I just have to quit it and play my own mix.
This is an ignorant pile of thought. With just over 300 regular full-time employees, world-wide, Apple gains a world class Operating System for the Consumer to the Federal Govt., decades worth of technologies that are the heart and soul of Apple today.
Sorry, but please don't speak of NeXT, unless you were an employee at NeXT. You paint yourself a fool to do so.
This acquisition has almost single-handedly sucked out all of my enthusiasm for Apple... and I say this as the owner of my 6th iPhone, 3rd iPad, and countless MacBooks/Powerbooks. Facebook and Google are busy acquiring innovative tech companies like Oculus and Word Lens - and Apple is busy acquiring for image and style. This is like Apple acquiring king-of-shitty-audio Bose. If you think Beats sound good, you should have turned up your bass EQ and saved yourself the $200 brand fee. This is a horrible mismatch in company culture and product design approach. This is the business version of cranky old neighbor Tim Cook listening to "the rap music" in order to relate to the neighborhood kids.
It's never actually made clear in the news reports I've read whether that billion dollars is profit or sales.
But, I have a hard time believing it in either case.
Typical acquisition costs are 2.5x gross revenue so Beats does 1 billion in revenue. If it was 1 billion in profits, Apple would be paying much more to acquire.
This acquisition has almost single-handedly sucked out all of my enthusiasm for Apple... and I say this as the owner of my 6th iPhone, 3rd iPad, and countless MacBooks/Powerbooks. Facebook and Google are busy acquiring innovative tech companies like Oculus and Word Lens - and Apple is busy acquiring for image and style. This would be like Apple acquiring Bose. If you think Beats sound good, you should have turned up your bass EQ and saved yourself the $200 brand fee. This is a horrible mismatch in company culture and product design approach. This is the business version of cranky old neighbor Tim Cook listening to "the rap music" in order to relate to the neighborhood kids.
I think you're looking at Beats headphones and not much else. According to Apple, they're looking at everything much more than the headphone business. If the headphone business weren't so profitable, Apple would fold it in a heartbeat. Apple doesn't want Beats headphone technology and engineering, they want the brand so that they can build off of that.
I guarantee a 180 degree turnaround in headphone performance quality perception by end of year. Real or not, it's already began. New Beats headphones were announced today and are getting good reviews.
I was hoping we'd see more than an MFI program at this WWDC. Yeah I know Apple has a lot of cool patents. I remember seeing ones for smart covers that offered additional functionality 2 years ago. The question is when does some of this stuff finally come to market?
Sorry, but please don't speak of NeXT, unless you were an employee at NeXT. You paint yourself a fool to do so.
I've never worked at NeXT and I'm not connected to them in any way, but I would be offended too, if somebody compared NeXT, which provided the foundation that all Apple products are built upon today, to a company that merely makes headphones. What a joke." src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Apple doesn't want Beats headphone technology and engineering, they want the brand so that they can build off of that.
The Beats brand is garbage compared to Apple, so it makes no sense at all for Apple to want to build off of that.
What's next? Is Ferrari going to acquire the Ford Pinto brand, because they wish to build off of that, since their own name isn't good enough obviously?
Comments
The real reason Apple bought Beats: they gave up trying to develop good earbuds and bought them for their expertise.
/s
But in all seriousness, I sense Apple will bundle Beats branded EarPods with the next-generation iPhone and iPods.
This is an ignorant pile of thought. With just over 300 regular full-time employees, world-wide, Apple gains a world class Operating System for the Consumer to the Federal Govt., decades worth of technologies that are the heart and soul of Apple today.
Sorry, but please don't speak of NeXT, unless you were an employee at NeXT. You paint yourself a fool to do so.
This acquisition has almost single-handedly sucked out all of my enthusiasm for Apple... and I say this as the owner of my 6th iPhone, 3rd iPad, and countless MacBooks/Powerbooks. Facebook and Google are busy acquiring innovative tech companies like Oculus and Word Lens - and Apple is busy acquiring for image and style. This is like Apple acquiring king-of-shitty-audio Bose. If you think Beats sound good, you should have turned up your bass EQ and saved yourself the $200 brand fee. This is a horrible mismatch in company culture and product design approach. This is the business version of cranky old neighbor Tim Cook listening to "the rap music" in order to relate to the neighborhood kids.
It's never actually made clear in the news reports I've read whether that billion dollars is profit or sales.
But, I have a hard time believing it in either case.
Typical acquisition costs are 2.5x gross revenue so Beats does 1 billion in revenue. If it was 1 billion in profits, Apple would be paying much more to acquire.
0.5% of $75,000 = $375. That's some lunch! Perhaps you mean an iPod touch?
Your examples aren't great.
I am thinking EVERY supplier of Beats hardware components will soon be receiving a notification signed "Tim Cook".
This acquisition has almost single-handedly sucked out all of my enthusiasm for Apple... and I say this as the owner of my 6th iPhone, 3rd iPad, and countless MacBooks/Powerbooks. Facebook and Google are busy acquiring innovative tech companies like Oculus and Word Lens - and Apple is busy acquiring for image and style. This would be like Apple acquiring Bose. If you think Beats sound good, you should have turned up your bass EQ and saved yourself the $200 brand fee. This is a horrible mismatch in company culture and product design approach. This is the business version of cranky old neighbor Tim Cook listening to "the rap music" in order to relate to the neighborhood kids.
I think you're looking at Beats headphones and not much else. According to Apple, they're looking at everything much more than the headphone business. If the headphone business weren't so profitable, Apple would fold it in a heartbeat. Apple doesn't want Beats headphone technology and engineering, they want the brand so that they can build off of that.
I guarantee a 180 degree turnaround in headphone performance quality perception by end of year. Real or not, it's already began. New Beats headphones were announced today and are getting good reviews.
It's disappointing to me. The FT rumor made it sound much more expansive than a MFI sticker on a product. Hopefully there is more to it than that.
Please stop being so short sighted about Apple. Check out these links about Apple's possible plans for the connected home...
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2014/05/apple-shines-more-light-on-their-home-controller.html#more
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2014/05/a-brief-overview-of-ibeacon-technology-that-could-also-be-used-in-future-home-automation.html#more
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2014/05/apple-may-surprise-the-market-with-a-new-smart-home-platform.html
Psychosis. Beats is to Apple what SoundJam MP was to Apple.
I make no comment as to the purchase itself here; simply that the comparison is in no way legitimate.
In no way is there net profit close to 75%. That would mean an operating margin for HW that's 25%. That's simply not reasonable.
Sorry, but please don't speak of NeXT, unless you were an employee at NeXT. You paint yourself a fool to do so.
I've never worked at NeXT and I'm not connected to them in any way, but I would be offended too, if somebody compared NeXT, which provided the foundation that all Apple products are built upon today, to a company that merely makes headphones. What a joke.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
.... their 75% + profit margin ....
On what planet?
Apple doesn't want Beats headphone technology and engineering, they want the brand so that they can build off of that.
The Beats brand is garbage compared to Apple, so it makes no sense at all for Apple to want to build off of that.
What's next? Is Ferrari going to acquire the Ford Pinto brand, because they wish to build off of that, since their own name isn't good enough obviously?
Typical acquisition costs are 2.5x gross revenue so....
Where did you see that?!