When it comes to headphones, they only seem to practice the Samsung "good enough" approach).
And they shouldn't do any more, in my opinion, because it's a waste. Those people who are into audio and sound use headphones that in some cases costs more than their iPhones and iPads. There is no way that any "Beats" headphone will ever be good enough for those people. And I'm one of those people.
There is no way IMHO Apple were not made aware of this. Any company take over such as this would have very specific limitations on what Beats could do from the time of the initial agreement to when it is concluded. If my suspicions are right then one wonders how this factors into the whole deal.
Was there ever point prior to the sale of Beats to Apple where the Beats board of directors contemplated a sale of the company to anyone else?
Could Apple have negotiated the price down even further? I think they could've.
Why would you care how much Apple paid for Beats, the price could have been doubled and wouldn't have affected Apple in slightest.
You all might reflect in the fact that many, many audiophiles bemoaned the arrival and subsequent popularity of iPods and its super lossy music in exactly the same way. I wonder if any of you agreed with those assessments, and never bought an iPod. Or, if you did, trashed it.
My guess: you did not. If so, you're a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.
You all might reflect in the fact that many, many audiophiles bemoaned the arrival and subsequent popularity of iPods and its super lossy music in exactly the same way. I wonder if any of you agreed with those assessments, and never bought an iPod. Or, if you did, trashed it.
My guess: you did not. If so, you're a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.
I didn't follow any of those arguments back then, but haven't iPods always had the ability to store and play non lossy audio files? So I'm not sure what the issue would have been.
There seems to be a popular misconception that it doesn't matter how one spends one's money if there is a lot of it.
Here's the thing... A company that wastes it's money won't stay wealthy forever.
Again, why do care, it's not your company. As long as the company is profitable, makes their shareholders money, anything they do with their profits is absolutely none of our business.
My guess: you did not. If so, you're a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.
I've owned one iPod, the first model, I hated it, horrible battery life and I couldn't stand that it was impossible to see the directory structure when it was plugged into the computer, one of the reasons why I have yet to own an iPhone. Back then I preferred my Marantz Mini Disk recorder/player, Tascom DAT player and Nokia Communicator 9500 with a 512MB MMC card for MP3's. I had a few solid state MP3's players over the years but they mostly came from iRiver with the only exception being the latest one from Fiio, I wanted one with a built in headphone AMP. I mostly use my phone and tablets for music now which I have to say the Nexus 10 is my favorite for just listening to music, I didn't know this when I bought it but it has Wolfson DAC and a Tascom DR-680 for recordings, though my iPad does a pretty good job of that when connected to my Mackie dock so I mostly use the Tascom with my Canon 5D II when filming or recording sound on the go. Yes, I 'm serious about sound.
It would only become a problem if Apple stopped making money... which I can't imagine will happen in my lifetime.
Apple has a ridiculous income. They don't have a finite amount of cash... they're constantly adding more.
They make enough money to buy a "Beats" every 30 days if they wanted to.
And it would only be considered a waste if they didn't gain anything from it. Even if we don't know why Apple bought Beats... they know.
In short... Apple had the money to cover the Beats purchase... and they can make that money back in a month.
I trust Tim Cook with the stewardship of the company's funds in its current unbelievably good financial condition. As a general rule, Apple has always, always been very cautious with the use of their cash.
Yea thanks, I've worked for one of the largest banks in the world specifically programming applications that where used for institutional trading for the last 15 years. I know what a shareholder is and as a holder myself I have never thought for an absolute second that those shares mean that my tiny investment affords me a say in the companies affairs, regardless of the literal definition.
You all might reflect in the fact that many, many audiophiles bemoaned the arrival and subsequent popularity of iPods and its super lossy music in exactly the same way. I wonder if any of you agreed with those assessments, and never bought an iPod. Or, if you did, trashed it.
My guess: you did not. If so, you're a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.
What on earth did my post have to do with what you are saying? Please don't aggregate my post in with non related ones. In my post I simply speculated that Apple most likely were informed of this Beats law suit. If not then ... wow ...!
For Apple to take over a company at the very beginnings of a presumably long and expensive legal battle is not good for Apple.
That was my point, Apple surely had to know, if not then I would have thought it could effect the agreement. If they did then what gives? Fascinating isn't it?
I trust Tim Cook with the stewardship of the company's funds in its current unbelievably good financial condition. As a general rule, Apple has always, always been very cautious with the use of their cash.
Ok... it sounded like you thought Apple was one of the companies who wastes money and won't stay wealthy because of it.
I know what a shareholder is and as a holder myself I have never thought for an absolute second that those shares mean that my tiny investment affords me a say in the companies affairs, regardless of the literal definition.
You should, because, damn, you have a ton of Apple shares! Way more than me!" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I don't think that anybody on this forum owns more AAPL than you do.
Your original post came to my email inbox, and I of course saw your entire, extremely detailed financial history of AAPL. You've obviously edited your post since then, but don't worry, I wont divulge any of that information.
If I owned as many shares that you do, then I would demand private concierge service whenever I stepped foot into an Apple store. My head would be much bigger than it already is.
I scoured the Beats website and googled for information about the basic frequency response of Beats products (headphones, earbuds, speakers)... not. one. word. about it. A search of the Beats websites for "frequency response" yields "no results".
Seriously nothing, aside from a few third-party DIY audiophiles on Google that made FR graphs comparing various headphones... and those are all over the map.
Every mainstream tech, news, reporting and review outlet is trumpeting the greatness and cool of Beats products (and making money from that song and dance), and yet, not a SINGLE ONE mentions the thing that matters most to these devices: the accuracy of their reproduction. The simplest measure, "frequency response" is non-existent. Instead "what matters" is all tangled up into clever double-speak and marketing copy and "cool"...
What a shallow, horrible scam!
When you are completely hiding the very specifications that make a truly great pair of headphones, and hiding those behind a bunch of highly polished web pages and marketing-speak? That's the worst kind of 'snake oil' salesmanship and misdirection out there.
Either Apple has been taken in by it, or the buy has nothing to do with the headphones (although, judging by the headphone quality of iPods, etc. Apple doesn't seem to have much clarity or much vested there, really. When it comes to headphones, they only seem to practice the Samsung "good enough" approach).
When a product has great "aesthetic" design, but not much else in delivered quality, what good is it? Honestly, what good is an awesome looking, well-manufactured pair of headphones that sound awful? Other than adding to a wardrobe ensemble?
From the few FR graphs I did see by googling it, these are really REALLY bad headphones...
I won't judge until I hear them for myself, but I'm not sure i"m going to bother, considering their clear level of dishonesty (hiding the facts that matter to a product like this).
From what I've seen though, I'm not sure the "real thing" is going to be any better than the knockoffs.............
That's all fine and good, as long as you know that freq response is not an indicator of sound "quality". And in fact, a wide frequency response is often an indicator of poorer quality speakers.
Me to, Beats headphones are just overpriced fashion accessories for children and teenagers and young adults. A pair Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro's is so vastly superior then a similar priced pair of Beats that it is almost comical.
Misses the point completely, as does everyone who brings this up. Beats has never marketed itself as a headphone for "Pro" audio or those who listen to music where subtle details in the audio would make any qualitative difference. Rather they have been about making money, like any company, and they sell a hell of a lot of product. And while Beyerdynamic shares their smaller market niche with handfuls of other manufacturers, Beats has dominated theirs (in fact they top the over $100 market) and caused the other makers to chase after it, for better or worse. Its revenue as a privately held company dwarfed, for example, Beyerdynamic, which was recently listed as $51M. Why would they want Beyerdynamic's fan base as buyers?
Comments
You all might reflect in the fact that many, many audiophiles bemoaned the arrival and subsequent popularity of iPods and its super lossy music in exactly the same way. I wonder if any of you agreed with those assessments, and never bought an iPod. Or, if you did, trashed it.
My guess: you did not. If so, you're a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.
It would only become a problem if Apple stopped making money... which I can't imagine will happen in my lifetime.
Apple has a ridiculous income. They don't have a finite amount of cash... they're constantly adding more.
They make enough money to buy a "Beats" every 30 days if they wanted to.
And it would only be considered a waste if they didn't gain anything from it. Even if we don't know why Apple bought Beats... they know.
In short... Apple had the money to cover the Beats purchase... and they can make that money back in a month.
Apple is subsequently found guilty of copying the Chinese knockoffs.
No, but they were just found guilty of patent infringement in regards to Siri.
You all might reflect in the fact that many, many audiophiles bemoaned the arrival and subsequent popularity of iPods and its super lossy music in exactly the same way. I wonder if any of you agreed with those assessments, and never bought an iPod. Or, if you did, trashed it.
My guess: you did not. If so, you're a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.
I didn't follow any of those arguments back then, but haven't iPods always had the ability to store and play non lossy audio files? So I'm not sure what the issue would have been.
There seems to be a popular misconception that it doesn't matter how one spends one's money if there is a lot of it.
Here's the thing... A company that wastes it's money won't stay wealthy forever.
Again, why do care, it's not your company. As long as the company is profitable, makes their shareholders money, anything they do with their profits is absolutely none of our business.
Again, why do care, it's not your company.
Actually it is. Apple is mine. It's my company.
It's also many other people's company too on this forum. Anybody who is a shareholder is an owner of the company.
Definition of 'Shareholder'
Any person, company or other institution that owns at least one share of a company’s stock. Shareholders are a company's owners.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder.asp
My guess: you did not. If so, you're a bunch of hypocrites on this issue.
I've owned one iPod, the first model, I hated it, horrible battery life and I couldn't stand that it was impossible to see the directory structure when it was plugged into the computer, one of the reasons why I have yet to own an iPhone. Back then I preferred my Marantz Mini Disk recorder/player, Tascom DAT player and Nokia Communicator 9500 with a 512MB MMC card for MP3's. I had a few solid state MP3's players over the years but they mostly came from iRiver with the only exception being the latest one from Fiio, I wanted one with a built in headphone AMP. I mostly use my phone and tablets for music now which I have to say the Nexus 10 is my favorite for just listening to music, I didn't know this when I bought it but it has Wolfson DAC and a Tascom DR-680 for recordings, though my iPad does a pretty good job of that when connected to my Mackie dock so I mostly use the Tascom with my Canon 5D II when filming or recording sound on the go. Yes, I 'm serious about sound.
It would only become a problem if Apple stopped making money... which I can't imagine will happen in my lifetime.
Apple has a ridiculous income. They don't have a finite amount of cash... they're constantly adding more.
They make enough money to buy a "Beats" every 30 days if they wanted to.
And it would only be considered a waste if they didn't gain anything from it. Even if we don't know why Apple bought Beats... they know.
In short... Apple had the money to cover the Beats purchase... and they can make that money back in a month.
I trust Tim Cook with the stewardship of the company's funds in its current unbelievably good financial condition. As a general rule, Apple has always, always been very cautious with the use of their cash.
Actually it is. Apple is mine. It's my company.
It's also many other people's company too on this forum. Anybody who is a shareholder is an owner of the company.
Definition of 'Shareholder'
Any person, company or other institution that owns at least one share of a company’s stock. Shareholders are a company's owners.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/shareholder.asp
Yea thanks, I've worked for one of the largest banks in the world specifically programming applications that where used for institutional trading for the last 15 years. I know what a shareholder is and as a holder myself I have never thought for an absolute second that those shares mean that my tiny investment affords me a say in the companies affairs, regardless of the literal definition.
Where did I say I did?
What on earth did my post have to do with what you are saying? Please don't aggregate my post in with non related ones. In my post I simply speculated that Apple most likely were informed of this Beats law suit. If not then ... wow ...!
That was my point, Apple surely had to know, if not then I would have thought it could effect the agreement. If they did then what gives? Fascinating isn't it?
Where did I say I did?
Sorry, you were accidentally lumped in there with Apple ][.
OMG NOoooooo never do that!
Ok... it sounded like you thought Apple was one of the companies who wastes money and won't stay wealthy because of it.
Glad we're on the same page then
I know what a shareholder is and as a holder myself I have never thought for an absolute second that those shares mean that my tiny investment affords me a say in the companies affairs, regardless of the literal definition.
You should, because, damn, you have a ton of Apple shares! Way more than me!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
I don't think that anybody on this forum owns more AAPL than you do.
Your original post came to my email inbox, and I of course saw your entire, extremely detailed financial history of AAPL. You've obviously edited your post since then, but don't worry, I wont divulge any of that information.
If I owned as many shares that you do, then I would demand private concierge service whenever I stepped foot into an Apple store. My head would be much bigger than it already is.
OMG NOoooooo never do that!
You should feel honored, even it were only a mixup and for a brief moment.
There's a snowball's chance in hell that Beats will ever see any substantial amount of money from that lawsuit.
I scoured the Beats website and googled for information about the basic frequency response of Beats products (headphones, earbuds, speakers)... not. one. word. about it. A search of the Beats websites for "frequency response" yields "no results".
Seriously nothing, aside from a few third-party DIY audiophiles on Google that made FR graphs comparing various headphones... and those are all over the map.
Every mainstream tech, news, reporting and review outlet is trumpeting the greatness and cool of Beats products (and making money from that song and dance), and yet, not a SINGLE ONE mentions the thing that matters most to these devices: the accuracy of their reproduction. The simplest measure, "frequency response" is non-existent. Instead "what matters" is all tangled up into clever double-speak and marketing copy and "cool"...
What a shallow, horrible scam!
When you are completely hiding the very specifications that make a truly great pair of headphones, and hiding those behind a bunch of highly polished web pages and marketing-speak? That's the worst kind of 'snake oil' salesmanship and misdirection out there.
Either Apple has been taken in by it, or the buy has nothing to do with the headphones (although, judging by the headphone quality of iPods, etc. Apple doesn't seem to have much clarity or much vested there, really. When it comes to headphones, they only seem to practice the Samsung "good enough" approach).
When a product has great "aesthetic" design, but not much else in delivered quality, what good is it? Honestly, what good is an awesome looking, well-manufactured pair of headphones that sound awful? Other than adding to a wardrobe ensemble?
From the few FR graphs I did see by googling it, these are really REALLY bad headphones...
I won't judge until I hear them for myself, but I'm not sure i"m going to bother, considering their clear level of dishonesty (hiding the facts that matter to a product like this).
From what I've seen though, I'm not sure the "real thing" is going to be any better than the knockoffs.............
That's all fine and good, as long as you know that freq response is not an indicator of sound "quality". And in fact, a wide frequency response is often an indicator of poorer quality speakers.
Me to, Beats headphones are just overpriced fashion accessories for children and teenagers and young adults. A pair Beyerdynamic DT 770 Pro's is so vastly superior then a similar priced pair of Beats that it is almost comical.
Misses the point completely, as does everyone who brings this up. Beats has never marketed itself as a headphone for "Pro" audio or those who listen to music where subtle details in the audio would make any qualitative difference. Rather they have been about making money, like any company, and they sell a hell of a lot of product. And while Beyerdynamic shares their smaller market niche with handfuls of other manufacturers, Beats has dominated theirs (in fact they top the over $100 market) and caused the other makers to chase after it, for better or worse. Its revenue as a privately held company dwarfed, for example, Beyerdynamic, which was recently listed as $51M. Why would they want Beyerdynamic's fan base as buyers?