I didn't say it was no big deal. I think it's only logical that the streaming music service gets combined with iTunes Radio. Keep the Beats brand for headphones, keep the iTunes brand for music.
Agreed. Beats is more synonymous with headphones anyway.
I wonder how long Iovine and Dre will stick around. I have a hard time believing they're working full time for Apple. Ian Rogers and the other Beats employees Apple kept probably are. But Jimmy & Dre no way,
If Apple does rebrand it, I wonder how long the rest of the Beats employees stick around. Would defeat the purpose of buying Beats for its human-curated music.
Somehow I don't think they would have given it prominent placement in Apple's bundled Apps on the App Store, or just added it as a channel to AppleTV.....if there was even a remote shred of truth to this rumor.
Dudes the headphones rumor countdown starts October 17. The Apple headquarters design team is going to get to redesign the headphones as a vacation reward for their hard work on the watch. They have been compulsively re-designing Beats headphones for years in the lab! Rock on!!!!
Dudes the headphones rumor countdown starts October 17. The Apple headquarters design team is going to get to redesign the headphones as a vacation reward for their hard work on the watch. They have been compulsively re-designing Beats headphones for years in the lab! Rock on!!!!
I wonder how long Iovine and Dre will stick around. I have a hard time believing they're working full time for Apple. Ian Rogers and the other Beats employees Apple kept probably are. But Jimmy & Dre no way,
I agree. Entrepreneurs hate to be employees. They'll leave when it serves them and work on the next idea...possibly another company that will serve a niche market that Apple will want to buy in the future.
Buying Beats was stupid. Dump the headphones (preferably in a landfill, they're crap), absorb anything useful (I doubt there's much) from the streaming service into iTunes Radio, and write off the loss.
Indeed; but that's Mr Cook for you, ladies and gentlemen: the world's best diversity-friendly COO and nothing else.
Strike 1: Announce the distribution of dividends by Apple, which has instantly changed the character of the company from "growth stock" to "organic stock" - just like Microsoft;
Strike 2: Buy Beats for its crappy headphones, nay, streaming service, nay, a couple of fake music moguls - all of them suck and now the "investment" will have to be written off;
Strike 3: Launch the Apple Watch, a fugly, square, boring, iOS-dependent, short-battery POS - just because analysts told Cook to launch it.
Now where is Mike Spindler when we need him? Or is it Sculley?
P.S.: funny how almost everyone now says that Apple bought Beats BECAUSE of its headphones - when virtually everyone and their dog said EXACTLY the opposite around here when the deal was announced. So which side are you gonna take now?
Indeed; but that's Mr Cook for you, ladies and gentlemen: the world's best diversity-friendly COO and nothing else.
Strike 1: Announce the distribution of dividends by Apple, which has instantly changed the character of the company from "growth stock" to "organic stock" - just like Microsoft;
Strike 2: Buy Beats for its crappy headphones, nay, streaming service, nay, a couple of fake music moguls - all of them suck and now the "investment" will have to be written off;
Strike 3: Launch the Apple Watch, a fugly, square, boring, iOS-dependent, short-battery POS - just because analysts told Cook to launch it.
Now where is Mike Spindler when we need him? Or is it Sculley?
P.S.: funny how almost everyone now says that Apple bought Beats BECAUSE of its headphones - when virtually everyone and their dog said EXACTLY the opposite around here when the deal was announced. So which side are you gonna take now?
Spindler and Sculley were both crap CEOs. Bringing back Gil Amelio might be a good next step.
I'm pretty sure I've said before that iTunes Radio is already superior to every other streaming service I've touched, and I don't think it needs any changes. I've also pointed out that Beats headphones are overpriced garbage that sound terrible, and the rest of the Beats hardware products are a joke.
And yes, landfill the headphones. That crappy brand of headphones being owned by Apple degrades Apple's brand by degrading Apple's image as a quality-conscious company.
But if there's anything useful in the Beats service, strip it out and add it to iTunes Radio. Shred the rest of the code.
I don't have a serious issue with the watch. I'll never buy one, I haven't worn a watch since I got a cell phone with a clock on it, which was a long time ago, and I'm not going back; I hate wearing things on my wrist. But it looks like a decent enough product for people who still wear watches, it's certainly a far better product than those stupid-expensive Swiss analog watches that idiots keep buying.
Well some people think it's just fine because those crappy headphones make a lot of money. Or that somehow Beats headphones being owned by Apple will make these urban teenagers flock to iPhones. I always thought it just reinforced the false narrative that Apple products are overpriced and only sell well because of design/marketing.
Hopefully, Apple will turn crappy headphones into "cool teen" iOS enabled wearables that eventually lead to phone sales.
People, including teens, already know who buys/bought Beats, and it's always been a company that made boatloads of money selling to their fans and none by attempting to expand their base. If Apple tries to make them "cool" in a different way they would disappear from their bread and butter group, turning a $3b company into one worth $2m.
The vast majority of the cool teens not already defined as Beats or other expensive headphone buyers have expensive devices and their stock headphones, and if they replace them it's with cheap earbuds or $20 overears. They would be impenetrable to a new headphone line because they don't care about headphones. And even if they did and lusted over a new Apple IOS Beats derived wearable, I don't see how that leads to phone sales. They have their new wearable. Now they just keep their old phone.
P.S.: funny how almost everyone now says that Apple bought Beats BECAUSE of its headphones - when virtually everyone and their dog said EXACTLY the opposite around here when the deal was announced. So which side are you gonna take now?
I seem to remember the opposite since Beats Music subscription had just started and Beats headphones had been going for years with an Apple-like domination of the premium priced headphone market.
P.S.: funny how almost everyone now says that Apple bought Beats BECAUSE of its headphones - when virtually everyone and their dog said EXACTLY the opposite around here when the deal was announced. So which side are you gonna take now?
I seem to remember the opposite since Beats Music subscription had just started and Beats headphones had been going for years with an Apple-like domination of the premium priced headphone market.
That's very true, but the purchase of a hardware line, especially one that's impossible to sell at it's current price points to the casual Apple buyer, didn't make as much sense synergistically as the music service, with whatever intellectual property/personnel/momentum it had. For me the biggest reason to think so is that Apple needs a boost in their music services to keep the new rivals at bay over the next five years, they don't need a questionably priced headphone line, so my thinking tilted toward desiring the non-hardware aspect and paying the premium for the headphones that had to be part of the deal. Why Apple would want the headache of buying a hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside of it instead of just creating their own high market headphones didn't have much ring to it to me, not that the powers that be couldn't have seen otherwise.
That's very true, but the purchase of a hardware line, especially one that's impossible to sell at it's current price points to the casual Apple buyer, didn't make as much sense synergistically as the music service, with whatever intellectual property/personnel/momentum it had. For me the biggest reason to think so is that Apple needs a boost in their music services to keep the new rivals at bay over the next five years, they don't need a questionably priced headphone line, so my thinking tilted toward desiring the non-hardware aspect and paying the premium for the headphones that had to be part of the deal. Why Apple would want the headache of buying a hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside of it instead of just creating their own high market headphones didn't have much ring to it to me, not that the powers that be couldn't have seen otherwise.
I question your assertion of 'questionably priced' regarding Beats headphones. We are all (mostly) fans of Apple products, and many outside our community would suggest our devices were 'questionably' priced. However, we see value in them and Apple is wildly successful.
And I also take issue with the claim that Apple doesn't want the headache of running a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'. Isn't that EXACTLY the business scenario Apple has been in since day one? Only since Apple broke open the mobile device space has it ever come close to being detractor-free. Even so, there are lots of Fandroidz and other naysayers to this day. If you ask me (and you didn't) Apple is an IDEAL manager of a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'.
Beats is wildly successful considering how quickly they have broken into the market and established a beach head in the younger demographic as a premium headphone product.
I don't prefer Beats headphones, and don't consider them a valuable product. However, if I were in the market to purchase a money-making headphone business that is on a growth trajectory, I'd certainly be looking to purchase Beats. And if I were Apple, I'd be confident that the business positioning and philosophy were reasonably aligned.
That's very true, but the purchase of a hardware line, especially one that's impossible to sell at it's current price points to the casual Apple buyer, didn't make as much sense synergistically as the music service, with whatever intellectual property/personnel/momentum it had. For me the biggest reason to think so is that Apple needs a boost in their music services to keep the new rivals at bay over the next five years, they don't need a questionably priced headphone line, so my thinking tilted toward desiring the non-hardware aspect and paying the premium for the headphones that had to be part of the deal. Why Apple would want the headache of buying a hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside of it instead of just creating their own high market headphones didn't have much ring to it to me, not that the powers that be couldn't have seen otherwise.
I question your assertion of 'questionably priced' regarding Beats headphones. We are all (mostly) fans of Apple products, and many outside our community would suggest our devices were 'questionably' priced. However, we see value in them and Apple is wildly successful.
And I also take issue with the claim that Apple doesn't want the headache of running a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'. Isn't that EXACTLY the business scenario Apple has been in since day one? Only since Apple broke open the mobile device space has it ever come close to being detractor-free. Even so, there are lots of Fandroidz and other naysayers to this day. If you ask me (and you didn't) Apple is an IDEAL manager of a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'.
Beats is wildly successful considering how quickly they have broken into the market and established a beach head in the younger demographic as a premium headphone product.
I don't prefer Beats headphones, and don't consider them a valuable product. However, if I were in the market to purchase a money-making headphone business that is on a growth trajectory, I'd certainly be looking to purchase Beats. And if I were Apple, I'd be confident that the business positioning and philosophy were reasonably aligned.
I should have written "perceived as questionably priced" as that's what I meant. They're generally expensive and without making any statement about if what they deliver matches the price they weren't really a product that had to worry about that before. If you wanted it you bought it, and their success is undeniable. There definitely is somewhat of a parallel to Apple there But I've not seen the "perceived" more expensive audio experience as something Apple has a way with moving out the door as they do with their own products which deliver something (both in computers and iDevices and iPhones) that you just can't get elsewhere. But, naturally, that's just armchair quarterbacking. I shrug with amusement at a $275 drive at an Apple Store that goes for $250 at the Best Buy across the street and is at the MicroCenter for $230 (and will randomly go on special for $195) but understand why. It's hard to sell something like expensive headphones unless you have a product that does something no other one does or that isn't available anywhere else (which may be the approach Apple takes). I just wonder how Apple is going to maintain a top selling headphone if they need to put sales channel restraints on it, or pricing rules if they don't.
Also, I didn't say that Apple doesn't want the headache, just that why they would want the headache wasn't clear to me. There may even be a Beats backlash by the time something is delivered.
Comments
Agreed but why not call it Apple Beats? I think that sounds better than iTunes Radio. Radio is kinda…well…old tech.
Why not rebrand it - Apple Music
I didn't say it was no big deal. I think it's only logical that the streaming music service gets combined with iTunes Radio. Keep the Beats brand for headphones, keep the iTunes brand for music.
Agreed. Beats is more synonymous with headphones anyway.
I wonder how long Iovine and Dre will stick around. I have a hard time believing they're working full time for Apple. Ian Rogers and the other Beats employees Apple kept probably are. But Jimmy & Dre no way,
If Apple does rebrand it, I wonder how long the rest of the Beats employees stick around. Would defeat the purpose of buying Beats for its human-curated music.
Somehow I don't think they would have given it prominent placement in Apple's bundled Apps on the App Store, or just added it as a channel to AppleTV.....if there was even a remote shred of truth to this rumor.
Agreed but why not call it Apple Beats? I think that sounds better than iTunes Radio. Radio is kinda…well…old tech.
Applebees?
Guess how fast you'd be thrown out of the marketing meeting.
Dudes the headphones rumor countdown starts October 17. The Apple headquarters design team is going to get to redesign the headphones as a vacation reward for their hard work on the watch. They have been compulsively re-designing Beats headphones for years in the lab! Rock on!!!!
you know this, how?
I agree. Entrepreneurs hate to be employees. They'll leave when it serves them and work on the next idea...possibly another company that will serve a niche market that Apple will want to buy in the future.
Applebees?
Guess how fast you'd be thrown out of the marketing meeting.
Not if Apple gets into the fresh produce market. Anyone for Applebeets?
Dude you heard it here first. Obviously I made it up.
If it doesn't recoup its $3B investment it sure will be.
Good.
Buying Beats was stupid. Dump the headphones (preferably in a landfill, they're crap), absorb anything useful (I doubt there's much) from the streaming service into iTunes Radio, and write off the loss.
Indeed; but that's Mr Cook for you, ladies and gentlemen: the world's best diversity-friendly COO and nothing else.
Strike 1: Announce the distribution of dividends by Apple, which has instantly changed the character of the company from "growth stock" to "organic stock" - just like Microsoft;
Strike 2: Buy Beats for its crappy headphones, nay, streaming service, nay, a couple of fake music moguls - all of them suck and now the "investment" will have to be written off;
Strike 3: Launch the Apple Watch, a fugly, square, boring, iOS-dependent, short-battery POS - just because analysts told Cook to launch it.
Now where is Mike Spindler when we need him? Or is it Sculley?
P.S.: funny how almost everyone now says that Apple bought Beats BECAUSE of its headphones - when virtually everyone and their dog said EXACTLY the opposite around here when the deal was announced. So which side are you gonna take now?
Indeed; but that's Mr Cook for you, ladies and gentlemen: the world's best diversity-friendly COO and nothing else.
Strike 1: Announce the distribution of dividends by Apple, which has instantly changed the character of the company from "growth stock" to "organic stock" - just like Microsoft;
Strike 2: Buy Beats for its crappy headphones, nay, streaming service, nay, a couple of fake music moguls - all of them suck and now the "investment" will have to be written off;
Strike 3: Launch the Apple Watch, a fugly, square, boring, iOS-dependent, short-battery POS - just because analysts told Cook to launch it.
Now where is Mike Spindler when we need him? Or is it Sculley?
P.S.: funny how almost everyone now says that Apple bought Beats BECAUSE of its headphones - when virtually everyone and their dog said EXACTLY the opposite around here when the deal was announced. So which side are you gonna take now?
Spindler and Sculley were both crap CEOs. Bringing back Gil Amelio might be a good next step.
I'm pretty sure I've said before that iTunes Radio is already superior to every other streaming service I've touched, and I don't think it needs any changes. I've also pointed out that Beats headphones are overpriced garbage that sound terrible, and the rest of the Beats hardware products are a joke.
And yes, landfill the headphones. That crappy brand of headphones being owned by Apple degrades Apple's brand by degrading Apple's image as a quality-conscious company.
But if there's anything useful in the Beats service, strip it out and add it to iTunes Radio. Shred the rest of the code.
I don't have a serious issue with the watch. I'll never buy one, I haven't worn a watch since I got a cell phone with a clock on it, which was a long time ago, and I'm not going back; I hate wearing things on my wrist. But it looks like a decent enough product for people who still wear watches, it's certainly a far better product than those stupid-expensive Swiss analog watches that idiots keep buying.
Well some people think it's just fine because those crappy headphones make a lot of money. Or that somehow Beats headphones being owned by Apple will make these urban teenagers flock to iPhones. I always thought it just reinforced the false narrative that Apple products are overpriced and only sell well because of design/marketing.
Hopefully, Apple will turn crappy headphones into "cool teen" iOS enabled wearables that eventually lead to phone sales.
People, including teens, already know who buys/bought Beats, and it's always been a company that made boatloads of money selling to their fans and none by attempting to expand their base. If Apple tries to make them "cool" in a different way they would disappear from their bread and butter group, turning a $3b company into one worth $2m.
The vast majority of the cool teens not already defined as Beats or other expensive headphone buyers have expensive devices and their stock headphones, and if they replace them it's with cheap earbuds or $20 overears. They would be impenetrable to a new headphone line because they don't care about headphones. And even if they did and lusted over a new Apple IOS Beats derived wearable, I don't see how that leads to phone sales. They have their new wearable. Now they just keep their old phone.
I seem to remember the opposite since Beats Music subscription had just started and Beats headphones had been going for years with an Apple-like domination of the premium priced headphone market.
P.S.: funny how almost everyone now says that Apple bought Beats BECAUSE of its headphones - when virtually everyone and their dog said EXACTLY the opposite around here when the deal was announced. So which side are you gonna take now?
I seem to remember the opposite since Beats Music subscription had just started and Beats headphones had been going for years with an Apple-like domination of the premium priced headphone market.
That's very true, but the purchase of a hardware line, especially one that's impossible to sell at it's current price points to the casual Apple buyer, didn't make as much sense synergistically as the music service, with whatever intellectual property/personnel/momentum it had. For me the biggest reason to think so is that Apple needs a boost in their music services to keep the new rivals at bay over the next five years, they don't need a questionably priced headphone line, so my thinking tilted toward desiring the non-hardware aspect and paying the premium for the headphones that had to be part of the deal. Why Apple would want the headache of buying a hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside of it instead of just creating their own high market headphones didn't have much ring to it to me, not that the powers that be couldn't have seen otherwise.
That's very true, but the purchase of a hardware line, especially one that's impossible to sell at it's current price points to the casual Apple buyer, didn't make as much sense synergistically as the music service, with whatever intellectual property/personnel/momentum it had. For me the biggest reason to think so is that Apple needs a boost in their music services to keep the new rivals at bay over the next five years, they don't need a questionably priced headphone line, so my thinking tilted toward desiring the non-hardware aspect and paying the premium for the headphones that had to be part of the deal. Why Apple would want the headache of buying a hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside of it instead of just creating their own high market headphones didn't have much ring to it to me, not that the powers that be couldn't have seen otherwise.
I question your assertion of 'questionably priced' regarding Beats headphones. We are all (mostly) fans of Apple products, and many outside our community would suggest our devices were 'questionably' priced. However, we see value in them and Apple is wildly successful.
And I also take issue with the claim that Apple doesn't want the headache of running a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'. Isn't that EXACTLY the business scenario Apple has been in since day one? Only since Apple broke open the mobile device space has it ever come close to being detractor-free. Even so, there are lots of Fandroidz and other naysayers to this day. If you ask me (and you didn't) Apple is an IDEAL manager of a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'.
Beats is wildly successful considering how quickly they have broken into the market and established a beach head in the younger demographic as a premium headphone product.
I don't prefer Beats headphones, and don't consider them a valuable product. However, if I were in the market to purchase a money-making headphone business that is on a growth trajectory, I'd certainly be looking to purchase Beats. And if I were Apple, I'd be confident that the business positioning and philosophy were reasonably aligned.
That's very true, but the purchase of a hardware line, especially one that's impossible to sell at it's current price points to the casual Apple buyer, didn't make as much sense synergistically as the music service, with whatever intellectual property/personnel/momentum it had. For me the biggest reason to think so is that Apple needs a boost in their music services to keep the new rivals at bay over the next five years, they don't need a questionably priced headphone line, so my thinking tilted toward desiring the non-hardware aspect and paying the premium for the headphones that had to be part of the deal. Why Apple would want the headache of buying a hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside of it instead of just creating their own high market headphones didn't have much ring to it to me, not that the powers that be couldn't have seen otherwise.
I question your assertion of 'questionably priced' regarding Beats headphones. We are all (mostly) fans of Apple products, and many outside our community would suggest our devices were 'questionably' priced. However, we see value in them and Apple is wildly successful.
And I also take issue with the claim that Apple doesn't want the headache of running a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'. Isn't that EXACTLY the business scenario Apple has been in since day one? Only since Apple broke open the mobile device space has it ever come close to being detractor-free. Even so, there are lots of Fandroidz and other naysayers to this day. If you ask me (and you didn't) Apple is an IDEAL manager of a 'hardware brand that was successful in its niche but had more detractors than fans outside'.
Beats is wildly successful considering how quickly they have broken into the market and established a beach head in the younger demographic as a premium headphone product.
I don't prefer Beats headphones, and don't consider them a valuable product. However, if I were in the market to purchase a money-making headphone business that is on a growth trajectory, I'd certainly be looking to purchase Beats. And if I were Apple, I'd be confident that the business positioning and philosophy were reasonably aligned.
I should have written "perceived as questionably priced" as that's what I meant. They're generally expensive and without making any statement about if what they deliver matches the price they weren't really a product that had to worry about that before. If you wanted it you bought it, and their success is undeniable. There definitely is somewhat of a parallel to Apple there But I've not seen the "perceived" more expensive audio experience as something Apple has a way with moving out the door as they do with their own products which deliver something (both in computers and iDevices and iPhones) that you just can't get elsewhere. But, naturally, that's just armchair quarterbacking. I shrug with amusement at a $275 drive at an Apple Store that goes for $250 at the Best Buy across the street and is at the MicroCenter for $230 (and will randomly go on special for $195) but understand why. It's hard to sell something like expensive headphones unless you have a product that does something no other one does or that isn't available anywhere else (which may be the approach Apple takes). I just wonder how Apple is going to maintain a top selling headphone if they need to put sales channel restraints on it, or pricing rules if they don't.
Also, I didn't say that Apple doesn't want the headache, just that why they would want the headache wasn't clear to me. There may even be a Beats backlash by the time something is delivered.