Listen I understand pazuzu compels you to hurl profanities at him but you've got to stop. It's unhealthy for you and all your rage to be manifested in something you know deep down Inside is right.
This thread has nothing to do about Beats' audio quality, yet you're compelled to derail the thread into that topic, while noone gives a **** about your opinion on that issue anyway. Why are you so insistent on shitting on every thread? Are you so fearful that people aren't aware of your opinion? They are, and were 1000 posts ago. Yet you keep going on and on, as if anyone gives a shit about your personal thoughts on the matter. They're insanely successful. Many believe Apple is a shitty company that produces shitty, overpriced products- again, it's irrelevant. You're a troll, because you cant help but spam every thread with your off topic negativity. Noone is forcing you to buy or use Beats. get over it. Nauseating. You're like a 2 year old that won't grow the **** up, and this forum is worse for it.
The definition of superior is often not what an external observer decides it is; it's what those who are spending their money decide it is. For example, there's nothing I'd call superior about a Coach purse compared with a saddlebag designed to fit a Harley Davidson Fat Boy Lo. The saddlebag has a more sturdy construction, it's masculine sitting there on my bike, and it carries more stuff than a Coach purse, but it's doubtful I'd get many women to prefer one to the purse. Those Beats headphones are superior to the needs of those who purchase them, from the way they reproduce music to the way they look to other intangible aspects. Not grokking this is what leads people to wonder what Apple would want with this part of the Beats business. It's pretty clear to me.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market. Beats users strike me as teenagers listening to 128Kbs MP3 rips from piratebay, or streaming heavily compressed music from Pandora (Free). I'm sure they have no problem wearing them around friends and in public, and bragging about their "studio quality" sound.
This product line also represents a disconnect between two different types of Apple fans. We have the financial cheerleaders (shareholders and the like) and then we have company/product cheerleaders. The company/product cheerleaders like myself find Beats to be a blemish on the Apple brand. It plays into Android fan's assumptions about Apple, which are normally incorrect.
I don't feel warm and cozy because Apple is doing well in profits, I feel warm and cozy when they are making great products. Beats just isn't one of them. I actually would have been less hostile to this if they bought Bose for crying out loud. At least they have a great headphone lineup.
1. Profitable headphone brand which financially justifies the purchase.
2. Streaming service which can be used to improve iTunes Radio, provides revenue source from other OS users without diluting the Apple brand.
3. They got one of the most successful marketing teams of all time, one that got people to pay a premium for Air Jordans and Beats headphones. The Air Jordan example is particularly telling, because they didn't do anything better than regular shoes, but people wanted them. Can you see where something Apple is launching soon might benefit from that?
Beats headphones are not audiophile grade, it's true. I don't think they've ever claimed to be, they've claimed to be playback headphones, not reference headphones. And they're still a darn sight better than the headphones/earbuds most people were using beforehand, including the EarPods.
As for the story, as Iovine said, this just adds to Beats's brand cachet.
My issue with Apple purchasing Beats is: to me Beats is exactly what the haters claim Apple is - style over substance, overpriced, marketing driven. I use Apple products because I think they're superior to the competition, not because famous people are seen using them.
Let us revisit this discussion after Apple puts out their first Apple designed update. I'm guessing they can make a quality set of headphones at the current cost and margins.
Silly me, I must have missed the memo about purchasing audio gear based on "cultural competency." I thought you purchased audio gear based on your own interpretation of audio performance and quality. Since no two people perceive the same complex audio signals exactly the same way the selection of audio gear should always be based on what sounds good to YOU, not what lab instrumentation says, much less what audiophiles say. Gotta keep in mind that there is always a human brain in the loop when you're talking about sensory perception and reaction, and no two brains are the same. Like any product there's also the style and aesthetic factors. I think some all consumer product manufacturers have to decide how to allocate their product development investment dollars to go after a certain target market and sometimes a specific demographic. I think Apple is quite adept at achieving the right balance in a lot of cases but has had some bad misses here and there, like the original iMac puck mouse. If you don't prove your chops at a total product level no amount of singular focus on a single product attribute is going to save your product image and sales.
I think the Beats folks are trying a little too hard to convince us that their vision of what a certain product should be is the only one that is not only acceptable as a product in a sea of competing products but it is also the only one that is "culturally acceptable." This is pure snake oil salesmanship and manipulative marketing. At the end of the day they (Beats) are absolutely no different than Bose or Sony or any other product maker trying to sell you their product. The fact that Bose chose to engage in a marketing campaign based on exclusivity and product placement is no different than Beats getting high profile celebrities like Lebron James to promote their products. Absolutely and positively no difference, just a different marketing strategy aimed at a set of potential customers that each company thinks will react to each type of paid endorsement. They are both targeting the same thing, YOUR money. Marketing or manipulation, you make the call. But don't forget to keep your own brain in the loop and dont allow yourself to get sucked into the fray or succumb to the manipulation of others. Make your own decisions based on what matters to you.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market.
Nope. You've conflated "accuracy" with "sound quality". They are most certainly NOT the same thing. Accuracy can be measured, analyzed and graded. Even with accuracy, there may still be some areas of disagreement, for example one model might reproduce 10k+ more accurately, while another reproduces bass more accurately.
But overall sound *quality* is inherently subjective. And because it's subjective, people's opinions are influenced by marketing. Do you really think kids think their Beats headphones are crappy, but they look cool? No, they think the sound is awesome. And to them, it is. If you give them a pair of $5k reference headphones some of these kids will tell you it sounds like crap, simply because it's not the kind of sound they like.
Let us revisit this discussion after Apple puts out their first Apple designed update. I'm guessing they can make a quality set of headphones at the current cost and margins.
Yes. Can't wait for those Jony Ive designed aluminium headphones with diamond-cut chamfered edges.
This is nothing new, back in the 80's the NBA banned Michael Jordan from wearing his Air Jordan sneakers when they first came out. I remember him putting black tape over the logo during games and Nike making this big marketing campaign for it and paying his game fines for wearing them. To teenagers at the time it just made them more cool to buy and wear, the rebel - fighting the man factor. Jimmy is right, Beats will benefit more from this than Bose at least with the youth which is who they largely market to.
It is the same deal in TV shows . All the Apple logos are covered over but everyone knows that there are Apple logos under the stickers. It is still placement because nobody is fooled.
True. I actually find the "taped over" Apple as more effective: it says the producers wanted to use that machine even though Apple wouldn't pay for placement. It also attracts the eye in a "oh, what are they trying to hide there" kind of way. I've never seen a Samsung or Lenovo with their logo taped over, for some reason.
My issue with Apple purchasing Beats is: to me Beats is exactly what the haters claim Apple is - style over substance, overpriced, marketing driven. I use Apple products because I think they're superior to the competition, not because famous people are seen using them.
But isn't the whole point that we've now arrived at a point where tech is no longer just there to fulfil some technological function. It's so ubiquitous in our lives that it's natural for aesthetics to play an increasing role. Given the increasing amount of time I spend with my computer, phone, tablet, tv, music, etc. form of course has increasing importance, assuming functionality is there. We don't choose our clothes based purely on their functionality, right? So why should tech be different. Form and function are mostly orthogonal matters ... it's only occasionally that there are true "form versus function" issues.
In the case of headphones, there are many features that individuals value differently: is sound pleasing (to that person) versus "accurate", are they comfortable, how well do they eliminate other noise (and do I want that), and yes, how do they look. Some people wear Doc Martins, others wear flashy Nikes. Who cares? Why are people so intent on imposing their own preferences and tastes and priorities on others, especially when it comes to tech?
I am of the opinion that the Beats purchase has been underestimated as an asset for apple. Both in terms of the streaming technology Dre and Iovine have developed and also in terms of their mus biz saviness and sound engineering prowess. We should expect to see some really great things wrt to how sound and music is explored, engineered and incorporated in the apple ecosystem within the next couple of years in terms of both products (including very futuristic products too) and services. Tim Cook has made an excellent choice that can and will further apple's product line up and enhance existing devices and services, that's by all accounts been underestimated. Better still, perhaps, as it's going under the radar and, predictably, until google, microsoft, let alone samsung wake up and smell the coffee it will be too late.
Look, let's be perfectly honest here. If we're going to slam products, let's be real about it no matter your thoughts on the company itself. I get it, Bose has a rep for being an "old persons" product. No doubt that comes from everyone's memory of the "Soundwave" radio. Ooooooooh. The commercials were whack, they FEATURED old people in them for christs sake, and the product looked hideous. Was it overpriced? Yes. Was it a horrible product? It wasn't that bad. I knew a guy that had one. It didn't sound bad, it also didn't sound good enough for me to want to buy one, especially at the price they sold them for. .
Fast forward to nowadays where Bose has products like the Sounlink Mini. That little speaker is absolutely amazing. Match that up against the Beats Pill - which is an absolute POS. I mean seriously, I can't believe Dr. Dre - The main who helped give us N.W.A, the man who produced "No One Can Do It Better" by the D.O.C. - would actually be associated with that total piece of garbage.
Beats. Are. Not. Good. Products. I've tried, believe me I've tried to understand the hype. I've listened to my friend's and they just don't sound like headphones you should pay hundreds of dollars for. Having said all this, Bose products are a bit overpriced as well - but I've noticed them lowering their prices over the years the same way Apple has been making their products slightly more affordable to the masses. This exclusivity deal BOSE has with the NFL is assanine. I agree with Iovine's statement that it makes Bose look out of touch and makes Beats seem like the underdog. Again, neither product is best in class - not by a long shot. But put on a pair of Beats headphones or play a Beats speaker, and then put on a pair of Bose headphones or listen to a Bose speaker. Bose wins it almost every time. That's just the reality.
<div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/182826/beats-jimmy-iovine-on-nfl-headphone-ban-i-cant-believe-im-this-lucky/40#post_2620514" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>Phone-UI-Guy</strong> <a href="/t/182826/beats-jimmy-iovine-on-nfl-headphone-ban-i-cant-believe-im-this-lucky/40#post_2620514"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/><br />
Let us revisit this discussion after Apple puts out their first Apple designed update. I'm guessing they can make a quality set of headphones at the current cost and margins.</div></div><p> </p>
Yes. Can't wait for those Jony Ive designed aluminium headphones with diamond-cut chamfered edges.
He must have forgotten that Apple just bought his company for three thousand million dollars.
Exactly. I'm sorry I mentioned the technical quality of his headphones but whatever. The fact remains he's extremely lucky to have inked a $3B for a inferior "pop culture" product then admits to such in his statement about both Sony and Bose.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market. Beats users strike me as teenagers listening to 128Kbs MP3 rips from piratebay, or streaming heavily compressed music from Pandora (Free). I'm sure they have no problem wearing them around friends and in public, and bragging about their "studio quality" sound.
This product line also represents a disconnect between two different types of Apple fans. We have the financial cheerleaders (shareholders and the like) and then we have company/product cheerleaders. The company/product cheerleaders like myself find Beats to be a blemish on the Apple brand. It plays into Android fan's assumptions about Apple, which are normally incorrect.
I don't feel warm and cozy because Apple is doing well in profits, I feel warm and cozy when they are making great products. Beats just isn't one of them. I actually would have been less hostile to this if they bought Bose for crying out loud. At least they have a great headphone lineup.
Beats can get better technically and I suspect will under Apple, but Bose will never appeal to the demographics that matter, and Bose doesn't have enough technical merit to appeal to audiophiles either. Still, Bose has a profitable niche selling clock radios to seniors.
I'm a senior BTW and don't see Beats as anything but what it is; a profitable business, with two very savvy creators on Apple's payroll.
It's unfortunate that Iovine and Apple are commercializing Breast Cancer Awareness. Regarding the incident, Iovine is still trying to make Beats headphones bigger news than Breast Cancer Awareness. Wear a pink ribbon and get over yourself.
Note to Jimmy- your headphones blow. They're technically inferior to both Sony and Bose which ain't sayin much.
Except that Sony is better. most audio engineers have been using Sony Studio grade headphone for a very long time. I have a pair which are 25 yrs old and my kids use to fight over using them in long car ride when they would listen to music or watch movies. Sony has always made great sound products. even their consumer products are a step above due to Sony Professional grade experience.
What I found funny is that the last yr Jimmy was on American Idiol he had all the Sony head sets replaced by beats trying to make people thing that even the professional use Beats. Not quite.
What I fine interesting about this, and Jimmy said it, Beats already had deals in place with individual player to have them use and wear their products as part of them playing Football. Then the NFL does their own deal then fine players because they have their own separate deals. I wonder how that will play out count. Remember that Motorola was the supplier of the two way headphones for a very long time, last year the NFL replace the Motorola products with a no name and this year Boses is the brand to use and have.
I wonder when they had the deal with Motorola they find players for using other company head phones, I wonder if they going to fine them for using earbud not made by Bose. Also do they fine players for not wearing Nike clothing and shoes when they do press conference. The NFL may not be sitting on solid ground here.
Comments
Sorry NFL. Sucks to be a corporate slave I suppose.
Listen I understand pazuzu compels you to hurl profanities at him but you've got to stop. It's unhealthy for you and all your rage to be manifested in something you know deep down Inside is right.
This thread has nothing to do about Beats' audio quality, yet you're compelled to derail the thread into that topic, while noone gives a **** about your opinion on that issue anyway. Why are you so insistent on shitting on every thread? Are you so fearful that people aren't aware of your opinion? They are, and were 1000 posts ago. Yet you keep going on and on, as if anyone gives a shit about your personal thoughts on the matter. They're insanely successful. Many believe Apple is a shitty company that produces shitty, overpriced products- again, it's irrelevant. You're a troll, because you cant help but spam every thread with your off topic negativity. Noone is forcing you to buy or use Beats. get over it. Nauseating. You're like a 2 year old that won't grow the **** up, and this forum is worse for it.
The definition of superior is often not what an external observer decides it is; it's what those who are spending their money decide it is. For example, there's nothing I'd call superior about a Coach purse compared with a saddlebag designed to fit a Harley Davidson Fat Boy Lo. The saddlebag has a more sturdy construction, it's masculine sitting there on my bike, and it carries more stuff than a Coach purse, but it's doubtful I'd get many women to prefer one to the purse. Those Beats headphones are superior to the needs of those who purchase them, from the way they reproduce music to the way they look to other intangible aspects. Not grokking this is what leads people to wonder what Apple would want with this part of the Beats business. It's pretty clear to me.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market. Beats users strike me as teenagers listening to 128Kbs MP3 rips from piratebay, or streaming heavily compressed music from Pandora (Free). I'm sure they have no problem wearing them around friends and in public, and bragging about their "studio quality" sound.
This product line also represents a disconnect between two different types of Apple fans. We have the financial cheerleaders (shareholders and the like) and then we have company/product cheerleaders. The company/product cheerleaders like myself find Beats to be a blemish on the Apple brand. It plays into Android fan's assumptions about Apple, which are normally incorrect.
I don't feel warm and cozy because Apple is doing well in profits, I feel warm and cozy when they are making great products. Beats just isn't one of them. I actually would have been less hostile to this if they bought Bose for crying out loud. At least they have a great headphone lineup.
He must have forgotten that Apple just bought his company for three thousand million dollars.
Let us revisit this discussion after Apple puts out their first Apple designed update. I'm guessing they can make a quality set of headphones at the current cost and margins.
Jimmy you work for Apple now so shut up. Unless you want to tell us how much Kapernick is getting paid to wear your crappy headphones.
Maybe his statement was sanctioned by Cook, Schiller, et al.?
Note to Jimmy- your headphones blow. They're technically inferior to both Sony and Bose which ain't sayin much.
C'mon AI. Allowing pazuzu to continue his inane posts does nothing but demean this website and everyone on it.
I appreciate that you're trying to be objective and open minded, but this philosophy shouldn't apply to douchebag posters.
edit: typos
I think the Beats folks are trying a little too hard to convince us that their vision of what a certain product should be is the only one that is not only acceptable as a product in a sea of competing products but it is also the only one that is "culturally acceptable." This is pure snake oil salesmanship and manipulative marketing. At the end of the day they (Beats) are absolutely no different than Bose or Sony or any other product maker trying to sell you their product. The fact that Bose chose to engage in a marketing campaign based on exclusivity and product placement is no different than Beats getting high profile celebrities like Lebron James to promote their products. Absolutely and positively no difference, just a different marketing strategy aimed at a set of potential customers that each company thinks will react to each type of paid endorsement. They are both targeting the same thing, YOUR money. Marketing or manipulation, you make the call. But don't forget to keep your own brain in the loop and dont allow yourself to get sucked into the fray or succumb to the manipulation of others. Make your own decisions based on what matters to you.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market.
Nope. You've conflated "accuracy" with "sound quality". They are most certainly NOT the same thing. Accuracy can be measured, analyzed and graded. Even with accuracy, there may still be some areas of disagreement, for example one model might reproduce 10k+ more accurately, while another reproduces bass more accurately.
But overall sound *quality* is inherently subjective. And because it's subjective, people's opinions are influenced by marketing. Do you really think kids think their Beats headphones are crappy, but they look cool? No, they think the sound is awesome. And to them, it is. If you give them a pair of $5k reference headphones some of these kids will tell you it sounds like crap, simply because it's not the kind of sound they like.
Let us revisit this discussion after Apple puts out their first Apple designed update. I'm guessing they can make a quality set of headphones at the current cost and margins.
Yes. Can't wait for those Jony Ive designed aluminium headphones with diamond-cut chamfered edges.[IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/50746/width/350/height/700[/IMG]
It is the same deal in TV shows . All the Apple logos are covered over but everyone knows that there are Apple logos under the stickers. It is still placement because nobody is fooled.
True. I actually find the "taped over" Apple as more effective: it says the producers wanted to use that machine even though Apple wouldn't pay for placement. It also attracts the eye in a "oh, what are they trying to hide there" kind of way. I've never seen a Samsung or Lenovo with their logo taped over, for some reason.
My issue with Apple purchasing Beats is: to me Beats is exactly what the haters claim Apple is - style over substance, overpriced, marketing driven. I use Apple products because I think they're superior to the competition, not because famous people are seen using them.
But isn't the whole point that we've now arrived at a point where tech is no longer just there to fulfil some technological function. It's so ubiquitous in our lives that it's natural for aesthetics to play an increasing role. Given the increasing amount of time I spend with my computer, phone, tablet, tv, music, etc. form of course has increasing importance, assuming functionality is there. We don't choose our clothes based purely on their functionality, right? So why should tech be different. Form and function are mostly orthogonal matters ... it's only occasionally that there are true "form versus function" issues.
In the case of headphones, there are many features that individuals value differently: is sound pleasing (to that person) versus "accurate", are they comfortable, how well do they eliminate other noise (and do I want that), and yes, how do they look. Some people wear Doc Martins, others wear flashy Nikes. Who cares? Why are people so intent on imposing their own preferences and tastes and priorities on others, especially when it comes to tech?
I am of the opinion that the Beats purchase has been underestimated as an asset for apple. Both in terms of the streaming technology Dre and Iovine have developed and also in terms of their mus biz saviness and sound engineering prowess. We should expect to see some really great things wrt to how sound and music is explored, engineered and incorporated in the apple ecosystem within the next couple of years in terms of both products (including very futuristic products too) and services. Tim Cook has made an excellent choice that can and will further apple's product line up and enhance existing devices and services, that's by all accounts been underestimated. Better still, perhaps, as it's going under the radar and, predictably, until google, microsoft, let alone samsung wake up and smell the coffee it will be too late.
Fast forward to nowadays where Bose has products like the Sounlink Mini. That little speaker is absolutely amazing. Match that up against the Beats Pill - which is an absolute POS. I mean seriously, I can't believe Dr. Dre - The main who helped give us N.W.A, the man who produced "No One Can Do It Better" by the D.O.C. - would actually be associated with that total piece of garbage.
Beats. Are. Not. Good. Products. I've tried, believe me I've tried to understand the hype. I've listened to my friend's and they just don't sound like headphones you should pay hundreds of dollars for. Having said all this, Bose products are a bit overpriced as well - but I've noticed them lowering their prices over the years the same way Apple has been making their products slightly more affordable to the masses. This exclusivity deal BOSE has with the NFL is assanine. I agree with Iovine's statement that it makes Bose look out of touch and makes Beats seem like the underdog. Again, neither product is best in class - not by a long shot. But put on a pair of Beats headphones or play a Beats speaker, and then put on a pair of Bose headphones or listen to a Bose speaker. Bose wins it almost every time. That's just the reality.
Exactly. I'm sorry I mentioned the technical quality of his headphones but whatever. The fact remains he's extremely lucky to have inked a $3B for a inferior "pop culture" product then admits to such in his statement about both Sony and Bose.
This is implying that sound quality is subjective which is untrue. You can objectively prove one speaker sounds better than the other until you hit the higher end of the market. Beats users strike me as teenagers listening to 128Kbs MP3 rips from piratebay, or streaming heavily compressed music from Pandora (Free). I'm sure they have no problem wearing them around friends and in public, and bragging about their "studio quality" sound.
This product line also represents a disconnect between two different types of Apple fans. We have the financial cheerleaders (shareholders and the like) and then we have company/product cheerleaders. The company/product cheerleaders like myself find Beats to be a blemish on the Apple brand. It plays into Android fan's assumptions about Apple, which are normally incorrect.
I don't feel warm and cozy because Apple is doing well in profits, I feel warm and cozy when they are making great products. Beats just isn't one of them. I actually would have been less hostile to this if they bought Bose for crying out loud. At least they have a great headphone lineup.
Beats can get better technically and I suspect will under Apple, but Bose will never appeal to the demographics that matter, and Bose doesn't have enough technical merit to appeal to audiophiles either. Still, Bose has a profitable niche selling clock radios to seniors.
I'm a senior BTW and don't see Beats as anything but what it is; a profitable business, with two very savvy creators on Apple's payroll.
Note to Jimmy- your headphones blow. They're technically inferior to both Sony and Bose which ain't sayin much.
Except that Sony is better. most audio engineers have been using Sony Studio grade headphone for a very long time. I have a pair which are 25 yrs old and my kids use to fight over using them in long car ride when they would listen to music or watch movies. Sony has always made great sound products. even their consumer products are a step above due to Sony Professional grade experience.
What I found funny is that the last yr Jimmy was on American Idiol he had all the Sony head sets replaced by beats trying to make people thing that even the professional use Beats. Not quite.
I wonder when they had the deal with Motorola they find players for using other company head phones, I wonder if they going to fine them for using earbud not made by Bose. Also do they fine players for not wearing Nike clothing and shoes when they do press conference. The NFL may not be sitting on solid ground here.