My daughters have the old solos...they were OK. I have the newly released studios and they are much better than the first ones. Not sure if they are Apple designed or not...The design is 10X better but not sure if it is Apple's doing...they sound great though...
My daughters have the old solos...they were OK. I have the newly released studios and they are much better than the first ones. Not sure if they are Apple designed or not...The design is 10X better but not sure if it is Apple's doing...they sound great though...
I believe their quality picked up when they stopped having Monster manufacture/design them.
The sound quality in the Solo2 is horrible. If you are going to spend $200-300 on a pair of headphones, buy the V-Moda Crossfade M-100. You can also buy Sennheiser 598 for a little over $100 now. Those blow away any Beats headphones.
The sound quality in the Solo2 is horrible. If you are going to spend $200-300 on a pair of headphones, buy the V-Moda Crossfade M-100. You can also buy Sennheiser 598 for a little over $100 now. Those blow away any Beats headphones.
Depends on the sound people want, remember, many don't like 'reference' or 'monitor' headphones, they want 'playback' headphones. Beats has always been good at targeting that market.
For the ninth time I haven't the faintest clue why Apple bought this company? A clumsy fit that seems like a total waste of time and money.
Apple MAY have bought them for multiple reasons… A little desperation to keep relevancy in the music market (A.k.a., iTunes growth reversal), also, because they're friends with Jimmy and want to do him a small favor? Also, they may have been in talks with Samesung, and Apple was trying to steal any thunder Samsung was reaching for in that demographic. One of the biggest factors, is probably that Apple that Tim Cook and friends don't have enough time in the day, but more money than they know what to do with. So they saw a few key benefits and didn't think twice about the money.
Yes, a $300 pair of headphones that can only be used for listening to audio from a BT source is totally comparable to a phone that can browse the internet, play movies, listen to music and audiobooks, play games, give you directions while driving, take amazing photos, oh and let's not forget it can make phone calls!
Depends on the sound people want, remember, many don't like 'reference' or 'monitor' headphones, they want 'playback' headphones. Beats has always been good at targeting that market.
True, but the ones I mentioned in my previous post are good for playback. There are so many better options out there for $300 and less for playback that puts Beats to shame.
For the ninth time I haven't the faintest clue why Apple bought this company? A clumsy fit that seems like a total waste of time and money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic
Apple MAY have bought them for multiple reasons… A little desperation to keep relevancy in the music market (A.k.a., iTunes growth reversal), also, because they're friends with Jimmy and want to do him a small favor? Also, they may have been in talks with Samesung, and Apple was trying to steal any thunder Samsung was reaching for in that demographic. One of the biggest factors, is probably that Apple that Tim Cook and friends don't have enough time in the day, but more money than they know what to do with. So they saw a few key benefits and didn't think twice about the money.
Simple: their marketing team. These are the guys who convinced a generation that Air Jordans, despite the fact they offered no tangible benefit to the consumer, were the shoe to have. They also convinced a huge block of people that normally bought $5 JVC Gummys earbuds that spending $200-$500 on Beats headphones was worth it.
In short, they're a great lifestyle marketing team.
Apple is releasing a watch next year. That needs lifestyle marketing, not tech marketing. Chiat-Day and the internal Apple team weren't going to cut it.
For the ninth time I haven't the faintest clue why Apple bought this company? A clumsy fit that seems like a total waste of time and money.
IMO Apple bought Beats because it was caught flat footed on the whole music streaming phenomena and believe Beats has the talent to do something innovative there. I also think there was pressure from the "do something" crowd to make a larger acquisition and with Beats printing money with their hardware this was an easy sell to the board. And contrary to what a lot of people here think, I do think there was an element of thinking this would bring some "cool" to Apple and attract a demographic that maybe isn't currently big in the Apple ecosystem. Personally I think Jimmy Iovine did a really good snow job on Cook and Cue but it remains to be seen if his grand vision for music is all that and if the $3B was really worth it. I hate the fact that Apple is associated with a headphone brand that many consider crappy and overpriced. I think it tarnishes the overall Apple brand. But they're highly profitable so I guess that's all that matters to the Apple bean counters.
Simple: their marketing team. These are the guys who convinced a generation that Air Jordans, despite the fact they offered no tangible benefit to the consumer, were the shoe to have. They also convinced a huge block of people that normally bought $5 JVC Gummys earbuds that spending $200-$500 on Beats headphones was worth it.
In short, they're a great lifestyle marketing team.
Apple is releasing a watch next year. That needs lifestyle marketing, not tech marketing. Chiat-Day and the internal Apple team weren't going to cut it.
Except I don't consider Apple products to be overpriced or popular purely because of marketing. What you just described about Beats is how Apple haters mistakenly describe it. That's why was never a fan of the acquisition. It just gave credibility to the haters misconceptions about Apple.
IMO Apple bought Beats because it was caught flat footed on the whole music streaming phenomena and believe Beats has the talent to do something innovative there. I also think there was pressure from the "do something" crowd to make a larger acquisition and with Beats printing money with their hardware this was an easy sell to the board. And contrary to what a lot of people here think, I do think there was an element of thinking this would bring some "cool" to Apple and attract a demographic that maybe isn't currently big in the Apple ecosystem. Personally I think Jimmy Iovine did a really good snow job on Cook and Cue but it remains to be seen if his grand vision for music is all that and if the $3B was really worth it. I hate the fact that Apple is associated with a headphone brand that many consider crappy and overpriced. I think it tarnishes the overall Apple brand. But they're highly profitable so I guess that's all that matters to the Apple bean counters.
^ I agree with your gists. But if Apple can actually make a profit off the parts of this acquisition it becomes a moot point. I'm not convinced Apple can make a profit, no less recoup its investment. Time will tell and I have an open mind. >
Quote:
Originally Posted by daveinpublic
Apple MAY have bought them for multiple reasons… A little desperation to keep relevancy in the music market (A.k.a., iTunes growth reversal), also, because they're friends with Jimmy and want to do him a small favor? Also, they may have been in talks with Samesung, and Apple was trying to steal any thunder Samsung was reaching for in that demographic. One of the biggest factors, is probably that Apple that Tim Cook and friends don't have enough time in the day, but more money than they know what to do with. So they saw a few key benefits and didn't think twice about the money.
Except I don't consider Apple products to be overpriced or popular purely because of marketing. What you just described about Beats is how Apple haters mistakenly describe it. That's why was never a fan of the acquisition. It just gave credibility to the haters misconceptions about Apple.
Beats is the exact opposite of what Apple is. Beats are over priced junk with great marketing. Apple products have the great reputation of being quality products. The people who say Apple just markets their products well don't have a clue. A lot of the Apple haters forget one huge factor that Apple products also have great resell value. Take for example the iMac. Most of the haters say its way over priced. When you ask them to find you an all in one with the same specs and a great monitor for the same price, they can't.
Revenue of 590m euros in 2013 with cost of materials 232m euros so gross profit is around 60%. Beats has lower build quality so they can easily be getting away with higher than that.
If the following is correct and Beats make $1.4b per year now:
say they have 70% gross margin, they'll be pulling in almost $1b per year gross profit. With Apple tied in with it, that will boost their visibility too so it will pay for itself fairly quickly. Sennheiser employs over 2500 staff so they have quite a high personnel expense of 170m euros. Beats only had 700 and possibly 500 remained after the buyout:
I don't like the all-color models, I think the contrast with the two-tone models is nicer:
The ear pads would likely get dirtier more quickly though and colors with black isn't that nice. I think white exterior with black interior and small hints of red would be ok:
There's a video of one of the older models here:
[VIDEO]
They look fairly compact fitting into that small pouch but too plasticky. I mentioned before that they seem to be attaching the metal hinge to a plastic mount and people experience breakages at the hinge. It would be better attaching the metal hinge to a piece of metal that goes through the plastic headband.
Comments
Except these don't say Apple anywhere on them...
I'm happy about that.
I'll listen to them with my eyes. ????
$750 for an iPhone. Insane.
Well the iPhone is packed with Far more design, tech and software. It is also arguably best in class on many catagories.
Beats' Headphone? Apart form the brand, it doesnt produce sound that is any where near the $300 price tag.
My daughters have the old solos...they were OK. I have the newly released studios and they are much better than the first ones. Not sure if they are Apple designed or not...The design is 10X better but not sure if it is Apple's doing...they sound great though...
I believe their quality picked up when they stopped having Monster manufacture/design them.
The sound quality in the Solo2 is horrible. If you are going to spend $200-300 on a pair of headphones, buy the V-Moda Crossfade M-100. You can also buy Sennheiser 598 for a little over $100 now. Those blow away any Beats headphones.
The sound quality in the Solo2 is horrible. If you are going to spend $200-300 on a pair of headphones, buy the V-Moda Crossfade M-100. You can also buy Sennheiser 598 for a little over $100 now. Those blow away any Beats headphones.
Depends on the sound people want, remember, many don't like 'reference' or 'monitor' headphones, they want 'playback' headphones. Beats has always been good at targeting that market.
I hope the quality of sound is better than the quality of colors.
Keep hoping. All the Beats models sound like garbage.
Apple MAY have bought them for multiple reasons… A little desperation to keep relevancy in the music market (A.k.a., iTunes growth reversal), also, because they're friends with Jimmy and want to do him a small favor? Also, they may have been in talks with Samesung, and Apple was trying to steal any thunder Samsung was reaching for in that demographic. One of the biggest factors, is probably that Apple that Tim Cook and friends don't have enough time in the day, but more money than they know what to do with. So they saw a few key benefits and didn't think twice about the money.
$750 for an iPhone. Insane.
For a computer that takes phone calls that fits in my pocket, not really.
$750 for an iPhone. Insane.
Yes, a $300 pair of headphones that can only be used for listening to audio from a BT source is totally comparable to a phone that can browse the internet, play movies, listen to music and audiobooks, play games, give you directions while driving, take amazing photos, oh and let's not forget it can make phone calls!
Depends on the sound people want, remember, many don't like 'reference' or 'monitor' headphones, they want 'playback' headphones. Beats has always been good at targeting that market.
True, but the ones I mentioned in my previous post are good for playback. There are so many better options out there for $300 and less for playback that puts Beats to shame.
For the ninth time I haven't the faintest clue why Apple bought this company? A clumsy fit that seems like a total waste of time and money.
Apple MAY have bought them for multiple reasons… A little desperation to keep relevancy in the music market (A.k.a., iTunes growth reversal), also, because they're friends with Jimmy and want to do him a small favor? Also, they may have been in talks with Samesung, and Apple was trying to steal any thunder Samsung was reaching for in that demographic. One of the biggest factors, is probably that Apple that Tim Cook and friends don't have enough time in the day, but more money than they know what to do with. So they saw a few key benefits and didn't think twice about the money.
Simple: their marketing team. These are the guys who convinced a generation that Air Jordans, despite the fact they offered no tangible benefit to the consumer, were the shoe to have. They also convinced a huge block of people that normally bought $5 JVC Gummys earbuds that spending $200-$500 on Beats headphones was worth it.
In short, they're a great lifestyle marketing team.
Apple is releasing a watch next year. That needs lifestyle marketing, not tech marketing. Chiat-Day and the internal Apple team weren't going to cut it.
IMO Apple bought Beats because it was caught flat footed on the whole music streaming phenomena and believe Beats has the talent to do something innovative there. I also think there was pressure from the "do something" crowd to make a larger acquisition and with Beats printing money with their hardware this was an easy sell to the board. And contrary to what a lot of people here think, I do think there was an element of thinking this would bring some "cool" to Apple and attract a demographic that maybe isn't currently big in the Apple ecosystem. Personally I think Jimmy Iovine did a really good snow job on Cook and Cue but it remains to be seen if his grand vision for music is all that and if the $3B was really worth it. I hate the fact that Apple is associated with a headphone brand that many consider crappy and overpriced. I think it tarnishes the overall Apple brand. But they're highly profitable so I guess that's all that matters to the Apple bean counters.
Except I don't consider Apple products to be overpriced or popular purely because of marketing. What you just described about Beats is how Apple haters mistakenly describe it. That's why was never a fan of the acquisition. It just gave credibility to the haters misconceptions about Apple.
IMO Apple bought Beats because it was caught flat footed on the whole music streaming phenomena and believe Beats has the talent to do something innovative there. I also think there was pressure from the "do something" crowd to make a larger acquisition and with Beats printing money with their hardware this was an easy sell to the board. And contrary to what a lot of people here think, I do think there was an element of thinking this would bring some "cool" to Apple and attract a demographic that maybe isn't currently big in the Apple ecosystem. Personally I think Jimmy Iovine did a really good snow job on Cook and Cue but it remains to be seen if his grand vision for music is all that and if the $3B was really worth it. I hate the fact that Apple is associated with a headphone brand that many consider crappy and overpriced. I think it tarnishes the overall Apple brand. But they're highly profitable so I guess that's all that matters to the Apple bean counters.
^ I agree with your gists. But if Apple can actually make a profit off the parts of this acquisition it becomes a moot point. I'm not convinced Apple can make a profit, no less recoup its investment. Time will tell and I have an open mind. >
Apple MAY have bought them for multiple reasons… A little desperation to keep relevancy in the music market (A.k.a., iTunes growth reversal), also, because they're friends with Jimmy and want to do him a small favor? Also, they may have been in talks with Samesung, and Apple was trying to steal any thunder Samsung was reaching for in that demographic. One of the biggest factors, is probably that Apple that Tim Cook and friends don't have enough time in the day, but more money than they know what to do with. So they saw a few key benefits and didn't think twice about the money.
Except I don't consider Apple products to be overpriced or popular purely because of marketing. What you just described about Beats is how Apple haters mistakenly describe it. That's why was never a fan of the acquisition. It just gave credibility to the haters misconceptions about Apple.
Beats is the exact opposite of what Apple is. Beats are over priced junk with great marketing. Apple products have the great reputation of being quality products. The people who say Apple just markets their products well don't have a clue. A lot of the Apple haters forget one huge factor that Apple products also have great resell value. Take for example the iMac. Most of the haters say its way over priced. When you ask them to find you an all in one with the same specs and a great monitor for the same price, they can't.
You can buy some for just $299.95.
Yeah the margins will be huge on these. Sennheiser's animated annual report is here, the financials are linked from it:
http://www.sennheiser-annualreport.com
Revenue of 590m euros in 2013 with cost of materials 232m euros so gross profit is around 60%. Beats has lower build quality so they can easily be getting away with higher than that.
If the following is correct and Beats make $1.4b per year now:
http://www.fastcompany.com/3015051/major-beats-beats-electronics-may-be-on-track-to-hit-14b-in-2013-revenue
say they have 70% gross margin, they'll be pulling in almost $1b per year gross profit. With Apple tied in with it, that will boost their visibility too so it will pay for itself fairly quickly. Sennheiser employs over 2500 staff so they have quite a high personnel expense of 170m euros. Beats only had 700 and possibly 500 remained after the buyout:
http://mashable.com/2014/07/31/apple-lay-off-200-beats-employees/
so negligible expense vs $1.4b.
I don't like the all-color models, I think the contrast with the two-tone models is nicer:
The ear pads would likely get dirtier more quickly though and colors with black isn't that nice. I think white exterior with black interior and small hints of red would be ok:
There's a video of one of the older models here:
[VIDEO]
They look fairly compact fitting into that small pouch but too plasticky. I mentioned before that they seem to be attaching the metal hinge to a plastic mount and people experience breakages at the hinge. It would be better attaching the metal hinge to a piece of metal that goes through the plastic headband.
I looked up street red and saw your picture!