Apple could have added premium sound to its existing products but Beats allows Apple to charge $500. I stopped buying Apple products when they introduced dongles as a means to milk the consumer.
Good to know you have not been “milked”. But, neither have I ... and I still buy Apple products. Go figure ...
This article is unsubstantiated conjecture, and the arguments don't hold up to mild interrogation.
Apple had audio expertise in-house. Beats was never considered to have superior audio technology or quality.
It seems to me that the Beats acquisition was about two things: 1) talent and 2) customers. The leadership of Beats were critical to establishing Apple Music's streaming service. Notably, record companies were hesitant to engage with Apple after they were strong armed into terms from a weak position by Steve / iTunes / iPod in the past. As for customers, many Beats customers were Android phone users. Recent Beats products have used lightning cables, and Apple's proprietary wireless chips to make it more attractive to use Apple products with them. Once people join Apple's ecosystem, Apple is great at keeping them there.
1. Beats was good business, but absolutely poor quality headphones. They wanted Bass, they said multiple times the reason why Music doesn't sound good was a lack of Bass.
2. Apple actually improved Beats audio quality. Not the other way round.
3. Dolby Digital and Atmos. Seriously, What has that got to do with Beats? Hint: Absolutely Nothing.
4. Beats is actually a very good marketing company.
5. Margins in the Headphone industry are very high, it means Apple are earning much more on the Back to School Promotion.
6. And Most importance of all,Iovine has ALL the connection to make Apple Music.
Apple could have added premium sound to its existing products but Beats allows Apple to charge $500. I stopped buying Apple products when they introduced dongles as a means to milk the consumer.
No one here believes you’ve ever bought an Apple product.
This article is unsubstantiated conjecture, and the arguments don't hold up to mild interrogation.
Apple had audio expertise in-house. Beats was never considered to have superior audio technology or quality.
It seems to me that the Beats acquisition was about two things: 1) talent and 2) customers. The leadership of Beats were critical to establishing Apple Music's streaming service. Notably, record companies were hesitant to engage with Apple after they were strong armed into terms from a weak position by Steve / iTunes / iPod in the past. As for customers, many Beats customers were Android phone users. Recent Beats products have used lightning cables, and Apple's proprietary wireless chips to make it more attractive to use Apple products with them. Once people join Apple's ecosystem, Apple is great at keeping them there.
It’s a pity you didn’t write the original article, because this sounds a lot more plausible.
Apple bought Beats for Iovine and Dre (though I’m not sure what Dre’s doing these days) and a leg up in the streaming market. The headphones were a nice fashionable bonus.
Beats ≠ great audio. The acquisition was for the (admittedly valuable) brand, the Beats Music technology and - especially - for Iovine’s connections; not for the headphone technology, which has always been middling at best. Besides which, Apple has ualways had good audio engineers - the iPod Hi-Fi (remember that?) predates the Beats acquisition by some years and to this day makes every Beats product sound shit.
From the article: "Beats' popular youth-oriented bran -..."
Indeed "youth bran"... what comes out is crap, but youth like the gansta laxative... from an audio perspective...
Not to mention the PowerBeats that I used for the gym... went through 8 pairs in less than a year (covered by warranty, but eventually they just gave my money back)
This article is unsubstantiated conjecture, and the arguments don't hold up to mild interrogation.
Apple had audio expertise in-house. Beats was never considered to have superior audio technology or quality.
It seems to me that the Beats acquisition was about two things: 1) talent and 2) customers. The leadership of Beats were critical to establishing Apple Music's streaming service. Notably, record companies were hesitant to engage with Apple after they were strong armed into terms from a weak position by Steve / iTunes / iPod in the past. As for customers, many Beats customers were Android phone users. Recent Beats products have used lightning cables, and Apple's proprietary wireless chips to make it more attractive to use Apple products with them. Once people join Apple's ecosystem, Apple is great at keeping them there.
It’s a pity you didn’t write the original article, because this sounds a lot more plausible.
Apple bought Beats for Iovine and Dre (though I’m not sure what Dre’s doing these days) and a leg up in the streaming market. The headphones were a nice fashionable bonus.
Yep wasn't it because Apple's streaming music product just wasn't getting off the group before the bought Beats. Another Eddy Cue failure. Maybe Cook will figure out that he needs to get Cue out of the TV program development.
I think this article is funny because I always view the iPhone as pretty good on audio not great. Just not at the same level of excellence as they alway brought to their displays. Hopefully this is changing. But it certainly doesn't merit this love fest.
Apple could have added premium sound to its existing products but Beats allows Apple to charge $500. I stopped buying Apple products when they introduced dongles as a means to milk the consumer.
No one here believes you’ve ever bought an Apple product.
If HomePod is going to be build out of Beats tech/mind then better not buying it as the sound quality will be absolutely B.A.D. as with all Beats headphones.
Beats was a political move and a cultural one, not a technological one.
1) Which issues of governance was Apple tackling when they bought Beats?
2) What culture are you talking about with a desire to get into a huge popular headphone company they had been selling in their stores for years? Are "people with ears" really a culture?
I miss the days when music was still a cultural phenomenon of real importance.
People would say stupid stuff then, too, but at least they all recognised the importance.
Beats was a political move and a cultural one, not a technological one.
1) Which issues of governance was Apple tackling when they bought Beats?
2) What culture are you talking about with a desire to get into a huge popular headphone company they had been selling in their stores for years? Are "people with ears" really a culture?
I miss the days when music was still a cultural phenomenon of real importance.
People would say stupid stuff then, too, but at least they all recognised the importance.
I don't follow. From what I've seen music is just as important to today's youth as its always been.
As we get older most of us seem to solidify into genres and sounds that we discovered and/or were introduced to during our formative years (or what we were listen to when we first got laid), so we may not see the evolution of music as being as good as today, but that seems to be an artifact of every generation.
I have to say the sound on my 2017 15" MBP is the best I've ever heard from a laptop. The stereo separation is pretty impressive for the speakers being only 12" apart.
3-4 years back Apple hired former SSL and Sony Oxford DSP genius Peter Eastty as head of SoC Audio Processing. They also hired Dana Massie formerly of Waves Audio. These were cutting edge hires that said Apple was serious about audio.
Don't forget Tomlinson Holman in charge of "Audio Direction" at Apple. I gotta figure he has been behind a number of improvements in Apple audio quality.
This article is off the mark implying Touch ID has anything to do with Apple Pay - it is merely an OPTION, I have never used Touch ID, but use Apple Pay extensively with a passcode! 🙄
Very interesting piece. I am enjoying my Black BeatsX quite a lot. But personally I dont think Apple needed Beats to improve on Audio. I think they needed Beats to set ground for the W1 chip on headphones & Apple Music. This allowed for diversity in the W1 headphone lineup , without diluting Apple's image. The W1 chip is nothing short of revolutionary requiring only 12.5% energy compared with regular BT 4 headphones.Even with that they maintain rock steady connection. I believe this was ALL Apple.
You have literally no proof that AirPods and HomePod technology was borne out the Beats purchase. It's pure conjecture; Apple typically is developing technology for many years before it sees the light of day, and suggesting that they didn't have a capable audio team before Beats came on board is rubbish.
It's also worth noting that many audiophiles and tech reviewers have/had/and do pan Beats products for average or middling audio quality when compared to other brands.
This article is simply conjecture and seems to be another DED Apple love fest.
Comments
-MAS
Apple had audio expertise in-house. Beats was never considered to have superior audio technology or quality.
It seems to me that the Beats acquisition was about two things: 1) talent and 2) customers. The leadership of Beats were critical to establishing Apple Music's streaming service. Notably, record companies were hesitant to engage with Apple after they were strong armed into terms from a weak position by Steve / iTunes / iPod in the past. As for customers, many Beats customers were Android phone users. Recent Beats products have used lightning cables, and Apple's proprietary wireless chips to make it more attractive to use Apple products with them. Once people join Apple's ecosystem, Apple is great at keeping them there.
1. Beats was good business, but absolutely poor quality headphones. They wanted Bass, they said multiple times the reason why Music doesn't sound good was a lack of Bass.
2. Apple actually improved Beats audio quality. Not the other way round.
3. Dolby Digital and Atmos. Seriously, What has that got to do with Beats? Hint: Absolutely Nothing.
4. Beats is actually a very good marketing company.
5. Margins in the Headphone industry are very high, it means Apple are earning much more on the Back to School Promotion.
6. And Most importance of all, Iovine has ALL the connection to make Apple Music.
Apple bought Beats for Iovine and Dre (though I’m not sure what Dre’s doing these days) and a leg up in the streaming market. The headphones were a nice fashionable bonus.
I think this article is funny because I always view the iPhone as pretty good on audio not great. Just not at the same level of excellence as they alway brought to their displays. Hopefully this is changing. But it certainly doesn't merit this love fest.
People would say stupid stuff then, too, but at least they all recognised the importance.
As we get older most of us seem to solidify into genres and sounds that we discovered and/or were introduced to during our formative years (or what we were listen to when we first got laid), so we may not see the evolution of music as being as good as today, but that seems to be an artifact of every generation.
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tomlinson-holman-1549385
The W1 chip is nothing short of revolutionary requiring only 12.5% energy compared with regular BT 4 headphones.Even with that they maintain rock steady connection. I believe this was ALL Apple.
Waiting to be proven wrong though.