Seems like a steal compared to the Beats purchase.
Lots of misconceptions about the Beats purchase. In hindsight, it was a genius move financially by Tim Cook. Apple not only got a streaming service that has enabled them to zoom to the #2 Music streaming service in the world, it gained one of the most recognizable culturally relevant brands in the world. Moreover, the fact that most people don't recognize is the enormous profits that have rolled into Apple from the headphone side of the business. Thanks to the Beats purchase, Apple is now the largest seller of wireless devices in the entire world. They also own the vast majority of the market in premium (>$200.00) headphones in the entire world. Even aside from the brand value and the streaming business, the purchase of Beats headphone and speaker business has more than paid for the purchase and is a money printing machine for Apple.
Seems like a steal compared to the Beats purchase.
Apple is still making Money from Beats. I only bought the BeatsX thanks to the W1 chip & lightning charging
Still doesn’t make sense to me. Apple has the smarts to make its own headphones (see Air Pods) and probably better ones than Beats (no audiophile recommends Beats). Iovine, Dre and Reznor were not worth $3B. But because $3B is pocket change for Apple nobody cares.
They didn't just buy Beats headphones, they bought Beats Music, a.k.a. Apple Music. Became a credible alternative to Spotify overnight.
The question is, 'what does Apple really want to do with the intellectual property?' Just as Apple's acquisition of PrimeSense was not about turning AppleTV into an X-BOX competitor; but actually wanted the visual tech for FaceID, I'm certain that this acquisition is about acquiring the IP for a use that's radically different from how it is being used by Shazam.
Hard to see unless Shazam are working on something cleverer than they already have.
Yeah. You will sing song and it will find original on iTunes...
Something like:
Jeremiah was a bullfrog, he was good friend of mine I never understood a single word he said But I helped him drink his wine He always had some mighty fine wine, sing it
Joy to the world, all the boys and girls now Joy to the fishiest in the deep blue sea And joy to you and me
And if I were the king of the world I tell you what I would do I'd throw away the cars and the bars in the world And I'd make sweet love to you, sing it now
Joy to the world, all the boys and girls now Joy to the fishes in the deep blue sea Joy to you and me
Yah know I love the ladies, love to have my fun I'm a hard knock flier and a rain bow rider A straight shootin' son of a gun I said a straight shootin' son of a gun
Joy to the world, all the boys and girls Joy to all the fishes in the deep blue sea Joy to you and me
Then take you to a virtual store where you can buy that mighty fine wine.
Seems like a steal compared to the Beats purchase.
Apple is still making Money from Beats. I only bought the BeatsX thanks to the W1 chip & lightning charging
Still doesn’t make sense to me. Apple has the smarts to make its own headphones (see Air Pods) and probably better ones than Beats (no audiophile recommends Beats). Iovine, Dre and Reznor were not worth $3B. But because $3B is pocket change for Apple nobody cares.
A business acquisition doesn't have to make sense to everyone. What I believe is that Tim Cook is very good at managing the money side of a company. Apple looked at the value of Beats not only in terms of tech but also with the value of celebrities using Beats products which is not only free advertising but also links Apple with customers in a younger demographic. I'm sure Apple considered all of that before making the Beats deal.
So Apple purchased Beats for the celebrity cool factor. Ugh.
"...though nobody knows exactly how profitable Beats is (it's a privately held company so it doesn't need to disclose financial details) everyone thinks the profit margins on that $1 billion in revenue are high. After all, the headphones aren't especially good so there's no reason to think they're expensive to make. If Beats is able to obtain a 15 percent profit margin on $1 billion in annual sales, then a $3 billion capital investment to buy the company would imply a 5 percent rate of return — a perfectly respectable use of money that's otherwise just lying around idle. At one point, Beats was selling $200 headphones that cost as little as $14 to make so it's easy to imagine the deal working financially even without any big new product ideas."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5758964/why-apple-is-buying-beats is the elided source for the quote. Agreed that 3X sales for a growing high-profit margin biz with add-ons is a steal. Other tech company purchases which raised eyebrows (at the time, but not in hindsight) include Google buying 65-employee YouTube for 1.6B in 2006. Looks like it's monetized now, and the purchase was all-stock at 1/4 of today's share price.
Where do we have evidence that Beats is a growing business? Apple doesn’t disclose sales and Beats is lumped in with other accessories like Apple Watch so it’s pretty difficult to tell. There were a lot of companies people were saying Apple should buy - Netflix, Dropbox, Nest, Tesla - to name a few. If you did a Google search you’d have a hard time finding anyone saying Apple should acquire Beats. And when they did it was mocked across the tech sphere. I would argue it’s difficult to say Apple is better off because it acquired Beats. Basically Jimmy Iovine did a snow job on Eddy Cue who in turn did a snow job on Tim Cook. At least Shazam has some cool tech that Apple can put to use right away and further enhance for future use cases.
Seems like a steal compared to the Beats purchase.
Lots of misconceptions about the Beats purchase. In hindsight, it was a genius move financially by Tim Cook. Apple not only got a streaming service that has enabled them to zoom to the #2 Music streaming service in the world, it gained one of the most recognizable culturally relevant brands in the world. Moreover, the fact that most people don't recognize is the enormous profits that have rolled into Apple from the headphone side of the business. Thanks to the Beats purchase, Apple is now the largest seller of wireless devices in the entire world. They also own the vast majority of the market in premium (>$200.00) headphones in the entire world. Even aside from the brand value and the streaming business, the purchase of Beats headphone and speaker business has more than paid for the purchase and is a money printing machine for Apple.
Enormous profits? You know this how? Apple doesn’t disclose Beats sales or profits. Maybe Beats was “the most recognizable culturally relevant brands” at one time but it was pretty much at its peak when Apple purchased it. A few years ago if you walked into a Best Buy practically the only thing you saw in their headphones section was Beats. I was there this weekend and there is a small section for Beats but they had a bigger section for Bose and Sony and they also had a wall for premium brands like Sennheiser, AKG, Bowers & Wilken, Audio Technica, etc. Do a Google search on the best headphones (wired or wireless) and Beats doesn’t top any list. As far as the streaming service goes, are you seriously telling me the company that was basically reborn on the back of music (iTunes + iPod) couldn’t develop its own streaming music service? The Beats service Apple purchased had a small number of paying customers. Eddy Cue’s Apple Music presentation at WWDC was cringe worthy and the initial app layout and UX was so bad they ended up redesigning it a year later. And how about Connect? Does Apple even talk about it anymore? It’s basically Ping 2.0.
Seems like a steal compared to the Beats purchase.
Apple is still making Money from Beats. I only bought the BeatsX thanks to the W1 chip & lightning charging
Still doesn’t make sense to me. Apple has the smarts to make its own headphones (see Air Pods) and probably better ones than Beats (no audiophile recommends Beats). Iovine, Dre and Reznor were not worth $3B. But because $3B is pocket change for Apple nobody cares.
They didn't just buy Beats headphones, they bought Beats Music, a.k.a. Apple Music. Became a credible alternative to Spotify overnight.
Beats Music wasn’t a service with a large customer base. Apple turned the music app into Apple Music and it was preinstalled on everyone’s iOS device. Sorry but the idea that the company who redefined music with iTunes and iPod couldn’t stand up their own streaming music service is laughable. Many of the original Beats Music employees aren’t even with Apple anymore.
"...though nobody knows exactly how profitable Beats is (it's a privately held company so it doesn't need to disclose financial details) everyone thinks the profit margins on that $1 billion in revenue are high. After all, the headphones aren't especially good so there's no reason to think they're expensive to make. If Beats is able to obtain a 15 percent profit margin on $1 billion in annual sales, then a $3 billion capital investment to buy the company would imply a 5 percent rate of return — a perfectly respectable use of money that's otherwise just lying around idle. At one point, Beats was selling $200 headphones that cost as little as $14 to make so it's easy to imagine the deal working financially even without any big new product ideas."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5758964/why-apple-is-buying-beats is the elided source for the quote. Agreed that 3X sales for a growing high-profit margin biz with add-ons is a steal. Other tech company purchases which raised eyebrows (at the time, but not in hindsight) include Google buying 65-employee YouTube for 1.6B in 2006. Looks like it's monetized now, and the purchase was all-stock at 1/4 of today's share price.
Where do we have evidence that Beats is a growing business? Apple doesn’t disclose sales and Beats is lumped in with other accessories like Apple Watch so it’s pretty difficult to tell. There were a lot of companies people were saying Apple should buy - Netflix, Dropbox, Nest, Tesla - to name a few. If you did a Google search you’d have a hard time finding anyone saying Apple should acquire Beats. And when they did it was mocked across the tech sphere. I would argue it’s difficult to say Apple is better off because it acquired Beats. Basically Jimmy Iovine did a snow job on Eddy Cue who in turn did a snow job on Tim Cook. At least Shazam has some cool tech that Apple can put to use right away and further enhance for future use cases.
The only criteria you seem to be using is "I don't like Beats". Several people have pointed out the business advantages of the deal yet your only rebuttal has been purely emotional. The mockery you seem to remember was based on the perceived lack of quality sound from Beats products. None of that mockery had a business case attached to it. You say you'd argue that Apple isn't better off? Based on what, that "I don't like Beats" feeling you got going on there? Apple is a business that has a goal of making money. None of those ideas (Netflix, Dropbox, Nest, or Tesla) come with any short term profit and all of them could have an adverse economic impact on Apple if the acquisition was rolled into the ecosystem exclusively. Succinctly, people were wrong.
"...though nobody knows exactly how profitable Beats is (it's a privately held company so it doesn't need to disclose financial details) everyone thinks the profit margins on that $1 billion in revenue are high. After all, the headphones aren't especially good so there's no reason to think they're expensive to make. If Beats is able to obtain a 15 percent profit margin on $1 billion in annual sales, then a $3 billion capital investment to buy the company would imply a 5 percent rate of return — a perfectly respectable use of money that's otherwise just lying around idle. At one point, Beats was selling $200 headphones that cost as little as $14 to make so it's easy to imagine the deal working financially even without any big new product ideas."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5758964/why-apple-is-buying-beats is the elided source for the quote. Agreed that 3X sales for a growing high-profit margin biz with add-ons is a steal. Other tech company purchases which raised eyebrows (at the time, but not in hindsight) include Google buying 65-employee YouTube for 1.6B in 2006. Looks like it's monetized now, and the purchase was all-stock at 1/4 of today's share price.
Where do we have evidence that Beats is a growing business? Apple doesn’t disclose sales and Beats is lumped in with other accessories like Apple Watch so it’s pretty difficult to tell. There were a lot of companies people were saying Apple should buy - Netflix, Dropbox, Nest, Tesla - to name a few. If you did a Google search you’d have a hard time finding anyone saying Apple should acquire Beats. And when they did it was mocked across the tech sphere. I would argue it’s difficult to say Apple is better off because it acquired Beats. Basically Jimmy Iovine did a snow job on Eddy Cue who in turn did a snow job on Tim Cook. At least Shazam has some cool tech that Apple can put to use right away and further enhance for future use cases.
Youre basing whether or not Beats was/is a success on third party analysts? The same analysts that declared the iPhone DOA, the iPad DOA, Apple should make netbooks, the watch DOA? Let's see, should I trust Apple execs on business decisions or wannabe business owners, ie, analysts.
Sorry but the idea that the company who redefined music with iTunes and iPod couldn’t stand up their own streaming music service is laughable. Many of the original Beats Music employees aren’t even with Apple anymore.
Apple was late to the game on streaming music, everyone admits that. The idea that the company who made the best hardware player (which is irrelevant to this matter), had to buy Soundjam to get iTunes made in the first place, and has never done an especially good job with web services* could "stand up" their own streaming service out of nothing in under a year… holy fuck will you even listen to yourself?
JFC they barely got MacOS 10.13 out on time and it's a mess, promised features of iOS like Messages in the Cloud are nowhere in sight, they blew the HomePod release, but gosh why didn't they throw a couple of interns at saving their music business, how about those twerps who rocked the world with iTunes Ping? It only takes 2000 people to run Spotify, surely Apple has loads of surplus talent just sitting on their asses. /s
Instead they bought the best (really), and was #2 in under a year. That they got back the "hip cachet" that they lost when iPods stopped being a cultural marker was just a bonus. If they tried to build Apple Music in-house they'd still be working on it, the rest of their undertakings would be further behind, and they'd probably have to give up and buy Spotify for $10 billion.
They were on the verge of losing all relevance in the music industry. They bought it back, cheap. Some snow job.
* Messages not withstanding, for which they don't get nearly enough credit
"...though nobody knows exactly how profitable Beats is (it's a privately held company so it doesn't need to disclose financial details) everyone thinks the profit margins on that $1 billion in revenue are high. After all, the headphones aren't especially good so there's no reason to think they're expensive to make. If Beats is able to obtain a 15 percent profit margin on $1 billion in annual sales, then a $3 billion capital investment to buy the company would imply a 5 percent rate of return — a perfectly respectable use of money that's otherwise just lying around idle. At one point, Beats was selling $200 headphones that cost as little as $14 to make so it's easy to imagine the deal working financially even without any big new product ideas."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5758964/why-apple-is-buying-beats is the elided source for the quote. Agreed that 3X sales for a growing high-profit margin biz with add-ons is a steal. Other tech company purchases which raised eyebrows (at the time, but not in hindsight) include Google buying 65-employee YouTube for 1.6B in 2006. Looks like it's monetized now, and the purchase was all-stock at 1/4 of today's share price.
Basically Jimmy Iovine did a snow job on Eddy Cue who in turn did a snow job on Tim Cook.
And there it is. Your neverending disdain for Eddy Cue seems to overshadow your ability to think about anything else with any sort of clarity.
At least Shazam has some cool tech that Apple can put to use right away and further enhance for future use cases.
Shazam, purely for identifying and buying music, is one of the few apps I have found useful from its inception to today. I expect Apple will change all that. Too bad.
Seems like a steal compared to the Beats purchase.
Apple is still making Money from Beats. I only bought the BeatsX thanks to the W1 chip & lightning charging
Still doesn’t make sense to me. Apple has the smarts to make its own headphones (see Air Pods) and probably better ones than Beats (no audiophile recommends Beats). Iovine, Dre and Reznor were not worth $3B. But because $3B is pocket change for Apple nobody cares.
Which is why you don’t run the ship. Beats was the leading accessory in Apple stores and has a very impressive brand loyalty and following. It is a wealth generator. Apple branded headphones don’t have the same brand appeal. The two products literally plug into each other (well maybe not anymore lol) so it was a slam dunk. As we said then, and as the years have proven. Slam dunk that made total sense.
"...though nobody knows exactly how profitable Beats is (it's a privately held company so it doesn't need to disclose financial details) everyone thinks the profit margins on that $1 billion in revenue are high. After all, the headphones aren't especially good so there's no reason to think they're expensive to make. If Beats is able to obtain a 15 percent profit margin on $1 billion in annual sales, then a $3 billion capital investment to buy the company would imply a 5 percent rate of return — a perfectly respectable use of money that's otherwise just lying around idle. At one point, Beats was selling $200 headphones that cost as little as $14 to make so it's easy to imagine the deal working financially even without any big new product ideas."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5758964/why-apple-is-buying-beats is the elided source for the quote. Agreed that 3X sales for a growing high-profit margin biz with add-ons is a steal. Other tech company purchases which raised eyebrows (at the time, but not in hindsight) include Google buying 65-employee YouTube for 1.6B in 2006. Looks like it's monetized now, and the purchase was all-stock at 1/4 of today's share price.
Where do we have evidence that Beats is a growing business? Apple doesn’t disclose sales and Beats is lumped in with other accessories like Apple Watch so it’s pretty difficult to tell. There were a lot of companies people were saying Apple should buy - Netflix, Dropbox, Nest, Tesla - to name a few. If you did a Google search you’d have a hard time finding anyone saying Apple should acquire Beats. And when they did it was mocked across the tech sphere. I would argue it’s difficult to say Apple is better off because it acquired Beats. Basically Jimmy Iovine did a snow job on Eddy Cue who in turn did a snow job on Tim Cook. At least Shazam has some cool tech that Apple can put to use right away and further enhance for future use cases.
Oh man. Are you really this delusional? In this much deny, because rap music? And you're wrong. While the Tech Echo Chamber of Doom and web commenters such as yourself were in denial, not everyone was. Like this guy:
I don't get why you think it is crazy.
Beats makes the most popular line of consumer headphones. Apple makes the most popular line of consumer music players. The 2 products actually plug together to work. *The 2 company's products actually plug together to work.*
Beats is run by one of the most successful music producers in history (Jimmy Iovine) and one of the most successful music artists in history (Andre Young aka Dr. Dre.) Apple is a musical instrument maker who makes the most popular professional music production computer (Mac,) the most popular professional music production software (Logic) as well as the most popular consumer music production computers (iPad/iPhone) and the most popular consumer music production software (GarageBand) as well as the most popular music playback hardware (iPod) and the most popular music playback software (iTunes.) It is very likely that at some point, both Iovine and Young worked on a music project that was made entirely with Apple products, and then they listened to that project entirely with Apple products. That is a common thing to happen in music studios, which are filled with Macs, iPads, iPhones, iPods, Logic, GarageBand, and iTunes. And Beats headphones.
Beats has the music subscription services with the largest selection of music (Beats Music,) and Apple has the music download service with the largest selection of music (iTunes Store.) Put them together and you can offer the consumer a subscription listening service from which they can collect and keep their favorite tracks for a lifetime with 1 tap, as they listen. [...]
Further, the Beats brand is compatible with Apple's marketing efforts. Same as when Apple bought the famous Logic music production software and turned it into Apple Logic, they can turn the Beats products into Apple Beats.
So rather than being hard pressed to see a reason why the Apple/Beats deal makes sense, it is actually hard to find a way it does not make sense. The founders are similar, the current hardware products plug together, the music production connections are the same, the music retailing services complement each other, the future HD products complement each other, and the branding is even complimentary.
So I would love to hear why you think the Apple/Beats deal is crazy other than NWA which makes no sense.
And try to explain it to me as though Andre Young is a member of the same race as Tim Cook, because he is: human race.
Second, the idea that Cue "snowed" Cook into making a bad deal? It's just so beyond ridiculousness. First it implies Cook is an idiot who does whatever people tell him, which shows you really have no idea who Cook is or why Apple is stronger than it's ever been under him. And it implies this was a bad deal to begin with, which everyone but you knows it was not (and some of us were saying this 4 years ago). Within one year the Apple made it's investment back under the Beats brand, which is still killing it.
Seems like a steal compared to the Beats purchase.
Apple is still making Money from Beats. I only bought the BeatsX thanks to the W1 chip & lightning charging
Still doesn’t make sense to me. Apple has the smarts to make its own headphones (see Air Pods) and probably better ones than Beats (no audiophile recommends Beats). Iovine, Dre and Reznor were not worth $3B. But because $3B is pocket change for Apple nobody cares.
They didn't just buy Beats headphones, they bought Beats Music, a.k.a. Apple Music. Became a credible alternative to Spotify overnight.
Beats Music wasn’t a service with a large customer base. Apple turned the music app into Apple Music and it was preinstalled on everyone’s iOS device. Sorry but the idea that the company who redefined music with iTunes and iPod couldn’t stand up their own streaming music service is laughable. Many of the original Beats Music employees aren’t even with Apple anymore.
Source? Numbers? The one Beats guy I know is still with Apple, so my anecdote beats your unsourced claim! /s
"...though nobody knows exactly how profitable Beats is (it's a privately held company so it doesn't need to disclose financial details) everyone thinks the profit margins on that $1 billion in revenue are high. After all, the headphones aren't especially good so there's no reason to think they're expensive to make. If Beats is able to obtain a 15 percent profit margin on $1 billion in annual sales, then a $3 billion capital investment to buy the company would imply a 5 percent rate of return — a perfectly respectable use of money that's otherwise just lying around idle. At one point, Beats was selling $200 headphones that cost as little as $14 to make so it's easy to imagine the deal working financially even without any big new product ideas."
https://www.vox.com/2014/5/28/5758964/why-apple-is-buying-beats is the elided source for the quote. Agreed that 3X sales for a growing high-profit margin biz with add-ons is a steal. Other tech company purchases which raised eyebrows (at the time, but not in hindsight) include Google buying 65-employee YouTube for 1.6B in 2006. Looks like it's monetized now, and the purchase was all-stock at 1/4 of today's share price.
Where do we have evidence that Beats is a growing business? Apple doesn’t disclose sales and Beats is lumped in with other accessories like Apple Watch so it’s pretty difficult to tell. There were a lot of companies people were saying Apple should buy - Netflix, Dropbox, Nest, Tesla - to name a few. If you did a Google search you’d have a hard time finding anyone saying Apple should acquire Beats. And when they did it was mocked across the tech sphere. I would argue it’s difficult to say Apple is better off because it acquired Beats. Basically Jimmy Iovine did a snow job on Eddy Cue who in turn did a snow job on Tim Cook. At least Shazam has some cool tech that Apple can put to use right away and further enhance for future use cases.
Youre basing whether or not Beats was/is a success on third party analysts? The same analysts that declared the iPhone DOA, the iPad DOA, Apple should make netbooks, the watch DOA? Let's see, should I trust Apple execs on business decisions or wannabe business owners, ie, analysts.
Don't forget the biggest pundit criticism, regarding iPod:
"Less space than a nomad. Lame."
...And these are the guys Rogifan is citing as experts. Hilarious.
Comments
Something like:
Then take you to a virtual store where you can buy that mighty fine wine.
JFC they barely got MacOS 10.13 out on time and it's a mess, promised features of iOS like Messages in the Cloud are nowhere in sight, they blew the HomePod release, but gosh why didn't they throw a couple of interns at saving their music business, how about those twerps who rocked the world with iTunes Ping? It only takes 2000 people to run Spotify, surely Apple has loads of surplus talent just sitting on their asses. /s
Instead they bought the best (really), and was #2 in under a year. That they got back the "hip cachet" that they lost when iPods stopped being a cultural marker was just a bonus. If they tried to build Apple Music in-house they'd still be working on it, the rest of their undertakings would be further behind, and they'd probably have to give up and buy Spotify for $10 billion.
They were on the verge of losing all relevance in the music industry. They bought it back, cheap. Some snow job.
* Messages not withstanding, for which they don't get nearly enough credit
If you think the past 3 years YoY of that Other Products revenues isn't making a dent due to Beats you are too dense to discuss business.
Page 73.
http://www.loopinsight.com/2014/05/28/apple-acquires-beats-for-3-billion/
...so much for your claim.
Second, the idea that Cue "snowed" Cook into making a bad deal? It's just so beyond ridiculousness. First it implies Cook is an idiot who does whatever people tell him, which shows you really have no idea who Cook is or why Apple is stronger than it's ever been under him. And it implies this was a bad deal to begin with, which everyone but you knows it was not (and some of us were saying this 4 years ago). Within one year the Apple made it's investment back under the Beats brand, which is still killing it.
But rap music!
Source? Numbers? The one Beats guy I know is still with Apple, so my anecdote beats your unsourced claim! /s
Don't forget the biggest pundit criticism, regarding iPod:
"Less space than a nomad. Lame."
...And these are the guys Rogifan is citing as experts. Hilarious.