NY1822

How are people leaving reviews on Amazon from 6 days ago if today was the first day it came on Amazon?

I have a feeling 3 years from now it will even look like more of a bargain than it is today

AR glasses, here we come!!!

i wish Apple created a way to buy/setup/activate an apple watch for someone who doesn't have an iphone...My father doesn't have a phone, although he does have an ipad. He uses iMessage all the time and I would love to buy him the watch..Also my niece who only has an ipod.
Maybe soon they will given all the upcoming health monitoring apps...

rogifan_new said:

racerhomie said:

razorpit said:

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.

"...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."
"...Without looking deeply at Beats' internal financial information, we can't evaluate the terms of the deal in detail but there's nothing especially unorthodox about paying $3 billion for a company with $1 billion in revenue."