Radio will still be trash.
Beats Headphones will still be overpriced cans.
Beats Music will still be trash.
Beats Headphones will still be overpriced cans.
Beats Music will still be trash.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Announces $3 Billion Beats Acquisition, Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre Joining the Company
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm not sure where they got Canada from as it's still only available in the USA and Australia.
Overhyped, overpriced cellphone company meets Overhyped, overpriced headphone company, a perfect match! Neither company produces anything top of the line anymore.
So, question the purchase and it's a racist thing? Grade school thinking right there.
Apple Announces $3 Billion Beats Acquisition, Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre Joinin...
It does make sense for Apple. As I've said before, they need a streaming solution that has room for growth and influential industry personnel to secure rights and deals. That they've acquired a popular (note I didn't say good) high-margin headphone and dock manufacturer is by the by, but ultimately will bring its own fruits in time and is a great fit for Apple's own high-margin and high-design products.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the main problem with streaming is the low royalty payments. If they can be the first to properly compensate artists, they'll flock to Beats Audio. It's a huge deal if they can do that. We covered it at university and the MU in the UK are forever beating the drum about insufficient royalties from streams. That has to be their aim and competitive edge. It'd shake the industry up anew.
It does make sense for Apple. As I've said before, they need a streaming solution that has room for growth and influential industry personnel to secure rights and deals. That they've acquired a popular (note I didn't say good) high-margin headphone and dock manufacturer is by the by, but ultimately will bring its own fruits in time and is a great fit for Apple's own high-margin and high-design products.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, the main problem with streaming is the low royalty payments. If they can be the first to properly compensate artists, they'll flock to Beats Audio. It's a huge deal if they can do that. We covered it at university and the MU in the UK are forever beating the drum about insufficient royalties from streams. That has to be their aim and competitive edge. It'd shake the industry up anew.
only if you don't base it on fact. if criticism is based off of Emotion then.....
This upset? Talk about people overreacting, ask a simple question, ponder something and all of a sudden it's blown out of proportion, but to answer your question I can give you 3 billion reasons this isn't something as insignificant as some imply, if it were, it'd simply be a huge waste of money on Apple's part, and btw, this isn't the same as offering products in the Apple store, not sure where that even came from.
Not Impressed
I so much did not want this to happen. Beats products are just colored expensive cheap crappy sounding plastics. period. And overpriced. Not impressed at all.
I so much did not want this to happen. Beats products are just colored expensive cheap crappy sounding plastics. period. And overpriced. Not impressed at all.
not good
And what about the company's image ?
Sounds like apple brought in house another shark ,. just like Bill's Microsoft turned someone else's Disk Operating System - into MS-DOS. Here comes a streaming music service actually from David Hyman's "MOG", which was purchased by Beats in 2012.
What could you possibly expect from a company called devicesBYsomeone(where that "someone" isn't actually engineering, fabricating, designing, assembling or even distributing those) ? Sounds like pastaBYgeorgeBushJ ?! The whole beats marketing is engineered from the ground up as HYPE.
AND i would seriously think twice about going on buying equipment from someone who obscures all the technical details about the products.
I dare you to find any tech information on http://www.beatsbydre.com ! There's nothing on audio specifications, frequency response, impedance, sensitivity ...not a thing . That's straight NOT serious to say the least.
Go and look at Neumann, AKG ,Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser and see for yourselves.
Apple kicks its own image.
Indeed obscene amount of money.
If there isn't something about the money for the money, i'd want to know what it is.
And what about the company's image ?
Sounds like apple brought in house another shark ,. just like Bill's Microsoft turned someone else's Disk Operating System - into MS-DOS. Here comes a streaming music service actually from David Hyman's "MOG", which was purchased by Beats in 2012.
What could you possibly expect from a company called devicesBYsomeone(where that "someone" isn't actually engineering, fabricating, designing, assembling or even distributing those) ? Sounds like pastaBYgeorgeBushJ ?! The whole beats marketing is engineered from the ground up as HYPE.
AND i would seriously think twice about going on buying equipment from someone who obscures all the technical details about the products.
I dare you to find any tech information on http://www.beatsbydre.com ! There's nothing on audio specifications, frequency response, impedance, sensitivity ...not a thing . That's straight NOT serious to say the least.
Go and look at Neumann, AKG ,Beyerdynamic, Sennheiser and see for yourselves.
Apple kicks its own image.
Indeed obscene amount of money.
If there isn't something about the money for the money, i'd want to know what it is.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Your post to which I replied was overwhelmingly loaded with support for this deal based on financials… as if answering the "why?" question for shareholders. I acknowledged seeing your points but- if it's about those points- then Beats is a fit for any other company that wants those same financial-driven benefits and the most likely suitors beyond Apple are among those I named (because the other benefits beyond shareholder glee would have some application at a Google, Amazon and maybe Samsung & Sony too).
And I doubt that Google "does not worry much about" maximizing profits. As a public company they are legally obligated to maximize shareholder value. If one can buy such a statement, the same might be said for Apple. So if the Beats financials made great sense for a "not worry much about" company like Apple, it made sense for a "not worry much about" company like Google (or Microsoft or Samsung or Sony, etc).
As soon as the rumor was out- and probably long before- it was in play. And in the time between when the rumor first hatched and when the deal got done (which was probably long before a few weeks ago), there was plenty of time for other "bargain" hunting companies to step in and show some interest. If it was mostly a financials play- as you yourself mostly spun it- then Beats ownership could pad their own financials by entertaining bidders beyond just one.
In the last couple of days, it sounded like the deal was nearly derailed. If Beats wanted to sell- and they obviously did- their ONE buyer potentially backing out would point toward no sale. Best way to avoid such a scenario? Court more than one buyer. AND, whatever happened there (to nearly derail it), ended up apparently costing $200M which is not chump change for Beats. Perhaps another buyer would have coughed up that extra… or more?
The exception? If the owners only wanted to sell to Apple, which I also pointed out in my post. That's plausible. But it still wouldn't stop others hungry for a profit-making "bargain" from at least exploring the opportunity to bid against Apple.
No, I'm saying that once it became a strong rumor that it was in play, those like Google could see a "great deal sitting there and go after it". Again your post was full of good rationale supporting this purchase by Apple. However, it was mostly rationale that would make shareholders happy. Google has shareholders to try to make happy too. So does Microsoft. Etc. So per your (good) reasoning for Apple to buy Beats, it would make sense for Google, Microsoft and others to at least show some interest in Beats too.
Instead, not a word about ANY other player competing with Apple or even exploring the deal. I read that one of two ways: 1) Either Beats was only interested in being acquired by Apple regardless of what other competitors might be willing to offer OR 2) Only Apple was willing to pay that much for Beats. I'm going to assume #1 myself and just hope it's not #2. It's simply hard to think of a tech acquisition where the acquired company is growing and very profitable like this one and not have at least some competition for the purchase.
Last edited:
So when an engineer botches an antenna design (debatable if this was ever really true) they get door.
But when management fails to take into account consumer preferences, fails to do anything meaningful with a prior multi-million dollar acquisition (Lala), they buy their way out of the problem by acquiring what's available with a $3 billion price tag.
The spin is that it's for Dre and Iovine and their deal-making abilities. The lack of logic in this line is astounding. You don't think the record industry is going to play Apple-Google-Spotify against each other for streaming exclusives? Yes, Apple is in a better position to get these exclusives, but money talks - if you want it, pay for it. How does having Iovine change the physics of this equation? You might get a couple million off because he happens to be buddies with the record exec, but you paid $3 billion to save a couple million?
Sorry guys, this doesn't make sense. Apple should invest in the people they have now, the engineers and designers, created a tiger team with 300-400 people to do a streaming music app and a cost-is-no-object attitude for gaining streaming rights to all the catalogs.
The 'Apple is creating it's own label' argument is interesting, but this is a line of business that Apple has no experience in. Things start getting political at Fortune 100 companies when you start having groups with different business lines operating under the same roof.
...And I really like the Beats iOS app! But management needs to own up to this, if I'm an engineer at Apple, I'm not feeling very good. Instead of putting together a team to build a new pillar for an existing business, they went outside and spent a lot of people that could have been given to people at Apple who could have been rewarded for their hardwork in the aforementioned project.
But when management fails to take into account consumer preferences, fails to do anything meaningful with a prior multi-million dollar acquisition (Lala), they buy their way out of the problem by acquiring what's available with a $3 billion price tag.
The spin is that it's for Dre and Iovine and their deal-making abilities. The lack of logic in this line is astounding. You don't think the record industry is going to play Apple-Google-Spotify against each other for streaming exclusives? Yes, Apple is in a better position to get these exclusives, but money talks - if you want it, pay for it. How does having Iovine change the physics of this equation? You might get a couple million off because he happens to be buddies with the record exec, but you paid $3 billion to save a couple million?
Sorry guys, this doesn't make sense. Apple should invest in the people they have now, the engineers and designers, created a tiger team with 300-400 people to do a streaming music app and a cost-is-no-object attitude for gaining streaming rights to all the catalogs.
The 'Apple is creating it's own label' argument is interesting, but this is a line of business that Apple has no experience in. Things start getting political at Fortune 100 companies when you start having groups with different business lines operating under the same roof.
...And I really like the Beats iOS app! But management needs to own up to this, if I'm an engineer at Apple, I'm not feeling very good. Instead of putting together a team to build a new pillar for an existing business, they went outside and spent a lot of people that could have been given to people at Apple who could have been rewarded for their hardwork in the aforementioned project.
How are they badly made? I have the current version of the beats studio as well as a few friends. Great headphones in my opinion.
Excellent. What a great guy to add to the company: a thug, murderer, gangsta who promotes violence against police officers.
But, they made SURE that a cannabis growing app was pulled right away for being indecent. WOW. What a sham.
When has Dr. Dre murdered anyone you racist bigot. Police officers have broken trust with minorities on many of occasions. More black people have been enslaved and murdered by white people than the other way around.
Last edited:
I won't sing Kumbaya with you...
Love is a strong word... I love my wife, but can't say same about a corporation. I like some of the Apple products... that's the best i can do.
Ummm I have both and Beats is way easier to use....additionally it's already profitable.
----------
You don't need a lot of paper work behind your name to make a difference in the world on the scale of Steve Jobs. The bottom line is no single Phd had done what SJ the high school grad has.
Actually, yea a lot of educated people do wear Beats. I see well off frequent flyers wearing them all the time. Business men. I have a pair of Executives as well as Pros. They aren't all "Ghetto" headphones. My Pros are as classy as a MacBook.
Am I the only one or has anybody else here AVOIDED the Beats headphones solely because Dr. Dre's name is on them?
I don't know the guy from Adam and thusly don't care. But putting somebody's unknown (to me) name on ANY product is not only not a selling point; it's a reason for me to actively avoid.
Like that guy who puts his name on all the movies he makes, or making an Eddie Bauer version of the Ford Explorer. Ugh, stop gagging me.
You mean one of the best producers in the last 30 years you don't believe they know sound?
MacRumors is now MacRacists. I mean stormfront has less hate for black people than MacRumors.
----------
Steve Jobs was the one who famously said no one wants streaming. He also said no one wants a smaller iPad. He also said no one wants a bigger iPhone. Steve Jobs was wrong about as much as he was right.
----------
Beats by JIVE? LOL! That's going to make the racists here on MacRacists heads explode.
only time will tell
only time will tell. As for the 3B, it represent more than 15% of domestic cash and securities.
only time will tell. As for the 3B, it represent more than 15% of domestic cash and securities.