That's a very long way of saying "Apple is doomed".
Apple have been "doomed" every year since 1976. Here's to their being "doomed" for the next 40+ years, cheers!
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 Eyes Lease at The Culver Studios, Bidding on Drama Starring Jennifer Aniston and Reese Witherspoon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's a very long way of saying "Apple is doomed".
Apple have been "doomed" every year since 1976. Here's to their being "doomed" for the next 40+ years, cheers!
You're not thinking outside the box at all. Smartphones won't be around in 20 years. AT ALL.
What will replace it? There are many, many, many ideas.
1. A wrist-worn device that will have a holographic projection out of it to make the screen larger.
2. A ring that can be interacted with through holograms and voice.
3. A chip-type device imbedded in your clothing or body that can interact with terminals available everywhere.
4. A glasses-type device.
Many combinations of the above and other ideas.
Carrying around a slab of glass/metal/plastic that can be broken or lost will be replaced by many iterations of wearable-tech, until it makes no sense to use anymore.
Imagine wearing a ring on your finger which displays a hologram you can view and even touch the hologram to interact with, that even listens to your voice. Something like this will be the future. Remember 20 years ago, you could do little with a smart phone beyond making phone calls and sending/receiving pages. 20 years from now, smart phones today will seem so mundane.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK and OK.
We're all offering our best individual opinions in answer to why Beats? You guys can be much more right than me or I could be much more right than you. Unless either or both of you are INSIDE of Apple (unlike me), it's 2 best-guess views of the same scenario. I'll respect that your views could be right presuming you can respect that my guess could be right too.
Of course, if either of you are INSIDE of Apple, you can be definitely right by knowing what you've posted is absolutely true. Say so and put this completely to bed (probably with some "I am inside" proof). Otherwise, it's just your best guess vs. mine.
From my perspective, your rationale simply puts the best possible spin on the Beats acquisition without leaning much on the "Apple bought it for the lucrative profits" stance. That could be true and I admit that.
Personally though, it's not like the Beats streaming platform was the ONLY game in town. If that's what it was mostly about, why not buy Spotify and start off with many millions of subscribers even before a rebranded launch? Pandora? Tidal? And countless other streaming platforms likely available for much less than $3B?
If it was about the 2 guys, are they the only movers & shakers in their respective space? Would $2B or $1B make it hard to lure 2 equivalent guys to work at the hallowed halls of Apple in the same capacity? How much is Tim Cook's compensation? Would about the same not lure other music-industry "movers & shakers" to Apple?
Again, I respect your best guesses at why Beats. But there are more ways to see that then Apple needing to buy Beats to roll out Apple Music and/or that those 2 guys were the best possible guys for the roles they fill. It's not automatic that Cue was the only other option for those functions if Apple opted NOT to buy Beats. A couple billion dollars can attract a lot of high-quality talent from the top of nearly any industry.
Last edited:
Problem is wearables are NOT the ultimate solution for everything. You cannot do everything on a wearable as they're limited to certain tasks. That's it. It's not going to work out for everyone and I don't like the Apple Watch because of it's extortionist price and 'jack of all trades' OS. It tries too hard to be everything at once when it shouldn't be. They're mashing fitness and fashion together which is not quite a good idea because using it as a general all purpose wearable takes up battery.
Less is more. And more focused. If you want to do full email, use the phone, tablet or laptop for that. Don't use the Watch for it. Make a call? Use a phone. A Watch is not a phone. A Watch is a watch is a watch. Period. It's supposed to do one thing: notify the time and activities. Check heart rate and blood oxygen? Use a band, watch or oximeter device.
There are some nice smart watches out there such as, for example, Garmin that have long battery lives because they don't try to be everything. Apple Watch's problem is that it replicates EVERYTHING from the iPhone OS. That is the biggest mistake Apple has made and this has caused battery life problems, which forced them to use a crown in order to navigate the OS that has a touchscreen. The Apple Watch is planned obsolescence which was never designed to be a heirloom or increase in value because of one thing: electronic parts and software.
I'm deaf and don't give a crap about AirPods. That's a LOST sale for Apple because they didn't take into account into how to make 'hearing aid' compatible headsets. Plus, their design is lazy. I wouldn't be caught trying to text while driving which is illegal. And you shouldn't do that either. If I want to communicate, I use the iPhone SE for texting or using Skype.
I could go on and on.
I've edited your post below to reflect what the status quo was 15 years ago. Wearables are the future, sorry.
"Problem is mobile phones are NOT the ultimate solution for everything. You cannot do everything on a phone as they're limited to certain tasks. That's it. It's not going to work out for everyone and I don't like the iPhone because of it's extortionist price and 'jack of all trades' OS. It tries too hard to be everything at once when it shouldn't be. They're mashing cellphones and PDAs together which is not quite a good idea because using it as a general all purpose "smartphone" takes up battery."
Sometimes you need to get your feet wet before jumping in. I don't blame them for testing unknown waters. The crappy reality stuff was a low-cost gamble and more importantly, a valuable learning experience. Besides, there's no reason to rush into this.
Unless we change the way we engage content, wearables like smartwatches will always be an ancillary category. The screen is too small for games, video, productivity, or anything other than quick interactions. Wearables are limited in their capability and usefulness.
Think about all the things people do on smartphones. How much of that can be done on a smartwatch? Hardly any.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Well, in all fairness, it was very close in 1996.
Apple having such a massive amount of cash, goodwill and momentum strongly suggests another 1996 is far out into the future at best(worst?), but it doesn't mean it's impossible. Apple is King mostly on the strength of a single product. That is a precarious proposition no matter who the company may be.
I'm with you in terms of being confident Apple is secure, stable, dependable for well into the future. But I'm not seeing 40 years of survival & growth as meaning there's automatically even 40 more years. The path to 1996 was mostly run by a relatively small number of poor decisions made over much less than 40 years. A white knight showed up at almost the last minute and reversed some of those. While that worked out crazy, crazy great for Apple, white knights are not abundant and business history is certainly littered with many others who seemed as capable in their respective spaces, yet failed to be able to save their particular day.
Apple is no more doomed than they are absolutely secure to forever exist and dominate as they do today.
Last edited:
Bit of revisionist history. Apple started floundering just before Jobs was removed the first time until he was brought back in '97. Sculley, Spindler, Amelio were disasters that pushed Apple to being days away from bankruptcy. Make no mistake Apple was "doomed" in 1996.
But MS funded Apple to keep it alive and some competition (it was in the midst of an antitrust action) and the BOD crawled back to Jobs because it recognized only his NeXT OS could save Apple after it was clear Apple's Copeland project was an unfixable hot mess.
Even after Jobs returned it took him about 10 years for the stock to go from a split adjusted .70/share to $12. Jobs turned around Apple's image with the iMac, the iBook, The TiBook, Airport, iPod and iTunes Store, and other goodies. But Apple really only became a true powerhouse when the iPhone was announced. In the 10 year period between the iPhone announcement and now AAPL has gone from a split adjusted $13 to $164.
Those of us who have had the "privilege" of knowing Apple for its entire existence understand Cook is no Jobs -- hard to duplicate him, but does have traits of the CEO's that followed Jobs when he left Apple in the 80s.
Picture yourself asking the same question 15 years ago about phones when all we had was these:
Looking at this now is exactly what we'll see 15 years from looking back at the current Apple Watch/Google Glass/MS Hololens.
We didn't have GPS, 4G connections, 1080p colour displays, processors as fast as desktops, 4K cameras in phones back then. The tech simply didn't exist. Likewise the tech that will be in the wearables of the future doesn't exist yet.
Just have a bit of what I call 'Jobs vision'. The future is in wearables.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
A drama where Reese Witherspoon and Jennifer Aniston fight over my affections is one I could watch and enjoy.
I'd be a gentleman and let them both win.
At the same time.
Where can I buy the Augmented Reality version of that one?
The Virtual Reality version of that one???
Any chance at a project red or similar auction option to actually get to be in a few of those scenes in person???
Why do Star Trek holodecks not arrive until the 24th century? Else, where's a reliable cryogenic option until then?
All
Hard to argue against a position based on something that doesn't exist.
I guess I'll join that party of implausibility too. Wearables aren't the future. AI and human-machine interfaces will be the future. It just doesn't exist yet.Sarcasm aside, assuming that the future tech we'll use will be based on concepts that are "sort of" prevalent today is a rabbit hole argument. There could easily be some disruptive tech that comes along and completely flips the paradigm. Those types of woulda, shoulda, coulda arguments are pointless in my opinion.
Jobs is dead. He has no vision.
You're right we should never talk about history ever again. You can watch Spongebob Square Pants while the rest of the population watches content on all topics. No one is forcing you to watch this "offensive" material.
The difference here is very simple: There were no digital "ecosystems" in the '90s. Sony produced movies and TV because of the prestige of it, and they thought it would diversify their profits. It wasn't to get people to buy Sony VCRs or TVs. In the '10s exclusive content keeps people tied into your ecosystem. If you wanna (legally) watch anything Apple produces you have to have Apple Music, and Apple Music works best on Apple products.
Even Microsoft tried to produce exclusive content for Xbox Live, but they kinda failed with that because their target audience mainly cared about games.
Yeah they did this in the 90s. They were all over the place from making game consoles to PDAs. They're a couple orders of magnitude bigger now but these endeavors are a couple orders of magnitude bigger as well. Steve liked to tackle one thing, nearly perfect it, then move on to the next big idea while continuing to innovate on existing products or cannibalize them altogether. There is absolutely no reason that Apple should be making original content. They've always been the ones building the tools for creatives. Why do they suddenly want to be the creator? It's insane. Maybe it's because they couldn't negotiate with the big studios so they think they can marginalize them and then they'll play ball? Good luck with those strats!
Indeed. They seem to be headed back to the days of convoluted product lines with countless SKUs at a rate of knots.
In a few weeks time we will have 4 models of the iPhone on sale (two with three year old designs and one that has a similar design to the iPhone 5 from five years ago) , three separate laptop lines (including a prehistoric MacBook Air and three models of the MacBook Pro) and four models of the iPad all with various configurations and storage options.
1) Apple bought Beats because it appeals to the young, urban, millennial demographic. Plus, it had deep, unmatched ties to the music business. Spotify is highly successful, but it's like a video rental chain in terms of the people involved. They're management types, not creative types.
2) Those industry people at Beats 1 included Trent Reznor, whose idea it was to start the Beats 1 radio service, and all their connections brought in established artists to do their radio shows, which are a massive draw. The industry connections had naturally coalesced around Beats, and Apple trying to do it on their own would not have worked out so organically.
3) Sure, Apple could have bought Spotify, with its tens of millions of users, but changing it around to fit the Apple way would have led to a massive customer revolt. It was better to buy the younger Beats service, with its smaller base of customers, and rejig it into what Apple had in mind.
The problem with TV content so far is that releases have just been poor versions of existing content. "Let's produce our own Carpool Karaoke, Shark Tank, Morning Show." Where's the Apple Innovation?
Do the shows even have any purpose? Spend millions of dollars filming recording artists acting silly in a car. Hmm. From the stockholder perspective, is the goal to drive sales of Beats audio? How does it sell more Apple hardware? No pun intended, where is the car going?
Now reimagine Carpool Karaoke with various talented Apple Geniuses picking up the same musicians on the way to their jobs at the Apple Store. Without overdoing it, there's a great opportunity for product placement or mention. The "ordinary man" contrast makes the ride relatable to a wider audience, retaining the same surprise felt when superstars hopped in the car with James Corden.
That's just one example of how the Apple motion picture content might fit into the overall ecosystem. Right now, Apple is just throwing darts onto a billion dollar dartboard.
Do the shows even have any purpose? Spend millions of dollars filming recording artists acting silly in a car. Hmm. From the stockholder perspective, is the goal to drive sales of Beats audio? How does it sell more Apple hardware? No pun intended, where is the car going?
Now reimagine Carpool Karaoke with various talented Apple Geniuses picking up the same musicians on the way to their jobs at the Apple Store. Without overdoing it, there's a great opportunity for product placement or mention. The "ordinary man" contrast makes the ride relatable to a wider audience, retaining the same surprise felt when superstars hopped in the car with James Corden.
That's just one example of how the Apple motion picture content might fit into the overall ecosystem. Right now, Apple is just throwing darts onto a billion dollar dartboard.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OK, so to #3, how about Tidal? Or others? Beats was not the ONLY "smaller base" and/or "younger" option to "rejig into what Apple had in mind."
To #2, how about offering Trent Reznor about 20%, 30% or more than what he's being paid now to get him to leave relatively puny & "struggling" Beats and realize his dreams at Apple Music?
To #1A, does NOT the Apple brand appeal to "the young, urban, millennial" demographic already? If we ran a poll here and ask which brand most appeals to that group, does the Apple brand actually LOSE that contest?
To #1B: so the suggestion is that NOBODY else had as deep (and thus no one else could match) Beat's ties to the music business? For instance, had it been Tidal instead of Beats for #3, Jay-Z is not an equivalent of Dre and/or Jay-Z + Beyonce as a duo is not equivalent to Dre in terms of "ties to music industry" and/or reach? No? How about: Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Rihanna, Kanye West, Nicki Minaj, Daft Punk, Jack White, Madonna, Arcade Fire, Alicia Keys, Usher, Chris Martin, Calvin Harris, deadmau5, Jason Aldean and J. Cole vs. Dre + Iovine? Let me guess, still "No" right?
To #1C: PotAto: potato. I would bet very large if Apple had gone with Spotify and this same conversation was coming up now, the Spotify management team would be spun as creative masters vs. a whole variety of put downs about Beats, Dre & Iovine, etc. The one Apple bought is the ONE and only ONE right choice. I get it. And 3.5" screens are the "perfect" screen sizes for phones while Apple pushed those too.
I respect your opinion. For all I know your reasoning could be exactly and completely correct and mine could be entirely wrong. Or vice versa. Or something in between the two.
Last edited:
That all depends on how you defne that word.
If it is "wanting more than you have now," then we're all greedy.
If it is "taking something that you don't deserve," then Apple, nor most of us, are guilty of that. They produce something that people are willing to pay their prices for. If Apple makes a $1200 iPhone 8, and no one is willing to pay for it, then the market has worked how it supposed to. If Apple wants to expand their profitability through investing their money in a movie studio, then I don't see anything greedy about it.
First, no one gave or gives a **** about Tidal. It's a "me too" clown show. Beats had enormous brand credibility. Also, Tidal (launched October 2014, bought by Jay-Z January 2015) didn't exist when Apple bought Beats (August 2014), which would have made that choice a slight bit more difficult.
Sure, the Apple brand had/has similar demographic appeal, which was all the more reason to buy Beats. Ever heard of "brand synergy"?
And again, Tidal didn't exist when Apple bought Beats. You could argue Jay-Z buying Tidal was a reaction to Dr. Dre getting a big fat cheque from Apple.
Also, who is on the Spotify team? I can't say I've ever heard one person working there named.
Why are you still so upset about Apple buying Beats? It's been nothing but a positive.
Curious... wasn't the iPod (the mp3 player with the physical scroll wheel, as opposed to the iPod Touch that some people now call "iPod" for shorthand) a precursor to that? Even though the iPhone is apple's defining product, I recall the iPod also put them on the map, not to mention made them lots of money.