3 billion dollars is way too much for beats "technology", about 2.99 billion too much!
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 in Talks to Acquire Beats Electronics for $3.2 Billion [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
3 billion dollars is way too much for beats "technology", about 2.99 billion too much!
Well, I guess we're going to go from stock speakers and buds with no bass response to stock speakers and buds with blown out bass response...
All sarcasm aside, I really doubt the acquisition was about the hardware, which is pretty sub-par (and everyone knows it). They want the music library and streaming service, along with the user base -- nothing more. The crappy headphones are just a bonus, since the average consumer can barely turn on their phone, let alone tell the difference between 128 and 320.
It would be fun if they bought Shure or Senn though. People at head-fi and other sites would collectively **** their pants. Hell, I'd settle for a Klipsch or JBL acquisition.
EDIT: Also, because Iovine is an insider, I'm sure those streaming contracts are a pretty sweet deal. As the other story states, Apple probably wants him to spearhead the music services projects to flesh out contracts.
All sarcasm aside, I really doubt the acquisition was about the hardware, which is pretty sub-par (and everyone knows it). They want the music library and streaming service, along with the user base -- nothing more. The crappy headphones are just a bonus, since the average consumer can barely turn on their phone, let alone tell the difference between 128 and 320.
It would be fun if they bought Shure or Senn though. People at head-fi and other sites would collectively **** their pants. Hell, I'd settle for a Klipsch or JBL acquisition.
EDIT: Also, because Iovine is an insider, I'm sure those streaming contracts are a pretty sweet deal. As the other story states, Apple probably wants him to spearhead the music services projects to flesh out contracts.
Surely they already make their own ****** headphones? Why do they need to buy someone else who makes ****** ones?
I always thought and Tim Cook has confirmed that they want to give customers the best experience not enter the market for neck muscle training aids! Wtf!
Beats, Bose are both crass marketing exercises that rely on Barnums "there's one born every minute" maxim to sell their wares. Please Tim stop wasting shareholders money on huckster get rich quick purchases of companies like Beats.
----------
I' m jealous I only have 535's! For a $1000 they should be better than sex for your ears
----------
For $1000 a pop it had better be mind blowing aural sex
That doesn't make his conclusion any less valid, Bose and Beats sell mediocre products to very gullible technically unsophisticated consumers at huge markups and do so very successfully and good luck to them. B&W on the other hand are a well respected company renowned for their technically advanced audio products at price levels that range from affordable to stratospheric! At all levels the intention is to provide the best audio experience they can provide and at the same time make a reasonable profit. I suppose my post makes me an "Audiophile Snob" too
----------
Totally agree, only last week the WSJ reviewed the new speed bumped and begrudgingly allowed that the Air was easily the best laptop and even better value at its new $100 cheaper entry price!
----------
lol
What a coup by Beats, 3.2 billion?
I could've sworn HTC only paid like $300 million for a 50% stake just a few years ago.
I could've sworn HTC only paid like $300 million for a 50% stake just a few years ago.
Didn't read all the replieds but most of the ones I seen are Apple buying Beats for their technology, I think the Beats brand is much stronger than the technology that can provide to Apple in this deal.
Not a bad way to reenforce the Jocks (NFL) and Underground (DJs) territory. I am sure most of the athletes uses Apple products, and 99% of DJs uses Macbook as the spin table. Maybe that got something to do with it.
$3 Billions do seems a bit too much, however Apple got enough cash sitting around not generating any revenues.
Not a bad way to reenforce the Jocks (NFL) and Underground (DJs) territory. I am sure most of the athletes uses Apple products, and 99% of DJs uses Macbook as the spin table. Maybe that got something to do with it.
$3 Billions do seems a bit too much, however Apple got enough cash sitting around not generating any revenues.
I wouldn't even say it's technology honestly. I think Apple is really purchasing the music-contract power of Jimmy Lovine. Now brokering music deals should come relatively easy. The streaming stuff is just icing. Good move by Apple but goodness that's a lot of money.
No no please no!!!!! Why would Apple buy piece of crap like Beats?!?? There are many brands that are better suited for Apple's brand image and quality. Beats are for clueless. This is first time I'm saying this but Steve would've never allowed this to happen. Steve was audiophile which is totally opposite what Beats stands for.
Oddly acquired.
Apple has design.
Apple has audio.
Apple has branding.
If Apple wanted to, they could use 1/10th of that money and begin a line of headphones and audio gear which would shut down, or take a huge bite out of, many trendy headphone companies.
Perhaps Beats has worthy patents? I can only guess.
I understand that their music streaming service might have some value, and from a business standpoint their headphones sell in strong numbers as well.
But it just doesn't mesh with what Apple is about. If anything it plays up to the sneering idiots idea of what Apple is, i.e. overpriced junk.
But it just doesn't mesh with what Apple is about. If anything it plays up to the sneering idiots idea of what Apple is, i.e. overpriced junk.
didn't see that coming. Maybe it's a service to humanity and Apple buys beats only to discontinue these horrible headphones and force costumers into looking for decent ones.
I believe Apple is expensive but not overpriced and definitely not junk. Beats are definitely like you implied overpriced and junk.
I think many here just hate on Beats because it is popular to hate on the brand. Give it some thought and it makes sense: Beats is a very popular brand and sells well, so it is a good investment. The streaming service is a nice bonus. Who said that Apple cannot do what they want with the base now? They are not forced to continue the trend with base-heavy equipment only.
If there is something HTC phones with Beats are known for, it is their speaker quality and sheer volume. Beats is not an exclusively bad brand with only bloated base - just read some reviews, but above all: try some products before you join the bandwagon.
If there is something HTC phones with Beats are known for, it is their speaker quality and sheer volume. Beats is not an exclusively bad brand with only bloated base - just read some reviews, but above all: try some products before you join the bandwagon.
But you'd think that for $3.2 billion, Apple could develop their own streaming service, and then some…..Beats themselves bought online music service MOG, for a reported $10 million to $16 million, less than two years ago, so what has appreciated so much to warrant an increase of 200-320x? The addition of headphones and audio equipment?
It's a large amount even for Apple. People keep saying "they have 150 billion lying around", but most of that is foreign cash subject to hefty taxation, if repatriated to be used in the US.
I think there are a few flags popping up surrounding this rumor, and more than a few unanswered questions. If this rumor pans out, Apple must have some substantial changes in the works re their music offerings.
Last edited:
Beats had come a long way in terms of audio quality not B&W quality, but can easily be improved by a Apple acquisition.
Gruber (Daringfireball) writes that beats only has about 200,000 subscribers, which is not that big a userbase and shares his understanding that any streaming rights Beats owns, are not transferrable.
If those are true, then I'm left head-scratching a bit why this would make sense, at any price, let alone that kind of money.
If they started from scratch they could not add anything to the upcoming products when they launch, but if they acquire already established technology they can implement it easily and fine-tune software via updates.
I understand why. The less educated audiophiles out there think Beats brand is the best in the world. All Apple need to do is slap a 'Beats' branding on the headphones and they win.
I presume if this acquisition goes ahead we may see Macs with 'Beats' branded speakers too.
I've never seen such a one-sided thread on MacRumours, and I agree with everyone else. Beats is a an overhyped brand with a reputation for overpriced bass-heavy headphones that appeal to people with more money than sense.
The only value in the company is temporary, Beats don't actually do anyhing other than stick a trendy logo on cheap headphones, when means it isn't a brand that's going to last, it's just a fashion fad. In 5 - 10 years Beats is going to be out of fashion, and have a net worth of zero.
The only value in the company is temporary, Beats don't actually do anyhing other than stick a trendy logo on cheap headphones, when means it isn't a brand that's going to last, it's just a fashion fad. In 5 - 10 years Beats is going to be out of fashion, and have a net worth of zero.