I have the A7 and I'm in love with it. However I've previously had Bose headphones and trialled the Beats, Bose and B&W have my vote
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
I have the A7 and I'm in love with it. However I've previously had Bose headphones and trialled the Beats, Bose and B&W have my vote
I see nothing wrong with this company being purchased by Apple. They like name recognition.. And for anyone who thinks beats audio is a horrible idea for them consider this. The HTC one was praised for having excellent audio on it's phones. It's something I would love to see carried over to apples line of products. Who says they have to brand them as such I would say not... Apple never makes anyone out logos on it's product... Besides the U2 edition iPod back in the early days. I like this... Go for it apple! Make some moves before the competition does and make the audio quality even better!
This reminds me of an agent who has a free agent player and wants to drum up business by saying 'team x has a lot of interest and is close to signing the player'. My guess is Beats has some other negotiations going on with another company and want to push it through and are trying to play their hand by saying apple is ready to buy.
I see nothing that beats has that is worth purchasing, let alone spending $3.2B on. I'll be very concerned as a shareholder if this comes to fruition.
I see nothing that beats has that is worth purchasing, let alone spending $3.2B on. I'll be very concerned as a shareholder if this comes to fruition.
Trust me, I've tried out almost every brand of headphones there isbose is just as bad for 'sound profiles' as Beats are (i.e. EQ'd, curved response instead of proper flat profiles). Beats are just legendarily bass-heavy and high-forgetting.
Your last sentence is right on the money, however.
Not at all.
A silly postulation, since most Beats are just as expensive/more expensive than Bose.
The sound quality on Bose is laughable for the price.
Bose does have good noise-cancellation, even if their sound quality is mediocre.
Truth is, most people want sound with a colored frequency response... young kids go for bass-heavy because their hearing is still good (they can hear high frequencies clearly so less need to boost them) and they like the emphasis bass adds to popular music, which lacks in dynamic range due to over-compression and benefits from anything that adds some flavor; older listeners go for headphones with a high frequency emphasis, because they prefer detail, having lost hearing in the high frequency range and requiring more treble to discern detail because of it.
So Beats sound great for the kids due to the bass overload and emphasis; more esoteric headphones like Stax, HiFiMan, etc. all emphasize detail with a faster transient response as well as elevated treble... and are suited for older listeners. None of these headphones are neutral or better or even a better value than the next. Fwiw, a lot of pop music is so compressed that it sounds like garbage on high end systems, anyway... the dynamic range is so poor that it just sounds muddy and arguably sounds better on something like the Beats than on a high end system. (Try listening to My Beautiful Dark Twisted Fantasy, which is overrated anyway, through electrostatic headphones: yuck!)
Wearable tech is lucrative more for what technology says as a fashion statement than for what it offers the end user as regards functionality. Apple knows the value of design. Short life cycles are crucial in tech (look at how tv sales and prices have suffered since HD became commonplace and the push for 3d, 4k, and other gimmicks) and the best way to create a short life cycle is through design, not performance. This is the reason cars evolve stylistically so quickly. A unified wearable brand (consisting of Beats, iWatch, Google Glass competitor, etc.) for high end fashion/wearable tech is worth a lot so long as the products are adequately functional.
Notice that Apple sells Bose and Beats headphones primarily in its stores... Apple has always been about elegance and holistic solutions rather than tech specs and low prices. On the basis of specs, a MacBook Pro is as bad a purchase for the money as Beats headphones are, but we're not buying specs but rather products here, and publicly we are flaunting their design/fashionability, not their Mhz/Ghz/frequency response/transient response. Subcultures (audiophiles, nerds) exists for stacking up specs, but for actual products and for brand-building, fashion and elegance trump specs.
Last edited:
A few more things...
1. Streaming is a big deal long-term. Digital music purchase model decline is accelerating. Plus, all sides like the recurring revenue model associated with streaming. Quick back of the envelope. Let's say Apple can build out a streaming service + digital locker like Google's etc, charge $8.99 per month, and use it's massive clout and dedicated following to drum up 25 million subscriptions at some point--that would represent $2.7 billion in annual revenue. A simple cash flow model shows that if Beats within Apple manages to generate a "mere" $100 million in free cash flow starting the end of year one and "only" grows that business 10% per year over the next 10 years, it's a break-even purchase. Apple surely believes it can do much better over the intermediate to long-term. Why mess around with your own technology (and all the mistakes and learning curves that come with that) when you can enter practically immediately and focus quickly on your overwhelming advantage: the nearly billion people worldwide that have their credit cards on file with Apple, not to mention the intense brand loyalty.
2. Apple has been, charitably, less than stellar in internet services. Commentary here and elsewhere suggests Apple engineers can built a streaming service from scratch and experience instant success. iTunes Radio proves that's not necessarily the case. Most music executives are disappointed with the trajectory. The Beats streaming technology works (well enough) and the Beats executives have a strong track-record with and connection to the music industry.
1. Streaming is a big deal long-term. Digital music purchase model decline is accelerating. Plus, all sides like the recurring revenue model associated with streaming. Quick back of the envelope. Let's say Apple can build out a streaming service + digital locker like Google's etc, charge $8.99 per month, and use it's massive clout and dedicated following to drum up 25 million subscriptions at some point--that would represent $2.7 billion in annual revenue. A simple cash flow model shows that if Beats within Apple manages to generate a "mere" $100 million in free cash flow starting the end of year one and "only" grows that business 10% per year over the next 10 years, it's a break-even purchase. Apple surely believes it can do much better over the intermediate to long-term. Why mess around with your own technology (and all the mistakes and learning curves that come with that) when you can enter practically immediately and focus quickly on your overwhelming advantage: the nearly billion people worldwide that have their credit cards on file with Apple, not to mention the intense brand loyalty.
2. Apple has been, charitably, less than stellar in internet services. Commentary here and elsewhere suggests Apple engineers can built a streaming service from scratch and experience instant success. iTunes Radio proves that's not necessarily the case. Most music executives are disappointed with the trajectory. The Beats streaming technology works (well enough) and the Beats executives have a strong track-record with and connection to the music industry.
Maybe they are going to do what I would if I had billions of dollars to spend. Buy Beats, and kill it off for the sake of everyone on the planet.
It would be a mercy killing.
Every time I see someone walking around with these wrapped around their neck, I so badly want to take it as an invitation to "beat" them. These are seriously the best way to spot a douchebag since Tool and Ed Hardy shirts.
It would be a mercy killing.
Every time I see someone walking around with these wrapped around their neck, I so badly want to take it as an invitation to "beat" them. These are seriously the best way to spot a douchebag since Tool and Ed Hardy shirts.
Apple beats
Seems to me.. Beats are a great match for Apple in lots of ways!
* Bringing their streaming service in to the fold + who knows what engineering talent & intellectual property they have (or products in the pipeline)
* Jimmy Iovine pitching music streaming to Steve Jobs 10 years ago and responsible for building one hell of a brand in arguably a pretty niche sector. Whether you like the products or not that's the sort of driven character who melds pretty nicely with Apple's culture
* They produce great campaigns (that show their aspirations as a company?) showcasing personality & creativity - this video screams Apple? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz7HnQZ2FPc
* Technology has entered/is entering the jewellery & fashion industries. A lot of Apple's hires & developments are related to these at the moment
* They have huge mindshare
* They're a brand that a subset of people love to hate (much like Apple) for some reason!
Seems to me.. Beats are a great match for Apple in lots of ways!
* Bringing their streaming service in to the fold + who knows what engineering talent & intellectual property they have (or products in the pipeline)
* Jimmy Iovine pitching music streaming to Steve Jobs 10 years ago and responsible for building one hell of a brand in arguably a pretty niche sector. Whether you like the products or not that's the sort of driven character who melds pretty nicely with Apple's culture
* They produce great campaigns (that show their aspirations as a company?) showcasing personality & creativity - this video screams Apple? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hz7HnQZ2FPc
* Technology has entered/is entering the jewellery & fashion industries. A lot of Apple's hires & developments are related to these at the moment
* They have huge mindshare
* They're a brand that a subset of people love to hate (much like Apple) for some reason!
Beats must be really, really bad then.
I've read some audiophile forums before, and no one ever agrees on anything - except for one thing - they all agree that Bose is the worst.
Completely agreed.
It seems clear that record companies won't play ball with Apple in terms of on-demand streaming, so this might be Apple's way of buying themselves into the game, since Beats already has the contracts established.
Because they fit the Apple model. They are able to convince people to pay a premium price for their product. That said, if Apple did this 3 years ago, it would have made more sense. Doing it now when the valuation in through the roof and the competition is greater strikes me as not the best move.
Because it would cost Apple $5 billion + to buy Spotify considering there's talk a Spotify IPO will happen in the $6 billion to $8 billion range. Spotify was valued at $4 billion in a financing round last year.
except the big difference is Apple is a premium priced product that is also very high quality. Beats is a premium priced product that to a knowledgable person like most people here, is very tacky and all about marketing, rather than a high quality product. The comparable brands people here think of are bose and monster. That doesn't sound like a very good purchase to me...
if Apple wanted to get the streaming IP, why couldn't they buy a better company like spotify, rdio instead? Or if they want accessories, they can buy one of the premium headphone makers. Just don't see what beats will offer them.
It would not be surprising to me if Beats managed to get a great streaming license deal that the record companies would not give Apple, so Apple sees it as a better investment to outright buy beats while at the same time eliminating a future competitor
Indeed. It has nothing to do with headphones an everything to do with business: block and tackle.
Probably find Samsung were about to get their hands in 'Beats' pants...
The brand "beats" is synonymous with headphones, like xerox was to copying and fedex is to courier services. Apple with surely put it's technology behind it and make it a premium product if they do indeed purchase. They are more than likely buying it for the world wide brand recognition.