Apple Music Chief Oliver Schusser Adding Beats Hardware to His Responsibilities

[DeepIn2U]

Why would you put someone in charge of a streaming service to oversee a hardware product? Especially when Apple is a hardware company with thousands of hardware engineers? I should have also mentioned Apple making its own headphones. Another sign that Beats wasn’t about Apple wanting to use it to get into the headphones business but Apple wanting to reach a certain demographic. Rumors that Apple will be making over the ear headphones says they know a certain percentage of their customer base won’t buy Beats products.

I think you're very wrong about Apple's intensions for Beats. The most obvious was for streaming music competition, but you have to think Apple does not look for just 1 solution in any business it acquires, else $3 Billion US dollars would be extremely insane to spend for just that: possibly why so many people hated the move and still do. The majority of Beat's wealth back in 2014 was no the streaming business, it was the audio business and the incredible brand loyalty and marketing strength of it's brand. Even MKHD recognized this in a youtube piece.

Furthermore ... Apple is a software company. Their passionate about software and thus make their own hardware, which is why Steve Jobs has quoted this Alan Kay quote several times before: Steve Jobs Quoting Alan Kay - YouTubewww.youtube.com › watch

The software tweaks they've acquired from the Beats business ended up in: AirPods, AirPods Pro, Beats Studio 3/Solo 4, PowerBeats Pro, and HomePod. Prior to Beats acquisition Apple was quite content with EarPods ... that's it! Yes they have their own audio engineers but they worked on the Mac, iPad or iPhone speakers, not home audio or portable audio in terms of headphones.

Some more info on Oliver Schusser :

Billboard Profiles Oliver Schusser, the Head of Apple Music

Oliver Schusser, who now heads up Apple Music, recently sat down with Billboard to give some insight into how Apple Music works and his plans for...

www.macrumors.com

At a time when there was internal strife over Jimmy Iovine's move to an advisory role and stress over slowing iPhone sales, Schusser was responsible for dissolving the "internal divide of the Iovine era" and bringing renewed energy to ‌Apple Music‌, according to sources that spoke to Billboard. From Rachel Newman, global senior director of editoral at ‌Apple Music‌ and one of Schusser's employees:

"He knows more about most people's teams than they do themselves, in a good way. He knows people's birthdays. He just has the capacity to deal with the human side of being a leader, as much as he does the strategic and commercial sides. That is what makes him phenomenal."

When he took over ‌Apple Music‌, Schusser appointed trusted confidantes to lead new ‌Apple Music‌ initiatives and he created new editorial, artist relations, and music publishing divisions to "take better advantage of Apple's long-standing artist relationships."

He also aimed to introduce updates to ‌Apple Music‌ more frequently, debuting top 100 charts and new personalized playlists over the course of the last year, and he established partnerships with American Airlines, Verizon, and Amazon to boost subscriber growth. Record labels are happy with the changes that Schusser has implemented, and have called Apple more open and engaging under his leadership.

Wood was a longtime A&R executive at Geffen, DreamWorks and Interscope before gradually transitioning to Beats.

 

[trusso]

You decry the claim of Apple being called "dad brand" with, what you have to realize is, a text book "dad brand" quote. Intentional or happy accident? Either way, good stuff.

Quote? I quoted "dad brand," but beyond that, the words are my own.

Love the sarcastic laugh, though.

That's because by being an Apple user for 25 years, you are part of the "Dad generation" that's being implied in the earlier post!! Apple probably wants the generation who wasn't even born for the duration of time you've been using Apple products.

Yeah, except I'm in the first-half of my thirties myself. I simply happen to know what the hell I'm talking about.

Hmm. I thought Apple was started by 'hippies' or at least Jobs was. And his direction and the original phase was to go against the norm the 'old parents' image.

Awfully simplistic reading of history, but suit yourself.

Enjoy the kool-aid, y'all. We can agree to disagree, but let's stop with the circle-jerk.

 

[cmaier]

Always thought Apple should've bought Bose instead of Beats. Bose's design principles and aesthetic fit right in at Apple; now Apple has to enter a whole new venture of R&Ding their own stuff to phase out Beats. What a weird purchase, though I guess it was profitable?

Bose didn’t have a streaming music service, which is what they actually wanted.

 

[RickDEGH]

Some of the comments make it seem like people here know the internal works and dynamics of high end business better than anyone else who’s actually involved in it. You don’t know why Apple bought Beats? Well, (thank goodness) Apple knows why. It’s like when YouTubers, with no idea about what goes on in engineering a product, keep on babbling about how the notch is ugly and outdated and Apple should do away with it, like it only takes a paper, pencil and eraser to wish everything new. Save your hate for Beats for yourself and let Apple concentrate on doing business!

 

[RickDEGH]

Can someone explain to me why Apple bought Beats and how it benefits from it?
Apple is the bigger computer company and its the better known brand, so I am still confused to why.

Per that logic, only smaller and lesser known brands should buy bigger and better known ones? Need we explain why they bought Siri, Shazam, Dialog Semiconductor, Intel’s modem business, etc?

 

[chucker23n1]

Can someone explain to me why Apple bought Beats and how it benefits from it?
Apple is the bigger computer company and its the better known brand, so I am still confused to why.

They got:

• a fledgling music streaming service
• contacts to the industry
• one of the biggest headphones brands, with a target audience relevant to several Apple product lines (combining iPhones and Beats headphones is common)
• audio engineering talent, which likely had a hand in making AirPods happen

 

[SBlue1]

"Dad brand"...?

🤣 🤣 🤣

I've been an Apple user for almost 25 years, and this is the first time I've ever heard that phrase. Not once did I ever think Apple was "uncool" for being a computer company first and foremost.

My younger coworkers love Apple but think Apple Music is uncool.

 

[Osamede]

Why? At the time of acquisition, Beats had better market share in sales numbers, revenue, and profit. That's still true today. Beats also had a streaming service. Bose had a reputation for subpar sound-to-price ratio and a possibly worse reputation for being overly litigious. Not really sure what they would have brought to the table as Apple has it's own sound signature for it's AirPods and HomePod. Neither product sounds remotely Bose-y.

Bose probably would have been a helluva lot cheaper but the reasons for that seem readily apparent.

Apple did far better than Bose - they hired THE audio genius, Tom Holman:

Tomlinson Holman - Distinguished Engineer - Apple | LinkedIn

View Tomlinson Holman’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Tomlinson has 8 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Tomlinson’s connections and jobs at similar companies.

www.linkedin.com

Beats was not for anything other than the brand and young streaming customers.

 

[Romeo_Nightfall]

Always thought Apple should've bought Bose instead of Beats. Bose's design principles and aesthetic fit right in at Apple; now Apple has to enter a whole new venture of R&Ding their own stuff to phase out Beats. What a weird purchase, though I guess it was profitable?

? Really

Beats beated Apple into music streaming and headphones in a second! And you really doubt and ask if profitable?!

 

[chucker23n1]

Apple did far better than Bose - they hired THE audio genius, Tom Holman:

Tomlinson Holman - Distinguished Engineer - Apple | LinkedIn

View Tomlinson Holman’s profile on LinkedIn, the world's largest professional community. Tomlinson has 8 jobs listed on their profile. See the complete profile on LinkedIn and discover Tomlinson’s connections and jobs at similar companies.

www.linkedin.com

Beats was not for anything other than the brand and young streaming customers.

That was years before the Beats acquisition. He’s also in his 70s now. I doubt he’s actively running anything (and his title of “Distinguished Engineer” basically says “we still pay him because he’s pretty great, and sometimes he comes by for tea") any more. And, hey, he could've played a role in recommending the Beats purchase in the first place.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

Yeah, except I'm in the first-half of my thirties myself. I simply happen to know what the hell I'm talking about.

Lol, you sound a LOT more like someone in their late teens.... false certainty that every word you say is correct, petulant, etc.
Most of us- by the time we reached the first half of our 30’s had figured out that we actually don’t always know what the hell we’re talking about, & at least have amassed the small amount of wisdom to not say wincingly overconfident childish “humble brags”..... obviously, your mileage may vary.

 

[Osamede]

That was years before the Beats acquisition. He’s also in his 70s now. I doubt he’s actively running anything (and his title of “Distinguished Engineer” basically says “we still pay him because he’s pretty great, and sometimes he comes by for tea") any more. And, hey, he could've played a role in recommending the Beats purchase in the first place.

My point is: with that guy in house, neither Bose nor Beats was ever needed for technical audio expertise by Apple. Ever. Period.

 

[trusso]

Lol, you sound a LOT more like someone in their late teens.... false certainty that every word you say is correct, petulant, etc.
Most of us- by the time we reached the first half of our 30’s had figured out that we actually don’t always know what the hell we’re talking about, & at least have amassed the small amount of wisdom to not say wincingly overconfident childish “humble brags”..... obviously, your mileage may vary.

I realize it sounds that way, and I’ve no way to prove I’m not some dangerously certain narcissist. But I have nothing to prove to you anyhow. Just as I’m not jumping to conclusions about you, try and refrain from taking people’s internet postings as barometers of their soul. You and I are probably more alike than you think.

There comes a point, however, when despite the recognition that you/I don’t know everything, it becomes worthwhile to speak your mind instead of hiding in the shadows. There is a difference. If you take umbrage with my verbiage, that’s up to you.

 

[Justanotherfanboy]

A phrase like that would only be said by people who really like bass. Bose chooses a balanced sound signature and engineers all their hardware to support that. Abstractly, this is choosing a specific design that the company believes is best and puts all their effort into making the experience related to that design the best it can be. It quickly becomes clear how much this philosophy sounds like Apple's.

Nah. The people impressed by Bose sound are comparing it to their Walkman headphones or crappy free cellphone earbuds, the only audio they’ve ever experienced.
When you hear lower mid-quality for the 1st time ever... you think it must be the highest achievement possible, & will be floored- but if you ever heard Sennheiser, Grado, or Etymotic... that all falls apart. You can then recognize Bose for what it is: a headphone/speaker company that charges around 50% more than what an actual quality sound company does, for maybe 2/3 the fidelity.
I suppose if that’s your opinion of Apple- you can make a case for a match there... but neither Bose nor Beats are revered in any audiophile circles.

 

[Osamede]

Well put...

 

[chucker23n1]

My point is: with that guy in house, neither Bose nor Beats was ever needed for technical audio expertise by Apple. Ever. Period.

How does that work? You hire someone at age 65 and then they run the entire thing as a one-man show?

No. You hire them as an advisor, then have them help you find dozens to hundreds to build a team. Or to vet existing teams and buy one of them. And that’s what they ended up doing.

 

[Puppuccino]

That's because by being an Apple user for 25 years, you are part of the "Dad generation" that's being implied in the earlier post!! Apple probably wants the generation who wasn't even born for the duration of time you've been using Apple products.

I can’t speak for Apple prior to 2007 but certainly after that Apple has never been seen as ‘dad brand’ if that’s to say it’s just about geeky computer things.

The fact that it’s a staple of pop culture to take a photo in the mirror showing off the Apple logo on the back of an iPhone speaks volume.

It’s cool to own Apple.

 

[Osamede]

How does that work? You hire someone at age 65 and then they run the entire thing as a one-man show?

No. You hire them as an advisor, then have them help you find dozens to hundreds to build a team. Or to vet existing teams and buy one of them. And that’s what they ended up doing.

In the world of audio you could consider Tom Holman to be pretty much a generational talent. People line that set directon and come up with groundbreaking solutions when you have ambitious goals.

It’s laughable if anybody claims to know about audio technology, doesn’t understand who he is and thinks any one at Beats could even shine his shoes.

That waspurely a purchase of a brand liked by kids and some streaming customer base and existing record company streaming contracts as a bonus to jumpstart Apple Music.

 

[chucker23n1]

In the world of audio you could consider Tom Holman to be pretty much a generational talent. People line that set directon and come up with groundbreaking solutions when you have ambitious goals.

It’s laughable if anybody claims to know about audio technology, doesn’t understand who he is and thinks any one at Beats could even shine his shoes.

Idolizing people like that is almost invariably a bad idea. It's like the "10x programmer" myth. Or the idea that entrepreneurs built their empire entirely by themselves.

I'm sure he did some great things in his life, but I'm also sure he, in turn, stood on the shoulders of giants, and was helped not insignificantly by friends and colleagues.

And let's say Tom is 10x. Or 100x. Just how many x do you need to replace the entire engineering staff to produce AirPods, AirPods Pro, HomePod, the new audio system in the MacBook Pro and iPad Pro, etc.? He did that all by himself? Or he thought up the amazing ideas, and others "just" had to execute on them?

That waspurely a purchase of a brand liked by kids and some streaming customer base and existing record company streaming contracts as a bonus to jumpstart Apple Music.

I think it's absurd to think it was purely that. I'm sure the brand played a role, but Apple wasn't exactly suffering from poor brand reputation or being uncool with kids.

It's really curious how opinionated some people are on the Beats purchase having no merit beyond the "brand". Beats had 700 employees at time of purchase. Were they all cavemen compared to Holman?

 

[MacBH928]

Apple bought a music streaming service and Iovine’s links to the music industry. The headphone company was a package deal, albeit a fairly profitable one at that, so I doubt Apple is complaining.

How did they benefit from the streaming service if they launched their own streaming service?
[automerge]1587268491[/automerge]

Per that logic, only smaller and lesser known brands should buy bigger and better known ones? Need we explain why they bought Siri, Shazam, Dialog Semiconductor, Intel’s modem business, etc?

You make a nice rebuttal but...Siri cost only $100 and Shazam $400...Beats? 3 BILLION dollars. Also Apple was there in the digital music a decade before Beats probably with iPod and iTunes store, so they don't need Beats to teach them how to stream music. As for Intel's modem business, Apple NEVER built a modem so it makes sense especially when you consider that Intel a specialized CPU company, one of only very few in the world, not to mention the Intel Modem department was mainly working for Apple on the hopes the iPhones will be using their modems so it only makes sense.

 

[chucker23n1]

How did they benefit from the streaming service if they launched their own streaming service?

Apple Music is a rebranded Beats Music. (Which in turn was partially based on MOG.)

Also Apple was there in the digital music a decade before Beats probably with iPod and iTunes store, so they don't need Beats to teach them how to stream music.As for Intel's modem business, Apple NEVER built a modem so it makes sense especially when you consider that Intel a specialized CPU company, one of only very few in the world, not to mention the Intel Modem department was mainly working for Apple on the hopes the iPhones will be using their modems so it only makes sense.

Those are the same thing. You can grow expertise organically, or buy it. They decided to buy.

Intel’s Modem Business really wasn’t Intel’s either; they had bought that from Infineon (a Siemens spin-off).

 

[Osamede]

Idolizing people like that is almost invariably a bad idea. It's like the "10x programmer" myth. Or the idea that entrepreneurs built their empire entirely by themselves.

I'm sure he did some great things in his life, but I'm also sure he, in turn, stood on the shoulders of giants, and was helped not insignificantly by friends and colleagues.

And let's say Tom is 10x. Or 100x. Just how many x do you need to replace the entire engineering staff to produce AirPods, AirPods Pro, HomePod, the new audio system in the MacBook Pro and iPad Pro, etc.? He did that all by himself? Or he thought up the amazing ideas, and others "just" had to execute on them?

What's very clear is that Apple set out to innovate in this area, on a level far beyond what Beats was even capable of, and was generating patents already before buying Beats or releasing the products. Beats was a streaming service customer base and contract structure plus a kids brand for Apple to slap on its products.

Further, the current move to integrate hardware and content, strongly suggests that Apple is flattening out the investment trajectory for this segment of their business. They've made the hardware innovations and patents they feel are important to set a foundation for profitability, they are opening their system up to other companies hardware e.g Airplay on other brands TVs, and now they will just focus on generating revenues from their investment in a joined-up way.

Last but not least, if anyone has the misconception that "Beats" produced any hardware which remotely has any level of technical innovation that was worth purchasing , and that Tom Holman is just a Joe Blow in the audio world, then, that person doesn't understand much about audio engineering or its history either. I dont play the internet game of lack of knowledge being sufficient basis to discuss any and every topic. Later - am done with that laughable line of discussion.

 

[nylonsteel]

still using a beats audio branded hp laptop for home entertainment sys
cant believe its still running pretty good - has cool red backlit keys
gonna use it till it blows up