Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Playing 'Catch Up' With Beats Acquisition as Music Labels Push for Subscription Services

xVeinx said:
It's called device lock in. They aren't looking into developing cloud services, AWS/Compute, etc. for anyone or everyone. They are a hardware company filling out an ecosystem to support their own products. The reason for iTunes on Windows is because iPods were often used by owners of Window's machines. iTunes may become web accessible in the future, but it wasn't the goal initially.
Click to expand...

This is what got Microsoft into trouble. Everything had to be tied to Windows. Sometimes, you need to be the best without tying yourself to an existing business.
 
For the USA market only. # from RIAA

Streaming Revenue 2011: $650 million USD
Streaming Revenue 2012: $1.0328 billion USD (up 59%)
Streaming Revenue 2013: $1.439 billion USD (up 39.3%)

2014 is projected to be around $1.9-$2.0 billion USD for streaming

Streaming Revenue > Download Revenue in about 2 years time.


Casssete --> CD --> downloads --> streaming
 
So Apple bought the company that values the user experience of its music streaming service apps and sells costy well designed hardware to hear the music they stream, and anyone is surprised…
 
Zerilos said:
The headphone provide a safety net. Beats makes around $400 million in profits off headohones. As a result, this deal pays for itself in less than a decade on headphone sales alone.
Click to expand...

That is if they can somehow maintain that kind of profit for 10 years
 
Cigsm said:
You couldn't be more wrong. If you're talking about indie artists, most don't have the money to go out on tour because nobody wants to buy their albums.

If you're talking about major label artists, again wrong. The biggest chunk of their change comes from licensing and product endorsements.
Click to expand...

All you say is I'm wrong. You have no clue at all. Small bands are touring now more than they have in years because that's how they make money. Major label artists make the majority of their money upfront, not through residuals from licensing and endorsements.
 
subsonix said:
Exactly, you made some assumptions, which was what the fuzz was about, I just quoted what you said earlier. So, yes you said that. Correct.



I do understand that. I don't see how Beats fits into the type of companies they usually buy, which is what this discussion is about.
Click to expand...

You don't see it, because you are making assumptions. You should stop doing that.

----------
subsonix said:
They are adding something new that Apple didn't have at the time of the buy.



They already have the technology. If the problem is something else, and they are buying "users" or "subscribers" then that's pretty weak imo.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I would advise you not make that assumption.
 
apple patents for headphones

i think these patents can be interesting too.

Apple Patent Reveals Future Headphone-Speaker Hybrid:
http://blog.laptopmag.com/apple-patent-reveals-future-headphone-speaker-hybrid

Apple’s latest patent application: Smart headphones that recognize your voice:
http://venturebeat.com/2014/04/03/apples-latest-patent-smart-headphones-that-recognize-your-voice/

Apple patents headphones that can monitor your vital stats.
The device would be able to track your heart rate, temperature, perspiration, and more.:
http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-patents-headphones-that-can-monitor-your-vital-stats/
 
bigchrisfgb said:
People keep knocking this purchase but I've came up with some pretty good reasons as to why Apple may have bought Beats.
4. iDevices:
Beats speakers on the HTC M7 and M8 are said to be the best speakers out there for mobile devices. Packard Bell also have a deal with Beats for using Beats speakers in their computers. Apple could implements these speakers into their iDevices and possibly their Mac line ups, improving their speakers in said devices which would take away a huge selling point in the other manufacturers devices, particularly HTC.
Click to expand...

I'm android user too, and everybody has used both HTC One M7 (w BEATS) and HTC One m8 (New Gen w/o Beats instead new in-house developed amplifier and spakers) will say you THE NEW ONE M8 W/O BEATS IS BY FAR A SUPERIOR AUDIOPHILE DEVICE, LOUDER, CLEARER.
 
nexusrule said:
So Apple bought the company that values the user experience of its music streaming service apps and sells costy well designed hardware to hear the music they stream, and anyone is surprised…
Click to expand...

Well designed as in cosmetics (which historically has been a priority to Apple) but poorly designed in terms of audio quality. Hopefully Apple improves the fidelity but I wouldn't hold my breath.
 
Warbrain said:
All you say is I'm wrong. You have no clue at all. Small bands are touring now more than they have in years because that's how they make money. Major label artists make the majority of their money upfront, not through residuals from licensing and endorsements.
Click to expand...


I have in clue at all? Strange. I thought the last 4 years at a major label would have been my clue. I thought actually signing these deals myself would have been my clue. But please, do continue to talk about things you know nothing about.

I'll refrain from picking apart your examples one by one to save you the embarrassment.
 
Mago said:
I'm android user too, and everybody has used both HTC One M7 (w BEATS) and HTC One m8 (New Gen w/o Beats instead new in-house developed amplifier and spakers) will say you THE NEW ONE M8 W/O BEATS IS BY FAR A SUPERIOR AUDIOPHILE DEVICE, LOUDER, CLEARER.
Click to expand...


Maybe true; however Beats was not responsible for the speakers on either device. Beats provided the sound drivers, which could only be taken advantage of if the listener was using high quality headphones or speakers. As good as the speakers are on the M7 and M8, the are not a substitute for high end speakers.
 
dan110 said:
I can't help but feel like the is a bad idea. Unless, there's something both companies know about that is not public knowledge.
Click to expand...

Unless there's something both companies know about that isn't public knowledge? Unless?

Do you think companies disclose the bulk of their business data to the public? (Hint: they only disclose as little as they can get away with). Of course both companies have insider information that isn't disclosed to the public. It's why "insider trading" laws exist so those "inside" the company with access to undisclosed company information can't personally profit off that knowledge.
 
Is there a universal law on what good headphone fidelity is? I can understand a physical linear scale - faster, cooler, smaller, lighter, brighter etc. But isnt each person's preference in how a sound sounds entirely subjective? So, if a large number of people are paying top dollar for Beats (or whoever) then who can say that it is not the top game in town..
 
tkermit said:
Why listen to it at all, though? I'm a bit older than you, but I don't feel like I'm missing anything by simply skipping the "cool trendy [yet ultimately forgettable] music" (in so far as that is possible)... :)
Click to expand...

Like I said, remember Gangnam Style? It was nice to hear for some time and people just went crazy in the club when that one came. Same thing for today's 'Selfie Song' it's fun to hear and all that... But that's music I just don't want on my music library after the hype is over :)
 
Patriot24 said:
Subscription services aren't bad for the consumer if they provide the right amount of value in contrast with the alternatives.

With Beats or Spotify, you pay $9.99 per month, roughly the cost of one album purchase, for access to tens of millions of songs. There are no restrictions on play counts, skipping, etc. If you enjoy music and were planning on purchasing 10-12 albums per year, this is an amazing deal.
Click to expand...

Unless the albums you were planning on buying are not available or you don't always have an internet connection, so you want to listen offline, but can't because it's a subscription service. Even with the services that offer offline access means that you have to remember to put the songs on your device before going offline.

No, the better choice is something like Google or Amazon's solution, buy the music and upload it to the cloud via the matching service. Then it's accessible online or offline.

Also, on average I pay about $4.99-$5.99 an album....how? I buy the physical CDs from Amazon (usually cheaper than the digital copies and they come with digital copies via AutoRIP).
 
re: desire to rent vs. own

I think you may be on to something here, but I have to say I find this trend disturbing. Not even referring specifically to subscription-based music or movie downloads ... but in the overall sense. Maybe I'm way off base, but I can't help think there's something sinister underlying this change in mentality.

The younger generation is also the group struggling the most to find decent jobs, and the most burdened with massive student loan debt. Is all of this really just a "coping mechanism" for the reality that they likely won't ever have the financial means to buy many things?

I've definitely seen this in action with such things as owning a vehicle or a house, with the 20-somethings I work with at my job every day. Most of them will tell you they have no interest in owning a car. They just use public transportation, bicycles, or pay to rent cars as needed from services like ZipCar.

IMO though, the bad part about this is, these are all things that SOMEBODY must own, and that somebody is profiting off the backs of the people doing the renting. In the end, the renter stops forking over money and he/she has *nothing* to show for it. The owner who did the renting possesses the physical products of value AND all the money he/she earned doing the renting.

We're really training a whole generation to view renting things as saving money and "easier" than owning them -- when really, we're discouraging them from being responsible with taking care of their own things, and discouraging them from investing in tangible goods with long-term resale value.


Frankied22 said:
I think it all comes down to the growing desire for newer generations to just rent stuff, and own little to nothing. I am 25 and I grew up buying CD's and then ripping them. When the iPod came out I was so ecstatic and would load it up with all my purchased music. I used to buy DVD's of my favorite movies and then I repurchased a lot of them on Blu-Ray later down the road. Now, I couldn't be bothered to drop $10+ a month on CD's or digital albums. Nor can I be bothered to spend $14-30 on blu-rays. What is the point of "owning" all this stuff? It just fills up space, and the reality is if we got to the point where we could pass it down to our children or whoever that they probably wouldn't even be interested in it. How many of you like the books, movies, or music your parents listen to? Not only will they not care about our likes, but they won't want to store it all. If I am in my twenties and am already done with most physical media, I can't even imagine what my children's lives will be like. Music and movies are so perfect for digital distribution because its all about the content. You can just stream music or stream movies/tv shows. You don
t need to hold the case in your hands to appreciate it. You know how many of my blu-rays I have watched more than 3 or 4 times? Probably 10% of them.

Why spend $10+ per album when you can just pay $9.99 a month (or $4.99 a month for students on Rdio/Spotify) and have access to millions of songs. You would be amazed at how many new artists you discover using these streaming services. Also, you can download songs to your device for offline playback so it's not like you have to be online at all times to listen. It would cost me hundreds of dollars to purchase all the albums I listen to on a streaming service. At some point it is just worth it to pay a monthly subscription. The same value can be said about Netflx (granted they take forever to get new episodes or movies).

Right now you can listen to any song, album, playlist, or radio station on Spotify desktop/web for free with ads. On Spotify mobile you can shuffle artists albums and listen to radio stations for free with ads. On Rdio desktop/web you can listen to radio stations ad free and any song/album for free with ads. On Rdio mobile you can listen to radio stations for free without ads and shuffle artists songs for free with ads. That is pretty hard to compete against when all you offer is buying individual songs for $1.29, albums for $9.99+, and radio stations for free with ads (unless you pay $24 a year for iTunes Match)
Click to expand...
 
Cigsm said:
I have in clue at all? Strange. I thought the last 4 years at a major label would have been my clue. I thought actually signing these deals myself would have been my clue. But please, do continue to talk about things you know nothing about.

I'll refrain from picking apart your examples one by one to save you the embarrassment.
Click to expand...

You're a funny one. Go on, keep spreading ********.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back