This says quite a lot about how Apple views the Beats brand. Other companies like HP were willing to use the Beats brand in advertising their products, like HP which sold laptops with Beats audio. Apple absorbed Beats, which on the hardware side were valuable for their name and image, and doesn't believe that name or image is that valuable. But since they're now the same company, it's even stranger. Killing the Beats brand wouldn't make sense financially in the short term, and yet I suspect Apple would like to due to their purist leanings. On the other hand, they acknowledge the brand in the Beats 1 radio station name. And they are offering free Beats headphones to university students with purchase of Apple products. But Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre have made no public appearances at Apple events since WWDC 2015. I still don't see how the purchase made that much sense. Apple was inept at transitioning to a streaming service, but they haven't, in my experience, been great at it with Apple Music. Spotify works like iTunes used to, which is why it's so great. Apple doesn't get what they used to get so well. I think they showed that in buying Beats. In buying Soundjam MP, they made a much wiser purchase. And they knew that was great—and didn't keep the name (it became iTunes). They're reluctant to give up the Beats name for obvious reasons, but with this AirPods it also seems like they're reluctant to taint new innovations with a brand they maybe realize wasn't that great.
you'll be lucky if those airpods will cost you $100
