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

Apple's Purchase of Beats May Not Be Finalized Until Next Week

subsonix said:
Well that doesn't make much sense to me, how is simply owning Beats helping making Apple "cool"? It's two separate brands.
Click to expand...

I don't buy the rationale either. I was just restating what I think the poster was saying regarding buying Beats vs an audiophile brand.
 
IF they wanted good headphones they could have just bought AudioTechnica. Are they going to let Beats keep its name?
 
I guess that's completely thrown out the theory of 'An Apple A Day Keeps The Doctor Away'!
 
I wonder what Steve Jobs' reaction to Dr. Dre's 'first billionaire in hip-hop' drunken video outburst would have been.

I bet he would have dropped all talks for the acquisition right then and there.
 
rohitp said:
This is a colossal waste of cash. Headphones that cost $5 to make being sold for hundreds. Sorry but this company has no real value to it.

No audiophile thinks Beats "headphones" are worth the high price. A $30 pair of Sony's are better. All hype with cute packaging.

As an Apple shareholder you are just watching Cook burn money.

Huffpo:
Click to expand...

Audiophiles can't usually tell the difference between high quality and mediocre quality. Also nobody cares if you own 2 AAPL shares. Finally, even if they cost $5 to make, you still have R&D costs, employees, royalties etc.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
That's on a market cap basis which has more to do with fairy dust than actual revenue and profits. If we are going by which stock is sexiest to traders, sure Apple wins. If we are going by actual revenue and profit, no Apple isn't close worldwide.
Click to expand...

You can't arbitrarily decide what someone else was referring to when you say they were wrong. The market capitalization angle is frequently mentioned on this forum, so it was obvious that they were referring to that.
 
The beat goes on!

appleinvite.jpg
 
slu said:
HTC doesn't have anything to do with Beats anymore.

Also, I thought the OP had an interesting idea. A "Beats" Phone running iOS at a lower price point would be an interesting addition to that market. And the public would LOVE a cheap iPhone. The 5c was not a cheap iPhone. It was an expensive iPhone in a plastic shell. If Apple sold something at the Nexus 5 or Moto X price point, it would sell like crazy.
Click to expand...

That's funny because the 5c outsold android flagship models. Why do they need a cheaper iPhone? The "expensive plastic" one seems to have done well.
 
slu said:
HTC doesn't have anything to do with Beats anymore.

Also, I thought the OP had an interesting idea. A "Beats" Phone running iOS at a lower price point would be an interesting addition to that market. And the public would LOVE a cheap iPhone. The 5c was not a cheap iPhone. It was an expensive iPhone in a plastic shell. If Apple sold something at the Nexus 5 or Moto X price point, it would sell like crazy.
Click to expand...

I thought HTC sold only 50% of their 51% stake in Beats.

----------
SPNarwhal said:
Really don't think that's what happened; I think it was circumstantial.
I genuinely feel that the 5C did not sell as well for the same reason that the 4 didn't sell as well after the 4S was released : The 5C was the iPhone 5. People didn't buy the 5S over the 5C because of the 5C's plastic shell, they bought the 5S because it was the next and newest generation of iPhone, opposed to the 5C which was last generation's iPhone in a new outfit.

Rather than saying people didn't buy the 5C because it has a plastic shell, it seems more logical to say that people didn't go out and
1.) Increase sales of the iPhone 5 just because it now comes in colors, and
2.) Choose the iPhone 5 over the new 5S model because the iPhone 5 now comes in colors.

If the 5C was the 5S in a plastic shell, I bet you that majority of sales would be on the 5C side; I don't think people care that much about the plasticity, more so than they just prefer better specs.
Click to expand...

The 5C failed because it looked like crap, had basically the same price, and fewer of the features of the 5S.
 
seamer said:
I thought HTC sold only 50% of their 51% stake in Beats.

----------



The 5C failed because it looked like crap, had basically the same price, and fewer of the features of the 5S.
Click to expand...

By what criteria is it a failure? The criteria you mentioned don't necessarily make it a failure.
 
subsonix said:
Yeah, you are missing that nothing of that nature, including the deal it self has officially been revealed. So what is pretty clear to you, is all based on speculation on a rumor.
Click to expand...

I guess I set myself up for that - I'll try again. Can anyone explain to me why it seems like the majority of people commenting about the possibility of this acquisition assume it's about Apple apparently being interested in spending 3.2 billion for mediocre headphones/branding (that don't really resemble Apple's style), and not the possibility of a plug and play streaming music service whose founder has significant ties to the music industry?
 
musika said:
I wonder what Steve Jobs' reaction to Dr. Dre's 'first billionaire in hip-hop' drunken video outburst would have been.

I bet he would have dropped all talks for the acquisition right then and there.
Click to expand...

I doubt Steve would have even entered into negotiations.

  • He would have said, can :apple: make better Music curation than what they have?
  • Can :apple: make better high end head phones than them?
  • Can :apple: get popular celebs to endorse them?

If the answer to the list is yes, then he'd just have :apple: do it.
 
Lets sum it up and shake hands officially.
I hope soon we will see the revamped iTunes with streaming integration. I believe Apple in cooperation with Beats streaming program can do it better than Spotify.
This acquisition was all for this about.
 
subsonix said:
Well that doesn't make much sense to me, how is simply owning Beats helping making Apple "cool"? It's two separate brands.

And if Apple owns Beats, teenagers will like Apple?
Click to expand...
People, this discussion is already beaten to death. Apple is not pursuing Beats as a company because of their headphones. Regardless if it's a good deal or not, they acquiring Beats because of Jimmy Iovine's influence in the music industry and their music streaming licences. Wake up!
 
perealb said:
People, this discussion is already beaten to death. Apple is not pursuing Beats as a company because of their headphones. Regardless if it's a good deal or not, they acquiring Beats because of Jimmy Iovine's influence in the music industry and their music streaming licences. Wake up!
Click to expand...

Not saying that you are wrong, but source? It's basically a popular pet theory. :cool:
 
seamer said:
The 5C failed because it looked like crap, had basically the same price, and fewer of the features of the 5S.
Click to expand...

How is selling more 5c's than any other phone on the market (excluding the 5s) a failure? How is selling more 5c's in the middle price tier than they did the year previously with the 4s, a failure? I don't think you understand what failure means.

The only reason why Apple overestimated iPhone 5c sales was because more people bought the iPhone 5s than they expected instead. Upselling isn't a failure either. Apple sold a record number of iPhones in total, more 5c's than any non-Apple phone, and more 5c's than it sold iPhone 4s' in the year prior. By all measures, it was an unequivocal success. That success was simply overshadowed by the unexpected dominance of the 5s.

----------
perealb said:
People, this discussion is already beaten to death. Apple is not pursuing Beats as a company because of their headphones. Regardless if it's a good deal or not, they acquiring Beats because of Jimmy Iovine's influence in the music industry and their music streaming licences. Wake up!
Click to expand...

They are buying Beats for everything they have (except for the silly cross-branding deals that will be killed). Wake up!
 
perealb said:
People, this discussion is already beaten to death. Apple is not pursuing Beats as a company because of their headphones. Regardless if it's a good deal or not, they acquiring Beats because of Jimmy Iovine's influence in the music industry and their music streaming licences. Wake up!
Click to expand...

Doesn't appear to me that Apple is all that concerned about music license. If Jimmy Iovine has influence in the TV/movie industry that I might see the reason. Since they are trying to put together some sort of service for Apple TV. As far as music goes, I am not sure if they are "3 Billion dollars" concerned.
 
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