It failed because the masses didn't want it in the manner it was delivered.
It is pet theory. It's all I have.Not saying that you are wrong, but source? It's basically a popular pet theory.![]()
Yeah, Apple is not dumb. If the headphones are selling big bucks they will take it but I don't think that's their reason for buying Beats. That's why it makes sense if they keep that business as is without incorporating it into the Apple brand.They are buying Beats for everything they have (except for the silly cross-branding deals that will be killed). Wake up!
Are you from this planet? Of course they worry about that. They apparently had a hard time getting iTunes Radio together. Everybody gives an extremely hard time to Apple because everybody knows how much money Apples has and how much they need something if they ask for it. To get something like Spotify (not Pandora) they can make a shortcut by purchasing Beats. Apparently they can transfer all their license agreements to Apple - this is a big deal for Apple.Doesn't appear to me that Apple is all that concerned about music license.
Beats have the same rep as Bose....HA HA HA HA HA HA! No, both are frowned down in relation to performance/price in the Audiophile community, but Beats have a far worse rep, audiophiles care about sound quality. Audiophiles do not like Bose cause they know they can get a so much better setup for the same amount, this is their biggest issue.
I only brought up BOSE in relation to Brand reputation, BOSE are like Apple, quality products that are overpriced, people who buy Apple, most probably also have a BOSE sound system, they appeal to the the non audiophiles with cash to burn. Great support, and easy to setup .... like Apple. The marriage of these two from a branding point of view makes sense.
So you're suggesting that due to ignorance, BEATS are a good headphones?
Since you brought up Audiophiles, I assume you have some knowledge in this area, please explain to me how Beats produce good quality music. My only pros of them are looks and mid bass, rest is a Con.
In fact there is no one headphone that rules them all, it all depends on the music, you can buy a Senn HD800 and boy will you be in for some disappointment depending on the music you choose. Also you need the right AMP, you match the AMP + Headphone depending on the music you wish to listen to etc etc etc.
I have to ask which Senn do you own?
....HD598's for relaxing. Are my choices the best?
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?
Personally I don't believe this deal is about headphones. It's like when you get married to a single mom... you marry the mom but the kids come with the deal.
Yeah, Apple is not dumb. If the headphones are selling big bucks they will take it but I don't think that's their reason for buying Beats. That's why it makes sense if they keep that business as is without incorporating it into the Apple brand.
Are you from this planet? Of course they worry about that. They apparently had a hard time getting iTunes Radio together. Everybody gives an extremely hard time to Apple because everybody knows how much money Apples has and how much they need something if they ask for it. To get something like Spotify (not Pandora) they can make a shortcut by purchasing Beats. Apparently they can transfer all their license agreements to Apple - this is a big deal for Apple.
I don't completely disagree with you but we do have differences of opinion. See my comment below.The headphones and the Beats brand are not an afterthought in this deal. When I said they were buying Beats for everything, I meant it. They want Jimmy Iovine's influence, they want the streaming service and its licences, and they want the Beats brand, and designs. Beats headphones won't continue to sell merely because they are profitable. No, I'd expect Beats products to be part of Apple's product strategy, not an afterthought. If they simply wanted Jimmy Iovine, there'd probably be cheaper ways of doing it.
If you take a pair of Beats headphones, slap an Apple logo on it, and give it a $200 price tag, I don't think it would sell as well as the original Beats product. They are an established brand in the market that appeals to a different segment than the typical Apple customer. I'd expect Apple to leverage that strength, not let it languish. I'd expect the beats brand to expand into other market segments in time. Just like Toyota has Scion, Apple will have Beats. The only difference is that Beats is successful.
I imagine that if they have been facing some roadblocks dealing with the music industry, this might have been a good move to go around it. Remember, Beats is a very profitable company. They had $1B revenue in 2012 and an estimated $1.4B in 2013. In less than 3 years, Apple gets Beats for free. Sounds like a good investment to me.And Apple somehow managed to launch iTunes radio didn't they. And cost them no where near half a billion.
If 3 Billion takes care of the US market, then how about UK, EU, China, Taiwan, Japan, Korea... coz now everybody knows Apple is willing to pay a few billion just for some well connected human being.
"should of"? Talk about embarrassing yourself.
I should be embarrassed because I put should of instead of should have? Andre can barely speak, but I should be embarrassed? Thats funny...
Since you judge people by their past, you were totally okay with Steve Jobs being a deadbeat dad and a thief?![]()
Hey, at least you looked it up, there's hope for you yet.
For someone who can barely speak, he certainly has built several pretty solid businesses and seems to have the respect of a whole industry. I don't like his music, but it's clear the man is smart and knows something about business. If I say I think you're racist, you'll probably tell me that some of your best friends are black...
1. Both companies have a bad rep in audiophile communities. The criticism of both is the same: Equal or better quality sound can be had for far less cost. The rep is the same. You can debate to what degree, but they are essentially the same - a bad rep.
2. You say Bose appeals to the non-audiophile with cash to burn. One could reasonably argue that is an apt description of a Beats customer.
3-4. Never once did I say Beats were good or bad. I've never used them so to denigrate a product I've never used seems pointless. I also never claimed they produce good quality music (I'm not sure what you misinterpreted from my quote). I did say musical taste is subjective. Quality sound to you may be crappy to someone else. You know, because different people hear things differently.
5. I never claimed to be an audiophile. I did quote audiophile consensus on Bose. As for my Senn kit: OCX 685's for working out, U320's for gaming, and HD598's for relaxing. Are my choices the best? For me, yes. For someone else...
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!
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?
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.
Quick answers.
{snip}
In the future before you stick up for BEATs , I would suggest you listen to a pair. Yes music taste is subjective, though ignorance is not an excuse either.
Happy to discuss further once you listen to all three as I suggested. Cause your just using other people view points to form an argument . I have listened to all three. My Senn setup is miles and miles ahead of the BOSE I own, and BEATs are plain awful.
Quick answers.
1. Check again, there are a few BOSE products that audiophile appreciate to a point , the same cannot be said about BEATS. Take the soundlink mini
2. Check out the price of BOSE entertainment setups $$$$$$$. BEATs does home entertainment setups to equal BOSE ..... Nah!!!
3-4. Try them, compare then to your Senn and comeback and comment. Your tune will change big time. Compare them to BOSE.....
5. Take your Senn 598 to apple store with your source , try a pair of BEATs and BOSE in the Same price range , And come to your own opinion and not what you read on audiophile forums . I bet you that your impression of BEATs will change in a huge way!!!!!
In the future before you stick up for BEATs , I would suggest you listen to a pair. Yes music taste is subjective, though ignorance is not an excuse either.
Happy to discuss further once you listen to all three as I suggested. Cause your just using other people view points to form an argument . I have listened to all three. My Senn setup is miles and miles ahead of the BOSE I own, and BEATs are plain awful.
I don't think you understood me. My thoughts kind of align with what you said. Except that, I believe, the main reason they bought Beats is not because of their headphones. They would not pay 3.2 billion dollars for Iovine and the music licenses. That's not what I said. I understand Beats is very profitable. You didn't se my last post. There I say that Beats "had $1B revenue in 2012 and an estimated $1.4B in 2013. In less than 3 years, Apple gets Beats for free. Sounds like a good investment to me." I can be wrong but Apple has different priorities than build/sell headphones at that kind of scale. It doesn't make sense to me - specially because they are not considered particularly good headphones. I bet they will sell that portion of the business or completely revamp it.You are wrong. They are pursuing it for the totality of what it offers for a good price. Without the headphone business the deal does not work financially. The headphones are a huge part of the acquisition. People claiming it is just about streaming or getting iovine are being woefully silly. Those are the cherry and whip cream on top of the sundae, not the sundae.
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.
wait, is this a good thing?
Because the headphone business is worth 3.2 billion dollars those other two things are not. They are just things that add a lot of value to an already good deal for apple.
It is like saying you are buying yahoo! Because thud own a couple of nice houses in the Hamptons.
It's not something I have seen suggested so far but I have been wondering whether part of the reason for purchasing beats is to use the brand for launching a slightly lower end phone that appeals to a different part of the market. A Beats phone would run ios, and wouldn't be branded apple in any way other than the software. It would allow for a lower end, lower quality product without potentially damaging apples brand. It would be as close as possible to licensing ios without losing control.
How about we just call it a day? Twice you've used the word ignorance; of what I have no idea. Are you suggesting you have some experience or knowledge that makes you an authority on sound quality? IDK so I'm not going to comment on that. You have successively accused me of claiming Beats was good quality (this never happened), sticking up for Beats (neither did this), and not knowing about the sound of Bose (not sure where you got that either).
Just as you suggested I do something, I have a suggestion for you. Go back and read my quotes. Find one time where I even remotely came close to saying Beats were good quality. Find one time where I was sticking up for Beats. Find one time where I came close to saying I've never heard Bose equipment. I can save you time by pointing out none of those things can be found in any of my quotes. Sounds more like you projecting your thought onto my words. Either way, we've gone so far down the rabbit hole that any valid point regarding the topic of the OP is moot. Apologies to all for threadjacking.
If you think that wouldn't damage Apple's brand you're a joke