Since you judge people by their past, you were totally okay with Steve Jobs being a deadbeat dad and a thief?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Since you judge people by their past, you were totally okay with Steve Jobs being a deadbeat dad and a thief?
You have no idea what you're talking about. Where's your proof that "the masses" didn't want it? How does a phone become the second best selling phone on the market without "the masses" wanting it and buying it?
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.
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.
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
I have to ask which Senn do you own?
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...
Last edited:
I'm not saying that they are not interested in the other reasons you give. But I personally don't see what use they could have for a streaming service that has been operational since January 2014, iTunes has a 14 year head start and it can already stream. Unless they are planning on separating streaming from iTunes into a separate application.
I basically try to make sense of the rumor and throw out different ideas that pop up. Regarding the headphones, they may plan on using existing technology for making small size speaker elements that Beats may have, including manufacturing, but I'll admit that's just pure speculation.
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.
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.
I don't completely disagree with you but we do have differences of opinion. See my comment below.
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.
I should be embarrassed because I put should of instead of should have? Andre can barely speak, but I should be embarrassed? Thats funny...
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...
Since you judge people by their past, you were totally okay with Steve Jobs being a deadbeat dad and a thief?
Andre also beats up women... Is that why its called "Beats"???
----------
No youre right, correct a white guys english and youre cool. Correct a black guys english and your racist. Got it!
I don't really see what Apple has to gain from this; the Beats brand name is probably strong (in the US), but their products are mediocre at best.
I am quite surprised that Apple would like to be associated with this brand, it can only drag them down.
I am quite surprised that Apple would like to be associated with this brand, it can only drag them down.
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.
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.
----------
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.
----------
Apple's market cap is actually lower than its actual value, so I am not sure what your point is. Apple's real value is probably at least 30% higher than its current market cap.
Go ahead and list all these public companies you think are worth more.
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.
Um... Wat?
At first I thought you were defending Beats and then you were like "They're awful!" and then you're like "Before you judge Beats, listen to them yourself!" and then you're like "Does Beats make a home theater like Bose does? NOPE!" And then you're like "Bose's home theater is good? THINK AGAIN!" And then you're like "I own Bose and Beats and I'm tired of people saying Beats is garbage! Because you know what? They are garbage!"
It's almost like you're arguing with yourself. I'm excited to see what you will come up with to shut yourself up next! I'm like a kid at a fight scene at elementary school but I'm just watching one person yelling at himself. Oh man, I wonder what MH01 will say now, OHHHHH MH01 totally rebutted. Who do you guys got? I got $5 on MH01 but you never know, MH01 might make the upset!
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.
It's not arbitrary. When someone cites the biggest company in the world it's by revenue. When someone cites the largest stock in the world it's by market cap.
But let's take another angle, if someone doesn't clear state what they mean a reader has the right to infer anything he or she wants.
----------
Depends.
Interesting, I see your point about "the whole package" as the enticing deal - and I'm starting to agree. I guess it is a little small minded to think Apple has NO interest in the headphones. I mean 3.2 billion is a huge purchase. I guess I just have to disagree on the sundae vs. topping. Ha! In MY mind the streaming service and music ties are the best part (admittedly I want a streaming service from Apple MUCH more than I want upgraded headphones).
What Apple wants is Iovine and the streaming service. The headphones and Dr. Dre are just baggage.
Right, that's a good way to go about discussing something.
Ever occur to you that perhaps you might be lacking imagination?
If you actually read what I wrote I didn't say I thought it was likely, just posing an interesting thought that was in my mind. Apple have a real problem not being able to compete in the lower end of the market. In terms of brands, Beats and apple don't overlap that much in my mind. Beats is all bling and appeals to a younger group who generally have less money.
Regarding potential damage to brand, it would pose a lot less risk than purely licensing ios or apple producing an apple branded low cost phone. That should be clear to anyone with half a brain.
If you aren't able to discuss the merits of an idea why bother reading a discussion thread?