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.
Beats 1 Lead Executive Ian Rogers Leaves Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Smart answer is nobody outside of the company really knows the answer to that. Shocking, but even people on the internet haven't a clue, but are crammed full of opinions.
Trent is a good barometer of this. The guy is one of the most technically knowledgeable musicians in the business. He actually knows how to code. If Trent is gone, then the place is breaking apart at the seams. My recommendation is to spin off Apple Music into its own independent company with common board and advisory seats. Headquarter the place in LA and have the music professionals work in their ecosystem. SoCal entertainment types do not function well in Silicon Valley if they are transplanted. Bay Area production companies that made it, such as LucasFilm and others, did well starting here without SoCal transplants coveting their Rolodex.
My take is that the purchase price of Beats was way too much and just shows how much cash Apple has to throw around. I doubt if anyone else would pay for that. Imagine if Microsoft bought Beats? Now that is worthy of a parody on YouTube.
Apple Music is far from a beating a dead horse but the first turn on the track has lost a lot of ground. My take is we'll see them in massive reorganization in the fall for the Christmas season.
Don't you giant heads ever get tired of rewriting the same tired gibberish?
That'd be why it's Beats London, Beats New York and Beats LA. I doubt they have much to do with the Bay Area.
I still want Tim Cook to hire an SVP that oversees cloud services. Let this person oversee iCloud, maps and Siri. I think Apple is woefully lacking in all three. Eddy Cue either has too much on his plate or is not the right guy for the job.
According to John Gruber the Beats deal was all Eddy Cue. He was the one pushing for it inside the company. I'd love to know what pitch he used to the executive team and board. I'm not convinced Apple needed to create some big new music project. I think they probably had to get into the streaming thing but they could've done something simple like Google Play Music rather than trying to boil the ocean with some massive project. And doing the former wouldn't have required purchasing Beats.
There is a big debate if and what Beats San Francisco should be in the infrastructure. Curious to see if Apple Music is mentioned at all in next week's event.
You touch on a subject that has always plagued Apple.
That is server side products have always taken a back seat to the mass market client hardware. When Steve Jobs came back, eWorld was one of the first casualties.
I'll say it again, Apple Music should be spun off as its own company with shared board members.
Big debate where? Because I can't see adding San Francisco, a city that isn't that cultural to a worldwide lineup that is already relevatively heavily American. I'd say Beats Paris, Beats Tokyo, Beats Seoul or Beats Lagos would be a more obvious addition.
This is the debate on Beats radio in general. Is it a loss lead promotion media for selling Apple hardware or is it a for profit media network? From that, do you localize towards demographics of future or existing markets?
Apples #2 market is China and #3 market is Europe. Regardless of how you roll you aren't going to add another North American city if you have any sense at all.
Apple's got reserves to the tune of $200 billion? Even if the 1st and 2nd gen aWatches don't sell as well as they've liked to, by 3rd or 4th gen, it should be done right. They can take a few "disappointments"
Given the Iphones are still selling well, and they make about $420 profit off each one, they're still raking in the funds to stay on their game overall
IMO, this is going to be one of those MBA examples of how NOT to do a streaming service.
Not debating anything you said there - but it's not really the CEO's job to do what you mentioned that Jobs did. The 5s demand was strong because of Cook's knowledge of the supply chain and savvy with opening up previously closed off markets in Asia. Ultimately the phone's sales grew year after year because of these new markets, and to me, that is the "big picture" a CEO should be focused on.
I would recommend you watch Apple's "think different" commercial.
Yes a typical CEO in a typical corporation acts the way you say. But that's not Apple. And that's not why or how Apple became the successful corporation it is today. The bottom line is a CEO of Apple doesn't--and shouldn't--act the same way as the CEO of Morgan Stanley.
Tim Cook is Apple's version of Steve Ballmer. Over the last 4 years Apple has released mediocre and lackluster product and made terrible business decisions: The new Mac Pro is weak, obsolete and non upgradable (cpu & gpu), Apple Pay has great implementation but no one knows how to use it and as a result the usage is low; Apple Watch is Apple's Zune; Beats purchase was one of the biggest wastes of money ever; and Tim Cook is one of the most apologetic CEOs ever--clearly he doesn't have the fortitude for the job.
In 2-4 yrs the iPhone market will peak and then what? It's obvious that electric and self-driving cars are the next big thing. However I don't believe Tim Cook can successfully bring such a product to market.
Like it or not, when you are publicly traded, the CEO answers to the board and shareholders and stock price is king. Innovation should be delegated to a team below you - and essentially that is how it works now with Ive as CDO. I think Cook is compared to Jobs only by their common title. I think a more appropriate question/dialogue would be what changed post Jobs with Ive? Did his design genius need Jobs in order to be successful? If so, perhaps he's received too much credit for his ubiquitous product designs?