Beats Co-Founders Dr. Dre and Jimmy Iovine Expected to Take on Senior Roles at Apple Following Acquisition

[3N16MA]

I get what you're saying but what disqualifies Beats from being a great product? They have 1BN in sales, own almost 50% of the market, and are growing.

I get that a lot of people on MacRumors don't like Beats headphones, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Beats is huge right now. I see no problem with Apple acquiring a company that's actually moving up.

google bought Nest and Motorola. I don't think there was this much criticism for those. Apple is the company people love to hate.

----------



Why does beat not have great technology?

I didn't take him to mean within Apple's culture, because he would have said that if he meant that.

Iovine IS an asset, regardless of who hates that a 45+ year old still wears a cap.

They make headphones that actually have poor noise cancellation and sub par audio quality for their price range. They are really no better than some of the stuff Skulcandy produces. It would be fine in a lower tiered price range but it gets blown away buy many of its competitors.

However Beats marketed their headphones like no one before them. They brought style and celebrity endorsements to a product category that really did not see it coming. They cornered the premium headphone market through marketing not technology. They made other headphone manufactures take notice.

As for Beats music, it has got some great reviews and actually looks good but it's nothing Apple could not do.

 

[Trapezoid]

They make headphones that actually have poor noise cancellation and sub par audio quality for their price range. They are really no better than some of the stuff Skulcandy produces. It would be fine in a lower tiered price range but it gets blown away buy many of its competitors.

However Beats marketed their headphones like no one before them. They brought style and celebrity endorsements to a product category that really did not see it coming. They cornered the premium headphone market through marketing not technology. They made other headphone manufactures take notice.

Oh ok, yeah I wasn't aware of all that. Is there some study, research that proved that or is that an opinion?

I'm not denying that Beats has marketing, of course they do, just like Apple has marketing for the iPhone. But often saying things like "other stuff is better" is just subjective and not provable.

I'd be glad to see proof that beats noise cancellation is poor, and audio quality is subpar though.

 

[Reds622]

They have 1BN in sales, own almost 50% of the market, and are growing.

I get that a lot of people on MacRumors don't like Beats headphones, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Beats is huge right now. I see no problem with Apple acquiring a company that's actually moving up.

google bought Nest and Motorola. I don't think there was this much criticism for those. Apple is the company people love to hate.

----------



Why does beat not have great technology?

Ensuring investors that cash wasn’t burning a hole in Apple’s pocket, Cook concluded, “We don’t feel pressure to acquire revenue…we want to make great products."

Those are also Cook's own words regarding acquiring companies just to make money. Fact is, this acquisition, if it occurs must have something to do with its music service. Is that enough to justify pretty much going against everything you have said previously Apple wouldn't do, well I guess we will find out. I guess some people are just disappointed because they thought when Apple finally made that big acquisition for multiple billions of dollars, it would be something much more appealing than a marginal headphone company that makes "trendy" marginal products.

 

[Mak47]

If you looked at Beats demographics I'm sure you'd find the majority of people who use their headphones are teenagers. On the list of things Apple needs to focus on worrying about whether teenagers think Apple is cool shouldn't even make it on the list.

Whether or not teenagers think a consumer product is cool is very high on the list of priorities for EVERY company. At least the ones that make money.

This is a million times more true with anything music related.

That's like saying you want to start a band but don't care if girls like your music.

 

[CosmoFox]

Is it possible to disagree without being a bigot?

Yes but the reasons given do not seem to be a simple disagreement.

 

[Trapezoid]

Ensuring investors that cash wasn’t burning a hole in Apple’s pocket, Cook concluded, “We don’t feel pressure to acquire revenue…we want to make great products."

Those are also Cook's own words regarding acquiring companies just to make money. Fact is, this acquisition, if it occurs must have something to do with its music service. Is that enough to justify pretty much going against everything you have said previously Apple wouldn't do, well I guess we will find out. I guess some people are just disappointed because they thought when Apple finally made that big acquisition for multiple billions of dollars, it would be something much more appealing than a marginal headphone company that makes "trendy" marginal products.

What existing company would make you happy, had Apple acquired it?

 

[Trapezoid]

Whether or not teenagers think a consumer product is cool is very high on the list of priorities for EVERY company. At least the ones that make money.

This is a million times more true with anything music related.

That's like saying you want to start a band but don't care if girls like your music.

Exactly!! How does it make sense that Apple should ignore a HUGE demographic that will make them millions of dollars??

 

[Reds622]

Exactly!! How does it make sense that Apple should ignore a HUGE demographic that will make them millions of dollars??

Perhaps because it could do long-term damage to the brand?

 

[Trapezoid]

Perhaps because it could do long-term damage to the brand?

How? It's going to make them money? Not like joining forces with Apple has ever made a company go under? Or has it? Maybe I'm not up on my Apple history?

 

[subsonix]

Yes but the reasons given do not seem to be a simple disagreement.

Ok, hope that non of those reasons came from me then.

 

[alex0002]

I don't get why you people think this is such a bad thing. Can someone inform me why this is a horrible thing?

It would be a bad thing if they forced us all to use those horrible Beats headphones, but I can't see how that can happen. It would be a bad thing if they banned every other music streaming service from apple products, but I can't see that happening either.

I don't see there being room for more than about two mainstream music steaming services and perhaps some niche services.

If apple want to be one of those two, then they need a service now, not months or years later when they perfect their own.

 

[Apple Jockey]

Don't forget

What I predict is iTunes is dead it turns into an ios manger - QuickTime gets a library and we get a Apple Beats or iBeats app for music across all devices which has our purchases and music library with it - apple beats then releases an less bass orientated version with some aluminium across the devices and 5c colour options some headphones and speakers - also device speakers be it desk lap or ios all get upgraded with the new apple audio orientated brand - apple Beats then announces hd audio

Don,t forget the camera and blue tooth!

 

[Reds622]

How? It's going to make them money? Not like joining forces with Apple has ever made a company go under? Or has it? Maybe I'm not up on my Apple history?

It's not really an overnight thing, obviously. And I am not advocating in the slightest that Apple acquiring Beats for pennies of what they have in the bank is somehow going to lead to their demise. Not in the slightest. What I am saying though is if this is any indication, or more importantly a shift, in the thinking of the leadership to trade innovation for large acquisitions; then that can have significant consequences going forward. Do I think that is the case, no, I probably don't. But let me ask you this, if 1 week, or 2 weeks ago, someone told you this acquisition was even remotely possible, would you have believed them? I certainly would not have, because it seems to go against everything Apple has said in the past. That in my mind is a tad concerning.

 

[Trapezoid]

It's not really an overnight thing, obviously. And I am not advocating in the slightest that Apple acquiring Beats for pennies of what they have in the bank is somehow going to lead to their demise. Not in the slightest. What I am saying though is if this is any indication, or more importantly a shift, in the thinking of the leadership to trade innovation for large acquisitions it can have significant consequences going forward. Do I think that is the case, no, I probably don't. But let me ask you this, if 1 week, or 2 weeks ago, someone told you this acquisition was even remotely possible, would you have believed them? I certainly would not have, because it seems to go against everything Apple has said in the past. That in my mind is a tad concerning.

I really do believe I'm not up on Apple's history. What have they said in the past that would make this acquisition not remotely possible?

 

[Sol]

Perhaps because it could do long-term damage to the brand?

I think the Beats brand is more at risk in the same way that Oculus faced a backlash after getting acquired by Facebook. Beats has cool cred and stylish products that people are willing to pay extra for, despite better sounding headphones by their competition. By joining Apple they lose the cool cred because they are just another arm of a faceless corporation, a part of the system, working for the man, conformist, or however an armchair revolutionary would put it. For sure Jonathan Ive's touch could make the Beats even more stylish but by then the Beats audience may have move on to Marleys or whatever.

 

[subsonix]

Oh ok, yeah I wasn't aware of all that. Is there some study, research that proved that or is that an opinion?

I'm not denying that Beats has marketing, of course they do, just like Apple has marketing for the iPhone. But often saying things like "other stuff is better" is just subjective and not provable.

I'd be glad to see proof that beats noise cancellation is poor, and audio quality is subpar though.

In either case, they don't have anything that is special or unique compared to say Sennheiser, AKG, Beyer Dynamic etc. and that's just looking at this from the head phones angle.

 

[unobtainium]

They make headphones that actually have poor noise cancellation and sub par audio quality for their price range. They are really no better than some of the stuff Skulcandy produces. It would be fine in a lower tiered price range but it gets blown away buy many of its competitors.

However Beats marketed their headphones like no one before them. They brought style and celebrity endorsements to a product category that really did not see it coming. They cornered the premium headphone market through marketing not technology. They made other headphone manufactures take notice.

As for Beats music, it has got some great reviews and actually looks good but it's nothing Apple could not do.

I think you've got it all turned around here. The headphones are completely irrelevant. But do you know how long it takes to secure licensing agreements for a new on-demand streaming service? And then to hire all the curation talent and develop algorithms for matching users with content they'll enjoy? That's the part Beats has already taken care of, and it will probably save Apple the better part of a year in getting its own Spotifiy competitor on the market.

I'll guarantee that's way more important to Apple than Beats headphones, which are probably irrelevant.

 

[Reds622]

I really do believe I'm not up on Apple's history. What have they said in the past that would make this acquisition not remotely possible?

Apple has never paid more than 1 billion dollars for an acquisition. At least not that I can find publicly listed. I don't think that they have even spent more than 750 million on an acquisition. This acquisition is for 3.2 billion dollars for a crappy, overpriced, heavily marketed without any "real" tech headphone. That doesn't seem odd to you?

 

[CosmoFox]

Ok, hope that non of those reasons came from me then.

I don't know what you specifically said, but it's the internet, does it really matter?

I wonder if Apple is reading this thread and saying, damn, we're pissing off 75% of our hardcore user base...

 

[Trapezoid]

In either case, they don't have anything that is special or unique compared to say Sennheiser, AKG, Beyer Dynamic etc. and that's just looking at this from the head phones angle.

Sure they do. They own almost 50% of the market. Apple wants to make money. They're not here to make friends.

----------

I don't know what you specifically said, but it's the internet, does it really matter?

I wonder if Apple is reading this thread and saying, damn, we're pissing off 75% of our hardcore user base...

And then they realize that 75% of their hardcore user base is 0.000001% of their actual base

 

[unobtainium]

Apple has never paid more than 1 billion dollars for an acquisition. At least not that I can find publicly listed. I don't think that they have even spent more than 750 million on an acquisition. This acquisition is for 3.2 billion dollars for a crappy, overpriced, heavily marketed without any "real" tech headphone. That doesn't seem odd to you?

Headphones??

Are you just willfully ignoring the relevant information? This has nothing to do with headphones!!

Okay I think I'm getting cancer from reading this thread so I'm off.

 

[Reds622]

I think you've got it all turned around here. The headphones are completely irrelevant. But do you know how long it takes to secure licensing agreements for a new on-demand streaming service? And then to hire all the curation talent and develop algorithms for matching users with content they'll enjoy? That's the part Beats has already taken care of, and it will probably save Apple the better part of a year in getting its own Spotifiy competitor on the market.

I'll guarantee that's way more important to Apple than Beats headphones, which are probably irrelevant.

How long has spotify been around now? What in the world have they been doing? Was it just decided last week to enter into the music streaming business?

 

[Trapezoid]

Headphones??

Are you just willfully ignoring the relevant information? This has nothing to do with headphones!!

Okay I think I'm getting cancer from reading this thread so I'm off.

Yeah I dont get why people keep saying headphones. If anyone thinks Apple dropped 3.2 Billion just to put an Apple logo on Beats headphones, I have a bridge to sell you. Except the bridge doesn't exist. It's fake. And I'm telling you it's fake. And I'ms still going to sell it to you. Cuz you're dumb.

 

[iolinux333]

What existing company would make you happy, had Apple acquired it?

It would make me happy if Apple bought the dude that wrote the app "Equalizer" for the Android platform and gives Android a graphic EQ that works for ALL audio output. THAT is what would make the iPhone sound superb through most any so-so audio system, not a crappy pair of headphones.

 

[Trapezoid]

It would make me happy if Apple bought the dude that wrote the app "Equalizer" for the Android platform and gives Android a graphic EQ that works for ALL audio output. THAT is what would make the iPhone sound superb through most any so-so audio system, not a crappy pair of headphones.

haha what are you basing your supposition on? You're simply stating that "I believe if Apple bought this random app, their sound quality would sound superb" with ZERO proof to back that up.

I'm sorry, subjectivity reigns supreme here, and when you actually look at it you realize that subjectivity means nothing.

But I guess that's what will make you happy. Can't really argue with that.