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

[Reds622]

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.

See my other post. You are obviously saying then that Apple doesn't have the manpower to make something that "Beats Music" created? You know, the company that was the first to put the actual internet on the smartphone is incapable of making a music streaming service.. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't too me. And why would Apple decide they need to spend approximately 3 billion dollars more than any other acquisition in history to accomplish this.

 

[subsonix]

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

But we were strictly looking at this from a technology angle referenced from that Tim Cook quote earlier. There are many other companies that have large market share, that by it self doesn't mean that they are good acquisitions.

 

[unobtainium]

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?

This has already been repeated dozens of times. Apple already TRIED to get a Spotify competitor off the ground and failed, because record labels wouldn't sign cheap enough licensing deals with Apple (which is perceived to have incredibly deep pockets). The result was iTunes Radio, which was a failure from the beginning - because the future is in on-demand streaming. Apple knows this and they know they need a horse in the race, and they don't have years to develop it and sign those deals.

 

[Trapezoid]

See my other post. You are obviously saying then that Apple doesn't have the manpower to make something that "Beats Music" created? You know, the company that was the first to put the actual internet on the smartphone is incapable of making a music streaming service.. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't too me. And why would Apple decide they need to spend approximately 3 billion dollars more than any other acquisition in history to accomplish this.

Apple was not the first to put the internet on a phone.

Regardless of that incorrect statement, yes I'm sure Apple could come up with a music streaming service that would be wildly successful. They don't need to, though.

And I don't know if you're speaking in hyperbole but $3B is not more than any other acquisition in history. Not by a longshot. Google spent 4 times that on Motorola and recorded a loss every year they owned it.

 

[Sol]

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.

That could make audio sound worse on any device that already does sound processing to get the most out of small speakers. I think it is best to aim for a neutral sound out of any music player and let the hi-fi process it for the best possible sound.

 

[unobtainium]

See my other post. You are obviously saying then that Apple doesn't have the manpower to make something that "Beats Music" created? You know, the company that was the first to put the actual internet on the smartphone is incapable of making a music streaming service.. Does that make any sense to you? It doesn't too me. And why would Apple decide they need to spend approximately 3 billion dollars more than any other acquisition in history to accomplish this.

It's not about manpower, it's about time. It takes them years in some cases to negotiate decent licensing deals. It also takes months to assemble and hire talent for writing algorithms that match users with music they like. Beats has tons of music specialists that have already done all that. It's a huge undertaking and Apple just skipped the negotiating and development process. It has probably saved them a year or more that they would have wasted on negotiating and haggling with labels.

 

[Trapezoid]

But we were strictly looking at this from a technology angle referenced from that Tim Cook quote earlier.

I asked what other technologies are out there that makes Beats inferior, already. All I got were subjective answers.

I'm not trying to be that guy, just give me definitive proof based on research that Beats has "lesser" technology than any other headphone.

(keeping in mind that this acquisition has nothing to do with headphones, of course)

 

[Reds622]

This has already been repeated dozens of times. Apple already TRIED to get a Spotify competitor off the ground and failed, because record labels wouldn't sign cheap enough licensing deals with Apple (which is perceived to have incredibly deep pockets). The result was iTunes Radio, which was a failure from the beginning - because the future is in on-demand streaming. Apple knows this and they know they need a horse in the race, and they don't have years to develop it and sign those deals.

Do you have a link or a reference for any or all of what you just said? In addition, since the music industry has already committed to other streaming services, why would they then decide to say no to perhaps the one company who would make them more money than any of the others with the largest user base? What you said sounds like a lot of conjecture and white noise. I still find it hard to believe that any of this is completely motivated by this "streaming service." Sure, it sounds plausible, but you are sure making a lot of assumptions to get to there.

 

[subsonix]

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...

Not really, I mostly posted because I "question" the rationale behind this acquisition, if it's true.

If they are reading these forums they are probably used to 75% of users being pissed off.

 

[Sol]

Apple was not the first to put the internet on a phone.

Regardless of that incorrect statement, yes I'm sure Apple could come up with a music streaming service that would be wildly successful. They don't need to, though.

And I don't know if you're speaking in hyperbole but $3B is not more than any other acquisition in history. Not by a longshot. Google spent 4 times that on Motorola and recorded a lost every year they owned it.

I am still shocked that the maker of Candy Crush was valued at 7 billion dollars. The world of finance and big business makes no sense to me.

 

[Reds622]

Apple was not the first to put the internet on a phone.

Regardless of that incorrect statement, yes I'm sure Apple could come up with a music streaming service that would be wildly successful. They don't need to, though.

And I don't know if you're speaking in hyperbole but $3B is not more than any other acquisition in history. Not by a longshot. Google spent 4 times that on Motorola and recorded a loss every year they owned it.

See "Apple," Apples biggest acquisition in history.. You would have to be a moron to think that 3 billion dollars is the biggest acquisition in history. Just a few months ago Comcast and Time Warner merger was into the tens of billions of dollars. I'm insulted.

 

[Trapezoid]

See "Apple," Apples biggest acquisition in history.. You would have to be a moron to think that 3 billion dollars is the biggest acquisition in history. Just a few months ago Comcast and Time Warner merger was into the tens of billions of dollars. I'm insulted.

I looked at your statement again, and I don't see "Apple". Heres what you said:

And why would Apple decide they need to spend approximately 3 billion dollars more than any other acquisition in history to accomplish this.

Maybe if you said "their history" or "Apple's history" it would have been clearer.

You're right I would have been a moron to think that and you would have been a moron to make that statement. One of us is a moron.

 

[subsonix]

I asked what other technologies are out there that makes Beats inferior, already. All I got were subjective answers.

You didn't ask me. So instead of trying to resolve if they are inferior I settled for nothing unique from a technology angle, and that ties in with the original quote you made:

companies that have great people (Iovine) and great technology

(keeping in mind that this acquisition has nothing to do with headphones, of course)

Why of course? How long have their streaming service been available and what do they offer technically that Apple doesn't already have.

 

[Reds622]

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?

Can't believe I had to do this tit-for-tat stuff, but I feel like your insulting my manhood here so I guess here goes. Anyways, by reading this post along with my other post you would obviously see that it was implicit in the other post I was talking about Apple's acquisitions.. Get it now?

 

[unobtainium]

Do you have a link or a reference for any or all of what you just said? In addition, since the music industry has already committed to other streaming services, why would they then decide to say no to perhaps the one company who would make them more money than any of the others with the largest user base? What you said sounds like a lot of conjecture and white noise. I still find it hard to believe that any of this is completely motivated by this "streaming service." Sure, it sounds plausible, but you are sure making a lot of assumptions to get to there.

Apple spent a long time trying to negotiate licensing for iRadio. Here's a sample of the Byzantine politics that go on behind the scenes: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/digital-and-mobile/1565762/publishers-to-get-bigger-payday-from-apple-thanks-to

This kind of stuff is just so much more important, complex, and expensive than stupid headphones. It has nothing to do with headphones.

If it turns out to be about headphones, I'll go down to my nearest Apple store, buy a pair of Beats, and eat them and upload the video to macrumors.

 

[Trapezoid]

Apple spent a long time trying to negotiate licensing for iRadio. Here's a sample of the Byzantine politics that go on behind the scenes: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...ers-to-get-bigger-payday-from-apple-thanks-to

This kind of stuff is just so much more important, complex, and expensive than stupid headphones. It has nothing to do with headphones.

If it turns out to be about headphones, I'll go down to my nearest Apple store, buy a pair of Beats, and eat them and upload the video to macrumors.

So will I. This has absolutely nothing to do with headphones. If Apple spent 3.2B just to get headphones they deserve to go bankrupt.

I can say with 100% certainty that Apple does not deserve to go bankrupt.

 

[unobtainium]

You didn't ask me. So instead of trying to resolve if they are inferior I settled for nothing unique from a technology angle, and that ties in with the original quote you made:





Why of course? How long have their streaming service been available and what do they offer technically that Apple doesn't already have.

On-demand streaming. Licensing deals for on-demand streaming. A whole team of music experts making algorithms to match users with music they'll like. Executives with very strong industry connections.

That about sums it up. It's worth years of work and billions of dollars.

 

[Trapezoid]

Can't believe I had to do this tit-for-tat stuff, but I feel like your insulting my manhood here so I guess here goes. Anyways, by reading this post along with my other post you would obviously see that it was implicit in the other post I was talking about Apple's acquisitions.. Get it now?

Yep I get it now. Like I said, the quote I posted you worded incorrectly. But, yes when I look at your other post I understand.

 

[Reds622]

Apple spent a long time trying to negotiate licensing for iRadio. Here's a sample of the Byzantine politics that go on behind the scenes: http://www.billboard.com/biz/articl...ers-to-get-bigger-payday-from-apple-thanks-to

This kind of stuff is just so much more important, complex, and expensive than stupid headphones. It has nothing to do with headphones.

If it turns out to be about headphones, I'll go down to my nearest Apple store, buy a pair of Beats, and eat them and upload the video to macrumors.

Haha. We think it is more extensive. But we can't be sure. In big business it either all about making money or it isn't. You seem to be arguing that the big bad record companies were refusing to sign deals with Apple because they were, what, holding out for more? That is what I am assuming your argument is. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me though that they would be ok with opening the pandoras box of music streaming and then would be unable to come to an agreement with potentially its biggest player. The only thing I could think of is they thought once Itunes goes, thats it. No more pay for each album or song.. Its strictly streaming from now on. That is a pretty big assumption to make though right?

 

[Mycoolroy]

http://youtu.be/guMFKBXp544

Steve is rolling in his grave.

 

[subsonix]

On-demand streaming. Licensing deals for on-demand streaming. A whole team of music experts making algorithms to match users with music they'll like. Executives with very strong industry connections.

That about sums it up. It's worth years of work and billions of dollars.

Yeah, but most of that is not technical. How long has Beats streaming service been available?

 

[JBaker122586]

Beats took off when they spammed them all over to every rapper, athlete, and minor celebrity in the world with freebie units. Not due to superior hardware or superior business acumen on the part of dre or jimmy iovine. This purchase makes zero sense to me. There must be something that us civilians aren't privy to.

I believe what you just described was superior business acumen.

 

[Reds622]

Yep I get it now. Like I said, the quote I posted you worded incorrectly. But, yes when I look at your other post I understand.

Correct. Thought the person who called me a moron would have been able to remember a post I posted approximately 10 minutes prior.

 

[thirumalkumaran]

Keynotes will be rapped

Tim cook comes on stage and raps..

Hey all motha****** sales is up by 56%.. Up up up...

(Dre's advisory, what do you expect advice from Dre? )

 

[JBaker122586]

Haha. We think it is more extensive. But we can't be sure. In big business it either all about making money or it isn't. You seem to be arguing that the big bad record companies were refusing to sign deals with Apple because they were, what, holding out for more? That is what I am assuming your argument is. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me though that they would be ok with opening the pandoras box of music streaming and then would be unable to come to an agreement with potentially its biggest player. The only thing I could think of is they thought once Itunes goes, thats it. No more pay for each album or song.. Its strictly streaming from now on. That is a pretty big assumption to make though right?

The last half of your post is correct.
The record companies at this point view iTunes as a necessary evil. They're terrified of Apple controlling their industry, which is why they offer other services cheaper content and better licensing agreements to compete with Apple. For instance, iTunes Radio and Pandora are practically identical services. I believe Apple pays a royalty per play to the record labels almost twice as much as Pandora does. Apple has almost certainly discussed on demand streaming with labels, and has been unable to get reasonable licensing terms.