MR readers stop being bitter? C'mon. That's like asking birds not to chirp or dogs to wag their tail.
Agree w/ your post, but dealing with bitter people is the price of admission for reading these forums.
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 Music's Subscriber Base Pegged at Just 111,000
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
MR readers stop being bitter? C'mon. That's like asking birds not to chirp or dogs to wag their tail.
Agree w/ your post, but dealing with bitter people is the price of admission for reading these forums.
Professionally speaking, Beats is overpriced junk. You can get a much better product for a lot less money from Sennheiser, Sony, Beyerdynamic, or Audio Technica.
Imagine that kind of world...
Macrumors: "Apple may be about to acquire Beats"
Poster #1: "I don't know all the details yet, best not to comment."
Poster #2: "Agreed. Let's just wait and see what happens..."
Nah, I prefer this reality.
I think that's the hidden jewel in the crown right there. I don't think APPLE (being Apple) was able to negotiate royality this low, so buying a pre-negotiated deal would serve them well.
Mediocre headphones marketed brilliantly
I'm sure Apple knew what it was getting and has a plan....I predict that the streaming service will be integrated into iTunes Radio for the subscription service Apple wants...
Understood that Beats brand will grow, but how much will be cannibalization of Apple products or other licensed material, and how much will actually be accretive to Apple? ...
Ya I don't entirely get it either. It's very apparent that Apple needs to get on board with a subscription service but couldn't they have worked this out themselves? The only thing that I could think of is that the rate per play was very well negotiated and apple couldn't get nearly as good a rate in on going negotiations and that they wanted the earphone/speaker business.
$0.000126 per spin
An artist could become a millionaire IF only 8 billion people played a song once
Then again that is a single play for a single person. When a radio station plays a track it might be heard by 10s or 100s of thousands. I'm sure the models will change over the next several years but it is definitely a new dynamic in an established industry.
This was an interesting read: http://www.awe-radio.com/blog/royalties/#.U3JITCgXJQ8
"users" is only one of the reasons that has been bandied about by the Apple Fanboy Intelligentsia trying to justify this alleged acquisition... you can add "fashionable headphones", "wearable something or another", "brand", "talent" and any number of other speculative BS items to the list.
The headphones side of it made $1.5 billion last year. Leave the headphone business the same (or kick up the quality if you wish), and the deal pays for itself in less than 5 years. And you get a streaming music app and two major insiders that could help Apples billion dollar iTunes get even better for free! Its a great deal for Apple and its share holders. I think its best we leave these kind of decisions to the people that know what they are doing.
Not really.$3 B for a company putting $1b in cash every year is a good deal. It starts paying for itself after 5-6 years just from headphones.
Apple has been stonewalled with labels, that's the Angle here. How many people is APPLE getting to pay the $25 for iTunes Radio and $25 for iTunes Match? I bet Apple conversion numbers to PAYING customers are equally dismal after two years of trying. Beats has the horse Apple WANTS to run in the market. Eddy Cue is only so good and labels don't want to allow Apple to win again wether they get money or not.
It will be interesting to see how Apple ties services together. I want to see the hair pulling design fights between Dr. Dre and Sir Johnny!!! (YouTube's we need this!)
It's now apparent that for those of you who were misinformed, it's not just the streaming service Apple is after here.
I think that's part of it, but we need to look more closely at the headphone hardware aspect.
I think that's part of it, but we need to look more closely at the headphone hardware aspect.
I'm a full-time musician/songwriter. Streaming has absolutely killed music. One ten-thousandth of a cent per spin doesn't pay the bills. Music should be regarded as something with intrinsic value. If this keeps up, music will get even worse than it already is today...because the time people spend on pouring into their art will go down. Sure, there's a small percentage of musicians that will do it anyway, but think of all the good music that would never be, simply because talented artists *can't afford* to spend as much time as they need on their art?
So much music that could've been will be lost. What a shame.
So much music that could've been will be lost. What a shame.
If only Tim Cook would consult the mac rumors posters! You could really help them out, since they clearly have no idea what they are doing. (Tim Cook: $175 billion and one, $175 billion and two......)
Google buys a thermostat and smoke detector for the same $3.2 billion and its a genius idea! lol
I agree. I don't get why Apple is paying that much money for a music application similar to what they already have in iTunes. The Beats headphones are not that great, and they aren't even wireless driven!
I'd be so much more satisfied if they buy a company that would compliment their brand; Tesla, Nest, AR Drone, etc.....
Oh yes, what would we do without Lady Gaga, or Britney Spears, or boy bands or, every money hungry lousy "artist" out there. You have to suffer for good "art". Getting paid millions of dollars to sing, is a recent phenomenon, and one I'm ready to say adios to. I'm all for everyone in music that is hoping to make money, getting the boot, giving all those who suffer for their craft the opportunity to make music (not money). I'm not saying all musicians need to get a 2nd job to pay the bills, I'm just suggesting maybe they don't need that 3rd Lamborghini.
Yes, great idea. Let's not question his Mighty Timness.
Mods, please delete this topic, and all future topics, forthwith - lest anyone have the temerity to give voice to their uninformed opinions.
I doubt that anyone driving a few Lamborghinis is on a tiny fraction of a cent per spin. It's probably only less mainstream artists who don't have the profile/marketing to push for a better cut who are on this rate.
If there's one side-effect of Apple's (and others') success that annoys me, it's how the device is everything, the music (or movie, or app) is now just a cheap commodity. People will pay hundreds of euros/dollars for an incremental iOS device upgrade, and complain about cents for content producers.
Beats headphones have already been sold in Apple Stores for a long time. I assume they are doing well or they would have been pulled from the shelves long ago.
So it would seem that Beats does in fact go along just fine with Apple, regardless of people's opinions here (including my own I should point out).
I used to be a full time musician/songwriter. When Napster hit, I saw the writing on the wall, went back to school, and now have a real job and a real life. I suggest you do the same - musician has historically been a profession of poverty and what happened in the 20th century was an anomaly benifitting mostly a bunch of Hollywood oligarchs. And I guess you haven't paid much attention, but recorded music now is better than it has ever been because anyone with a smartphone and a mic can make higher quality tracks than "studio recordings" from 30 years ago, and then instantly put it out for the world to hear. In the long term, music making is for pleasure, not profit - but still the money men are trying to squeeze out a few more drops.
This Bests deal, if it is real, stinks to High Heaven. Something shady is going on.