Maybe they should have bought Bose instead! Tiny speakers, magically big sound!
No highs? No lows? Must be Bose!
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.
HP Partnership With Apple's Beats Officially Ends as HP Moves on to Bang & Olufsen
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe they should have bought Bose instead! Tiny speakers, magically big sound!
No highs? No lows? Must be Bose!
And B&O doesn't sell to the masses because of the way it positions itself as being near unaffordable for what it offers. Those headphones in the picture are very nice in fact. I bought a pair, but I also bought the Bowers & Wilkins P7's for the same price and IMO they are much more versatile with different music types and built much better than the B&O H6's.
Just like nearly everyone else, my sentiment is "why the hell couldn't apple have bought B&O? They have a an established high end music and ... Wait for it ... TV tradition, Apples ingress into the home market would basically be already done for them with their Classic lines and 'budget' beo play lines!
All they didn't have was Jimmy Iovine and a poorly used music service that are in no way worth billions of dollars.
It pains me to see all them beats lined up in the Apple Store.
All they didn't have was Jimmy Iovine and a poorly used music service that are in no way worth billions of dollars.
It pains me to see all them beats lined up in the Apple Store.
Last edited:
Well when you think about it there are really only 2 main Wintel PC notebook companies, HP and Dell. Sony is gone and people don't buy Alienware unless they are gamers...and that's even fading.
----------
No it doesn't. When it comes to companies it's about MONEY. Ask 100 12 year old kids if they know B&O and I'd be hard-pressed to believe that more than 5 would say yes. Ask them about Beats and not only would ALL of them know about it, I'd be shocked if less half even own a pair of Beats or listen to Beats music.
I'm laughing at all the suggestions that Apple should have purchased B&O instead of Beats. Thankfully, none of you are in charge of Apple.
Let's see, either buy the top selling brand of headphones, along with a popular streaming service, high margins, high marketshare, and an executive team with great connections OR a company who has declined so much that it's stock sits at $7 when it used to be $50 only 7 years ago and lost $300 million in revenue between 2008 and 2009. A company that is in such straits that it issued a profit warning in 2014 and recently said it would entertain offers from it's competitors.
Buy company with hot products and great margin OR buy company with niche products, declining revenue and stock price, and a great big ole debt load.
Yep, I would go with B&O.
What this guy said. I'm a huge fan of B&O and don't really like Beats, but Beats is the money train and Apple knows that.
Huh? Your post makes no sense. On one end of the spectrum you state that "Apple Chose Poorly", that they should've bought B&O. Then you say B&O doesn't sell as well as Beats. Well that would mean Apple choose correctly.
You bet, the lid looks like a Dell I had about 10 years ago. And look at those Apple-like silver keys with the convenient 10key full keyboard.
Filthy, Copying Bastards!
I completely agree with buy low, sell high when purchasing stock, and in principle when purchasing a business. Buying a business means looking at how the acquisition fits and what it brings to the table. Evaluate the purchase of Beats vs B&O and it should be readily apparent Apple knew what it was doing.
As much as some people dislike Beats, from a business perspective, they are more like Apple than any of their other competitors. A consumer electronics company that sells very popular products at very healthy margins. Is that Apple or Beats? It's both. I'm pretty sure Apple viewed that purchase from a business perspective.
As great as B&O is, they only have one product line that aligns with Apple: B&O Play. The sales of their B&O Play products pale in comparison to their Beats counterparts by orders of magnitude. Their other 4 lines would simply be dead weight consisting of high end, slow moving, expensive, niche products... that have a great reputation.
As great as it is, that reputation would not only, not add to Apples bottom line, but would subtract from it.Like Beats, don't like Beats. From a business perspective, it was a better purchase than B&O. For what ever reason, Beats sells. Beats makes money. That's what Apple bought.
Ask 100 12 year old kids if any of them have enough money to buy anything in an Apple store and I'd be hard-pressed to believe that more than 5 would say yes.
One of my friends talked to an Apple Retail Store employee and said the person mentioned that out of all the returns they process Beats products are among the highest amount. It's even more obvious that Apple didn't buy them for their looks or quality..
I'm laughing at all the suggestions that Apple should have purchased B&O instead of Beats. Thankfully, none of you are in charge of Apple.
Let's see, either buy the top selling brand of headphones, along with a popular streaming service, high margins, high marketshare, and an executive team with great connections OR a company who has declined so much that it's stock sits at $7 when it used to be $50 only 7 years ago and lost $300 million in revenue between 2008 and 2009. A company that is in such straits that it issued a profit warning in 2014 and recently said it would entertain offers from it's competitors.
Buy company with hot products and great margin OR buy company with niche products, declining revenue and stock price, and a great big ole debt load.
Yep, I would go with B&O.
It depends on the price. If Apple bought B&O for $250 million, that would have netted them better designers, better technology and more credibility with audiophiles. With the other $2.75B they could have rebranded the hardware, developed their own streaming service and marketed the hell out of both. They also wouldn't have this inferior sub-brand to deal with... nor all the lawsuits.
Based on the rumors, I don't see anything that will make Apple stand out in music services as a result of the Beats purchase, and even worse, I'm seeing fewer Beats headphones in the wild than I did even a year ago.
$3B is a LOT of money and I just don't see the value of the Beats purchase and Apple has yet to show its fans and shareholders that it was money well spent.
I know enough about business not to be obtuse enough to speak in absolutes when talking about buying a business.
So there is that. A low share price is but one of many aspects of making an acquisition. I'll do us both a favor and speak in specifics about this hypothetical deal to avoid generalities muddying the subject.B&O stock is low because their business is in serious decline. Their products aren't selling. They're losing money yearly. They are looking to be sold to one of their competitors. If I am Apple I could say, "Hey they could be bought on the cheap." Then I say, "Hold up, what exactly would I be buying?"
On the negative side I would be buying a company with: slow moving inventory, expensive niche inventory, very small market share, negative profit, and only 1 out of 5 lines of their product aligns with our business. On the plus side, they do have a great reputation and they make great products. Not many buy those products though. Outside of their reputation, there is little value add. Clearly
Nothing better than a sticker to convey the sense of class and style of a brand like B&O.
Please don't tell me they are going to replace the B and O keys like they did the B key with Beats... that was so crass, and really drags your reputation down. I can't understand why anyone would put up with that, unless you can buy replacement keys to get rid of that junk...crass stickers can be taken off, not so much screen printed logos though. I hate brainwashing marketing techniques with a passion. I guess this and all the junk trial ware and the backdoors Lenovo introduced into their machines is the inevitable result of price wars selling at near-cost or even below. I would never buy Beats, not least because they are over-prices and over-hyped. I love my reasonably-priced Zennheiser headphones, I would never pay hundreds of dollars for that.
And why do these discussions always result in "This company should buy that company" or "if only Apple had bought this company before Google or Microsoft". Conglomeration where big companies buying up the smaller players is not necessarily a good thing for us, the consumers. It may simply end in less choice from fewer companies, subject to their whims and marketing tactics as they choose to focus resources and personnel, or even shut them down altogether. Many a great company with great products has been swallowed up and disappeared this way. While I agree the styling and even the exclusive pricing suits Apple more than Beats, but only if you are interested in Hi-Fi in general and not just headphones.
If Apple bought B&O for their technology and patents, or as they often do and likely the case with Beats, the people, what would become of their range of Hi-Fi? Would Apple get into the Hi-Fi business? It would be a great way into high-end very stylish hi-fi made with quality materials if they did. Or might they simply take what they wanted from the deal and we would be left without another independent choice?
As companies buy up companies, we end up with the Sonys and Samsungs of the world making it that much harder for new companies in their fields to emerge successfully apart from new niches using startup nimbleness. Sony is a good example of what can happen with too much concentration and attention split too many ways. The way things are going, Sony could fail due to poor management of this behemoth, despite its considerable assets. Samsung is more a warning of what happens when rampant state corruption and cosy deals favour particular parties at the expense of others.
And why do these discussions always result in "This company should buy that company" or "if only Apple had bought this company before Google or Microsoft". Conglomeration where big companies buying up the smaller players is not necessarily a good thing for us, the consumers. It may simply end in less choice from fewer companies, subject to their whims and marketing tactics as they choose to focus resources and personnel, or even shut them down altogether. Many a great company with great products has been swallowed up and disappeared this way. While I agree the styling and even the exclusive pricing suits Apple more than Beats, but only if you are interested in Hi-Fi in general and not just headphones.
If Apple bought B&O for their technology and patents, or as they often do and likely the case with Beats, the people, what would become of their range of Hi-Fi? Would Apple get into the Hi-Fi business? It would be a great way into high-end very stylish hi-fi made with quality materials if they did. Or might they simply take what they wanted from the deal and we would be left without another independent choice?
As companies buy up companies, we end up with the Sonys and Samsungs of the world making it that much harder for new companies in their fields to emerge successfully apart from new niches using startup nimbleness. Sony is a good example of what can happen with too much concentration and attention split too many ways. The way things are going, Sony could fail due to poor management of this behemoth, despite its considerable assets. Samsung is more a warning of what happens when rampant state corruption and cosy deals favour particular parties at the expense of others.
You're right. It does depend on the price. Since we don't know what that would be your $250 million has no relevance at all. Those supposed better engineers and designers didn't do B&O that much good did they? I'm going to let you in on a little secret. The vast majority of the buying public don't care what's credible to audiophiles. If they did, Beats wouldn't be where they are.
Rebrand the hardware? Tehe.
B&O has one line of products related to Apple. They have 4 lines that are out of Apple's baliwick. Those 4 lines are basically dead weight. Apple could have developed their own streaming service. Point is, they didn't. They saw what they thought was a better way. Who are we to say they were wrong? Lawsuits, hmmm. Pretty sure Beats is going to see a few more of those. Not because they are Beats, but because Apple owns them.I'm seeing more than ever. Anecdotes. Useless amirite?
This seems like the crux of your argument. You're an Apple fan, but not a Beats fan. The acquisition isn't even a year old. What were you expecting to see? Whatever it is, that's not how business typically works. I don't think Apple purchased Beats for fans and the shareholders will see value in the increased profits. Although what Apple does rarely has any relation to what AAPL does in the market. Go figure.
Last edited:
Here's what Tim Cook had to say about Beats in that New Yorker profile of Jony Ive:
I wasn't a fan of the acquisition but I think it was more about getting Jimmy Iovine and his industry connections than the headphones. The profitable headphones was just a bonus.
I wasn't a fan of the acquisition but I think it was more about getting Jimmy Iovine and his industry connections than the headphones. The profitable headphones was just a bonus.
Don't say that in front of the dedicated Apple users, they think that anything outside Apple only last about 3 to 6 months.
Most of them now will hate B&O and HP it's just the way they are, anything that goes outside the Apple circle is rubbish.
They all loved Bose, when Apple dropped them they hated it, but now they love it again.
I'm only 20, I wasn't alive in either of those decades
All I know HP for is their garbage PCs. Although their old printers were impressive. I'm pretty sure my dad still has some working ones.
If there's one thing they've got its lows, it's the highs that are missing, I definitely wouldn't buy their higher priced stuff.Maybe they should have bought Bose instead! Tiny speakers, magically big sound!
No highs? No lows? Must be Bose!
It is a laptop with crappy speakers.
The only change is the name on the sticker.
Apple doesn't put ugly stickers on their products.
But they use the same crappy speakers.
The only change is the name on the sticker.
Apple doesn't put ugly stickers on their products.
But they use the same crappy speakers.
Beats and B&O have one major thing in common.
Both companies built their success on being able to sell products at over the top prices because they looked good, not because they worked well.
Both companies built their success on being able to sell products at over the top prices because they looked good, not because they worked well.