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
I agree, there were less glamorous reasons for the acquisition - I.E. Jimmy. I think they also like something specific about the streaming service that they plan to utilize elsewhere.
As to B&O vs. Beats audio, meh who cares? Apple has never featured/marketed other brands on top of their products. Example: they never used Intel Inside stickers. They would not put a B&O sticker on their products and not Beats either. As far as audio quality, B&O is not an audiophile brand, they are a design brand and the two are not the same. B&O audio quality is adequate, not high end. There are hundreds of reviews over decades to back that up in numerous audio publications.
Remember, Apple hired Tomlinson Holman a few years ago as their audio chief. He is a really smart guy and is more than capable leading a charge to improve Beats audio quality, which I think will happen over time. Holman reportedly has worked on the Apple Watch team researching the sounds blood makes as it flows through arteries. This is the real Apple way, hire smart people and let them invent and improve things.
"Buying on the way down" is a terrible philosophy for buying equity shares.
----------
Ummm... Lenovo? Given that I actually did think about it.
I have to disagree, as I've found that the original B&O products were expensive, but were also very bleeding edge in design and quality. Now, maybe their current stuff doesn't work well, but it's my belief B&O built their success (when they had it) on well made product.
I wish I still had my B&O linear arm turntable from the 80's.
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.
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.
Actually, you spent so much time trying to prove my examples wrong that you missed the crux of my argument. My point is, $3B is a lot of money and Apple could have achieved the same or better results far more cheaply. Is it conjecture? Sure it is. Just like you thinking buying Beats was a better decision than buying B&O.
And my arguments are just as valid as yours. Let's look at the facts then shall we?
Could Apple have purchased a better audio company (from a technical standpoint) for less? Check. Could Apple have purchased or developed their own streaming service for less? Google got Songza for $15mm so double Check. Does Apple have a better brand name than Beats? Check. Could Apple have hired a lot of influential music execs for less? Check. Could Apple have a headphone business, streaming service and talented music execs for far less than $3B? Check, check, and check.
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.
Sure, when you put it that way. But let's talk about real world. There are people right here on MR who have spent $500 on an iPad for their 4 year old. So tell me, how do think so many kids age 12-15 are walking around wearing $300 Beats headphones? Oh here's a thought, maybe their parents paid for them. Oh there goes your argument.
And that's bad for Apple how exactly? I ask because Apple is in the business of making money.
Oh shucks! I never even knew HP was in bed with Beats
Not that it matters, because both suck <delete gratuitous homoerotic imagery>.
Not that it matters, because both suck <delete gratuitous homoerotic imagery>.
Guys, B&O may appear to have an image that more appeals to you, but they're really not that much different from Beats or Bose.
I'd probably buy an HP if it had better looking laptops. I can't remember a solid lineup which matches Dell Precision, Lenovo Thinkpad and the Macbook Pro. The last three are, in my opinion, the only workstation-class laptop makers, each one with their pros and cons.
HP is very good designing desktop workstations, though!
No offense, but it took no time at all to prove your example wrong. As you said it's all conjecture. Your point about $3B being a lot of money is true. Apple achieving same or better for less is back into the realm of conjecture. Apple could have just as likely achieved worse for less money; just like they did with GTAT.
Not sure what you think facts are, but nothing you said below qualifies as one. Below you have a lot of supposition. The far more accurate answer to every question you asked below is maybe, not check. You should really replace those affirmative 'checks' with 'I guess it could be true since I just made it up maybes'. Unless, that is, you have actual facts that you'd like to present in rebuttal.
Specificity (me) vs what if generalities (you). You and I are addressing two different things. I'm talking about the realities of B&O. You're just making up stuff. You're right I do think buying Beats is a smarter decision than buying B&O. At least I based my assertion on actual information. Your entire premise is based on the idea that Apple paid too much and could have gotten equal or better for less. Yet you provided no reason other than you think they could.
Could Beats eventually turn out to be a bad deal? Maybe. Could it also be great? Again, maybe. Can that answer be determined in less than a year of ownership? Highly doubtful. $3B is a lot. Apples seems to think they are getting a lot in return. IMO, of course.You mean like Apple.
----------
I just bought a set of B&W speakers, good stuff.
Yes. Looks like HP is moving in the right direction. B&O, unlike Beat has a great technical reputation. Maybe over priced. HP got the better deal
well... they have to sell $3B of these Beats to start making money from them, it will thake a while...
Amusingly, I was just thinking that "HP" and "cool" don't belong in the same sentence.
HP just got an upgrade. Very good move by them.
----------
Ha ha ha. Great quote .
I was more thinking those fast food vendors at closed sporting events, inflated $$$$$ .
----------
Have you ever bought something , conviencing yourself that it would be awesome , even though it cost sooo much, and once you got it , the novelty wore off, and it just sits there. When you look back, you think to yourself "damn that was a stupid purchase, but I'm not selling it cause the wife will never let me hear the end of it " That's were I think apple is
----------
Ha ha ha. Great quote .
I was more thinking those fast food vendors at closed sporting events, inflated $$$$$ .
----------
No offense, but it took no time at all to prove your example wrong. As you said it's all conjecture. Your point about $3B being a lot of money is true. Apple achieving same or better for less is back into the realm of conjecture. Apple could have just as likely achieved worse for less money; just like they did with GTAT.
Not sure what you think facts are, but nothing you said below qualifies as one. Below you have a lot of supposition. The far more accurate answer to every question you asked below is maybe, not check. You should really replace those affirmative 'checks' with 'I guess it could be true since I just made it up maybes'. Unless, that is, you have actual facts that you'd like to present in rebuttal.
Specificity (me) vs what if generalities (you). You and I are addressing two different things. I'm talking about the realities of B&O. You're just making up stuff. You're right I do think buying Beats is a smarter decision than buying B&O. At least I based my assertion on actual information. Your entire premise is based on the idea that Apple paid too much and could have gotten equal or better for less. Yet you provided no reason other than you think they could.
Have you ever bought something , conviencing yourself that it would be awesome , even though it cost sooo much, and once you got it , the novelty wore off, and it just sits there. When you look back, you think to yourself "damn that was a stupid purchase, but I'm not selling it cause the wife will never let me hear the end of it " That's were I think apple is