He is, but his point is that no way Apple could even come close to buying spotify or netflix for $3B as some were suggesting. They are both worth way more than that.
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.
Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre May Make First Official Appearance at Apple's WWDC
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He is, but his point is that no way Apple could even come close to buying spotify or netflix for $3B as some were suggesting. They are both worth way more than that.
Exactly. The meltdown some of these people are experiencing defies explanation. It's just bizarre.
You need Jesus. And I don't even believe in that. Seriously, do you even think before you type. I really feel sorry, not for you, but for the children you help create. I really hope there's some outside help. I couldn't even get past the 5th post in this thread. That's sad. Please don't post anymore.
Edit: 10th post... sorry
Last edited:
I'm with ya on this one. People need to chill out and see what actually happens.
This could really truly be awesome for both companies!
As far as I can tell, it's a mix between racism and pure ignorance in business management.
No one was talking about Apple acquiring Beats because it doesn't make any sense. If MR had put a poll up a week or month ago asking users what company Apple should acquire NO ONE would have said Beats. Spotify, Dropbox, Netflix, Square, probably. Beats no chance.
I don't have an angle other than I think this is a stupid idea and says to me that Apple has decided the only way to grow is to become a fashion company that just happens to incorporate some tech into their products. Apple shouldn't need to spend $3B on music curation or trying to buy cool with teenagers. I guess the only good thing that could come out of this is if Cook tasks Iovine with revamping iTunes and securing content deals for streaming music and Apple TV. Clearly Cue can't hack it in those areas.
That's fine. I was just questioning why you're going thread to thread asking the same question. Like I said, I myself have answered you twice and you've asked at least 4 or 5 times.
Are you looking for a specific answer?
As far as I can tell, it's a mix between racism and pure ignorance in business management.
No more like it would be too stupid to entertain the thought but somehow a racial angle has popped up and now skepticism is equated to racism or ignorance.
Another thing you're ignoring. Please do a thread search for fried chicken, watermelon, ghetto and thug.
A racial angle didn't "somehow pop up". The bigots here bought it up. Stop ignoring what's blatantly in this thread.
Not really, it's a rhetorical question.
But hey, the re/code conference should be interesting as Jimmy Iovine will be speak there. Perhaps he!ll be speaking as a future Apple employee.
pretty sure a decent chunk of the wackness in the thread is people yelling "look at me.. i'm not racist" while exaggerating the amount of bigotry or racisim in the thread.
if you have a problem with something someone said, engage and talk it through.. nobody is actually talking about racism in the thread(s).. just yelling "you're racist" all day long.
Sorry I chose to not to engage those that are specifically racist because they don't deserve to be engaged they deserve to be reported. But I've seen elsewhere (and John Gruber talked about it on his podcast today) this notion that if one is skeptical about this acquisition there has to be a racial aspect to it. I think that is ridiculous. People can have legitimate questions, can be legitimately skeptical without bringing race into it. CNBC's Jon Fortt is one, for example. And he's a black man.
I think most people agree that Spotify would make more sense than Beats...I certainly do. Thing is Spotify would certainly cost way more, with no guarantee that it will ever turn a profit (as of the end of 2013 it has not). So if the question is "what makes more sense: Spotify for $20 billion (if Whatapp went for $19 billion Spotify could certainly get 20), or Beats for $3.2 billion (which includes the most profitable headphone business in the world)", I think a lot of people say Beats. Also, who is to say that Apple will stop with Beats? Perhaps other major purchases are In the future.
Why? What's wrong with paying for something you need? What's wrong with identifying areas that need improvement and then taking action? Also No company ever went broke because they were too popular with teenagers.
Last edited:
*cling cling cling cling cling cling cling cling cling* IPHONE 6, WHAT!!!! *cling cling cling cling cling cling cling cling cling*
I don't remember Apple needing to another brand to be cool in the past. Apple's MO is to buy technology and incorporate it into something cool that people didn't know they needed now can't live without. Or like with the iPod where Jony Ive fought for the headphones to be white even though others said no headphones are supposed to be black. Well of course we know what happened with the white earbuds, how iconic they became and how Apple was able to create a whole ad campaign off of them. It worries me that Apple is possibly thinking they need to buy a current fad to interject some cool back into the company.
Also I think there are other ares at Apple that need more attention - like most of their software, iCloud, Siri and Maps. Yes Apple needs to be competitive in the streaming music market but that begs the question, what has Eddy Cue been doing the last 3 years (or more)? Why is Apple late with a competitive product in this market? As I said in another post, perhaps one good thing to come out of this is iTunes responsibility is given to Jimmy Iovine and Eddy Cue can focus all his attention on iCloud, maps, Siri and App Store.
Absolutely, which is what puzzles me about the acquisition, there must be something the general public is missing here, if the rumors are indeed true.
What kind of exclusivity does Apple get from these two?
I'm curious what kind of exclusivity can Apple get from Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre: What claim does Apple have on their creative efforts. I'm finding it hard to picture how Apple will actually get any kind of exclusivity. Isn't the nature of the entertainment business Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre in that once one gets past a certain level these guys are basically free agents working for themselves, owing allegience to no one? And this is the part that I think will be very interesting to see how it is managed by Apple.
I'm curious what kind of exclusivity can Apple get from Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre: What claim does Apple have on their creative efforts. I'm finding it hard to picture how Apple will actually get any kind of exclusivity. Isn't the nature of the entertainment business Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre in that once one gets past a certain level these guys are basically free agents working for themselves, owing allegience to no one? And this is the part that I think will be very interesting to see how it is managed by Apple.
I don't personally believe "coolness" is even close to being the main factor behind this possible move. For all we know, Apple might re-brand the the line. I don't think they will, but they might. Personally, I think the following article indicates what Apple's motivations are: http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/03/21/apple-may-launch-spotify-competitor-and-android-itunes-app
I could definitely be wrong and if I am then I agree with you on the value of this potential deal. I really don't think I'm wrong, but that's just my opinion.
You love this fallacious argument. Can you tell me one reason why it's not possible for Apple to purchase Beats and work on other areas that require improvement at the same time? It's really not an either/or proposition here. Perhaps buying Beats will allow Apple to jump start it's subscription steaming service without overburdening their software engineers; thus allowing them to work on Siri and Maps and the iCloud. Why should Apple start from scratch if they don't need to?
I realize that you made up your mind about this possible deal the second you heard about it, so I'm not sure why I respond. I do agree that it's possible that 5 years from now we could all be talking about Beats as Apple's biggest mistake, but I doubt it.
Not really sure how it is a double standard. It is a diffusion of a racist slur by means of reappropriation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation