So, your analysis is that Apple is really doing this to get access to Dr. Dre? Got it.
Not Dre, but his bling. That's got to be worth something.
So, your analysis is that Apple is really doing this to get access to Dr. Dre? Got it.
So I'm not allowed to hold the view that there is a ton of content on YouTube that is really good and that the content on TV relative to that content sucks? Go back to your Jersey Shore. Or whatever.
The Facts
* Apples recent attempt to address this (the iPhone 5c) was a complete flop. Largely because of Apples unwillingness to tarnish their reputation with a genuinely budget product. And because, Apples loyal customers were only interested in a premium product the iPhone 5s.
Second, while Beats doesn't have IP per se, what it has is very favorable contracts for artist and publish payouts. Probably much lower than what could be negotiated by Apple at this point. And they are transferable, because Beats acquired them from somewhere else as well.
i kinda of get what Iovine brings to the party but i don't get this Dr. guys role for a Apple exec position.
i kinda of get what Iovine brings to the party but i don't get this Dr. guys role for a Apple exec position.
I've seen conflicting reports on whether the rights are transferrable. What's your source?
BTW, I'm not necessarily agreeing that the 5c was a total flop, but I think it's clear that the model substantially undersold expectations.
Also, the idea that Beats could be treated as a junior brand at Apple is intriguing. I doubt that Apple would take the risk of diluting their own brand in this way, but I can see the merit in the concept.
With hundreds of millions of iOS and iTunes users (one clic away to purchase it), they could have a better business model to propose to content creators. Apple is probably trying to create a new business model for TV, starting from the beginning: the content creator for new content and not necessary the TV Channels that owns the current content.
The Facts
* Apple has previously only ever purchased startups with valuable IP or the patent portfolios of bankrupt giants.
* Beats will be Apples largest ever acquisition by far.
* Beats has little or no IP that would be of value to Apple apart from its brand.
* Apple has been bleeding market share almost exclusively at the youth/budget end of the market.
* Apples recent attempt to address this (the iPhone 5c) was a complete flop. Largely because of Apples unwillingness to tarnish their reputation with a genuinely budget product. And because, Apples loyal customers were only interested in a premium product the iPhone 5s.
I can understand he helped sign music deals for Apple, but why would he have any sway with TV content providers?!
It's honestly amazing that we got to page 3 before anyone thought to mention this.
There hasn't been a full disclosure, but Beats bought the MOG streaming service as their backbone and there has been no mention anywhere of Beats renegotiating the contracts that MOG had. So, my evidence is really only the lack of evidence to the contrary. Couple that with the fact that Apple is in the process of acquiring them and the only logical conclusion is that somehow, MOG had negotiated deals that could be transferred. Otherwise, this deal really makes no sense.
So, yes, my assumption that the rights are transferrable is only an assumption.
And for the 5C, it's kind of like saying I expected the Heat to sweep the Nets so they flopped. It's OK to say the 5C didn't perform as well as expected, I just don't like the flopped meme that's been perpetuated.
I have no idea who this man is connected to but if these rumors are true it's entirely possible he has tv connections. I wouldn't be surprised.
True that!
Now this rumor has a week already into it and there isn't any confirmation to both parties.
What the hell is Isaacson commenting about it?
If he wasn't already dead for my hears already, he would die right now.
How much money does he make for making that comment? I wonder...
I think it's worse than that-- I think these kinds of comments undermine his credibility as a biographer.Someone's gotta tell Isaacson that writing a biography on Jobs doesn't automatically make one an expert on all things Apple.
Please, Walter, just stop.
The Facts
My Speculation
Time will tell on whether the rights are transferrable. Obviously the deal makes more sense if they are. Not sure it makes no sense otherwise, just less.
He might have gone overboard on the 5c comment, but I wouldn't dismiss the other ideas out of hand on that basis. Steve's rock star image was Apple secret weapon for a long time. Nobody at Apple today has that going for them. Buying Beats gives them a new entree into a more youth-oriented market that has been tough sledding for Apple since Steve's demise. Leveraging the Beat brand in the way suggested has some logic to it.
If their rights aren't transferable are Apple's iTunes rights transferable?
For someone with intimate access to Steve Jobs, it never ceases to amaze me how little insight Isaacson has into Apple.