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.
Jobs Biographer Walter Isaacson Suggests Key TV Content Role for Beats' Jimmy Iovine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
tons of great content
Yeah, I am not sure what the ratio of content on YouTube that is intelligent is compared to what is absolute rubbish, but I don't think it is very high. Not that I like TV that well, but I don't like teenybopper cam videos either.
Yeah, I am not sure what the ratio of content on YouTube that is intelligent is compared to what is absolute rubbish, but I don't think it is very high. Not that I like TV that well, but I don't like teenybopper cam videos either.
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.
My Speculation
* Apple will adopt a Toyota/Lexus marketing strategy. With Apple being Lexus and Beats being Toyota.
* An Apple owned Beats will market its own smartphones and tablets - aimed at the youth and budget markets. These devices will use iOS and Apple services iTunes, App Store and iCloud (the Apple eco-system).
* These devices will have their own distinct (non-Apple) design aesthetic and will be lower spec (and cost) than the Apple range but they will be cool very, very cool. Apples know-how and production muscle will ensure that these phones stack up extremely well against the Android opposition.
* Of course Apple could start their own youth brand (and keep the $3.2 billion). However, history is littered with failures of such attempts. Beats has established a very successful youth brand.
* Beats devices will lure (tens of) millions of young customers away from Android devices and into the Apple fold. When these customers turn 30 and want a grown-up smartphone/tablet the will be locked into the Apple eco-system and buy an iPhone 11s.
* It makes sense that Apples largest ever acquisition will be used to fight Apples biggest ever battle - against Google, Android, Samsung et al.
* 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.
My Speculation
* Apple will adopt a Toyota/Lexus marketing strategy. With Apple being Lexus and Beats being Toyota.
* An Apple owned Beats will market its own smartphones and tablets - aimed at the youth and budget markets. These devices will use iOS and Apple services iTunes, App Store and iCloud (the Apple eco-system).
* These devices will have their own distinct (non-Apple) design aesthetic and will be lower spec (and cost) than the Apple range but they will be cool very, very cool. Apples know-how and production muscle will ensure that these phones stack up extremely well against the Android opposition.
* Of course Apple could start their own youth brand (and keep the $3.2 billion). However, history is littered with failures of such attempts. Beats has established a very successful youth brand.
* Beats devices will lure (tens of) millions of young customers away from Android devices and into the Apple fold. When these customers turn 30 and want a grown-up smartphone/tablet the will be locked into the Apple eco-system and buy an iPhone 11s.
* It makes sense that Apples largest ever acquisition will be used to fight Apples biggest ever battle - against Google, Android, Samsung et al.
3.2 billion for a part time advisor?
Now it would be a different matter if Iovine became a full time apple executive !
But 3.2 billion for a part time advisor?
Now it would be a different matter if Iovine became a full time apple executive !
But 3.2 billion for a part time advisor?
Your facts are a little off.
Quoted from Apple insider.
"In fact, while the exact iPhone sales ratio is a closely held secret inside Apple, data from multiple sources, compiled by blogger J. M. Manness, indicates that about 12.8 million of the 51 million iPhones Apple sold in the winter quarter were iPhone 5c, while 6.4 million were iPhone 4S and 31.9 million were iPhone 5s. That number aligns with reports that the 5s outsold 5c by a ratio of around 2.5:1 overall.
That means iPhone 5c sold twice as many units as all Blackberry smartphone sales combined (6 million), more than all of Nokia's Windows Phone smartphone sales in the winter quarter (8.2 million), and in fact, all of Microsoft's Windows Phones sold globally in the winter quarter (slightly more than 8.2 million, as Nokia makes 90 percent of the world's Windows Phones)."
If that's a flop I wish I could have some flops in my career.
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 can understand he helped sign music deals for Apple, but why would he have any sway with TV content providers?!
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.
I assume it's related to all of the rumours of Apple going into health. Dr. Dre will be advising on all the medical portions. Invaluable iWatch team member.
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.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You've posted an interesting discussion about the Apple-as-TV-Studio concept. But there's a lot of variables in that. For one, they've had all this time where they could bypass the music company middlemen so that artists could publish directly to the iTunes music store and collect all of the money for their music. They could have monetized the whole podcast/vodcast thing by turning on paid subscriptions so that those "shows" could be monetized. Either or both would have been a great proving ground to see if cutting out the "greedy studios" by connecting artists directly to the buying public could fly. But they didn't. So why start with television?
Becoming a studio involves all kinds of other variables. Buying one would be much easier than starting one from scratch. However, what makes studios go now is the existing model of commercials and cable subscriptions. What "we" often describe as what we want in some new Apple television model is commercial-free and subscriptions that cost a fraction of what we pay now. Revenues from commercials running on 200 channels "I" never watch is HUGE. Us paying $70/month, $100/month or more is also HUGE. When you kill the commercials and dramatically cut the monthly fee, lots of money that makes it all go disappears.
Apple likes to make a LOT of profit. The "new model" that "we" generally covet seems like a change to a highly unprofitable model. One might say, "But Apple productions would only be higher quality programming that "we" would all want to buy." But even the best producers, directors, etc on the planet have flops. Often there's lots of flops between the occasional hits. That's the big risk in the whole machine- a place where a lot of that revenue goes and is burned for almost nothing… until one of those nothings becomes a (hit) something. Take the sum total of all that the studios have learned from all of the years they've been in business and identify any one that is consistently a hits (only) factory. How does Apple Studio come in without revenues from commercials and with only a fraction of the money from "our" much cheaper subscription rates for "only the shows I want to watch" and do what all of the long-established Studios haven't been able to do?
Yes, Apple has sometimes seemed magical when it jumps on a new line. Would even Apple's very, very best be able to crank out hit after hit in the "new model" fantasy?
You just spewed a ton of bull s*** off as facts.. Problem is you're completely off base just repeating speculation of internet bloggers. The 5c wasn't a flop by any measure. It was one of the top three best sold phones on the major carriers if not the second place (following only the 5s). Bleeding market share doesn't really matter when your profits continue to increase. You have no idea what IP beats may have, and you over estimate the value of the beats brand. Also, beats isn't known as a cheap product line so I don't know why apple would attempt to sell beats products or a beats branded iPhone as a cheaper alternative. If anything they will try to upsell a product by giving it the added value of beats... But I don't ever see apple using beats branding on apple hardware.
It's honestly amazing that we got to page 3 before anyone thought to mention this.
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.
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.
Probably as much as you for making your comment. Difference is Issacson is an accomplished writer & historian making an observation and you are just another punk on the Internet spewing hate.
I think it's worse than that-- I think these kinds of comments undermine his credibility as a biographer.
No offense, but two of your fact points are incorrect, and the speculation is pretty unlikely. I believe Apple bought Beats because kids were buying $400 headphones to go with a $200 phone. Doesn't take a rocket surgeon to do the math there. And if they own Beats, they still own the music market in mindshare.
What is your "access" to dismiss his speculation out of hand? And what other insights has Isaacson been incorrect on? This is a serious question. If he is so off base, please enlighten the rest of us.