3 billion for crappy headphones, 100000 subscribers and two dudes. Seems like a good deal to me. 
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
Very good points.
Again, as already mentioned, I don't know much on how to run a TV Channels; so I might don't see the whole pictures. I'm just commenting and speculating from a consumer point of view.
So, why Apple didn't do it for music and podcast before and they would start to do it for TV now? Probably because the music market was dying and Apple came as saver and they got the big 3 or 4 top major labels onboard for iTunes, therefor they could easily distribute 80% of the music on the market.
The TV is another world. They should convinced ABC, CBS, Fox, etc...etc... and that would be valid "only" for the US. And then they would have to negotiate the same way with BBC, Sky, etc... for the UK,... and then TF1, M6, Canal, etc... for France,... again and again. And each channels would have to negotiate for distribution for a country that wouldn't be available for others, etc... That's quite complexe.
The problem of having "good" content that have success is the same problem for anyone. But so far, it looks pretty good for Netflix; and that's exactly what they're doing... Why Apple couldn't?
Also, on another note, I do believe Apple never enter in the game to be a Label because of Apple Records... But I remember that they finally solve this issue, so it would be all good now (I might think).
One last thing... The whole Cable extravagant price per month (such $70-$100+ per month) is mainly in the US. If you go compare prices with other countries (such some in Europe), you would be very surprised.
For instance, you can easily get a Triple Play (Unlimited Phone, 200 channels TV and 20 to 100 Mbits Internet, depending if you can get fiber or DSL)... for no more than 30/m (which is pretty much equivalent to $30/m because conversion doesn't really apply there).
ISP in Europe are pretty much "data transporter" and it even doesn't matter if you have 10 channel or 200. And they do it that way because they know the new generation don't care about TV anymore, they just go watch online whatever they want. Because of that, most of TV Channels do provide a way to watch (or re-watch) online now. Even in the US, we start to see that with specific iOS app.
So it could just be one step further to have them completely integrated... but in that case, why Apple would start to deal directly with the Content Producers instead of the current TV Channels that serve as a middle man?
What makes ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, FX, etc... good for a customer? It's not the way they handle Ads, or broadcast content... it's pretty much the content they have.
If the next Show such "Walking Dead", or "Breaking Bad", or "Whatevershowyoulikethemost" if produce and distributed by "Apple Studio" instead of ... let's say ABC Studios. What difference would it make and how different would it be with Netflix currently producing "House of Cards" (a first non-TV Show that won 3 Emmys)?
And again, I'm only talking about Shows here and "Apple Studio", but I'm convinced that to get the whole picture, it has to come down also with something like "iTunes Live", to allow to watch live event (and re-stream them later).
I have an idea on how it could work, but it would be way too long post and comment for here... And I also might be just completely WRONG about everything, LOL.
So, wait & see
If this is Apple's future with ghetto brand acquisitions and gigantic phones I'm starting to regret having just spend several thousand dollars on making the switch to the biotope.
That's even worse now than the trust fund hippie Starbucks crowd.
#missmyblackberryandibmthinkpad
That's even worse now than the trust fund hippie Starbucks crowd.
#missmyblackberryandibmthinkpad
Unless these contracts are very long term, I'm not sure how much of a difference it makes-- it becomes the same question as why Apple doesn't by Netflix for the content rights. Whatever rights they buy now will eventually need to be renegotiated.
I think it's clear that the big content providers like a fragmented delivery infrastructure. The music industry tested the waters with Apple because they thought Apple was going to be a bit player in the end, and then woke up a couple years later to realize they'd created a monster with enormous leverage over negotiations.
The entertainment industries don't want that to happen with streaming or video content, so they give some to Netflix, some to Amazon, some to Apple, some to Spotify, etc. I'm sure Apple realizes that if they don't have the long term industry relationships, then having the short term contracts isn't going to help them.
That said, this just doesn't feel like an Apple type deal to me. Have there been other big deals like this that have gotten advance attention and turned out to be true?
The old Apple would have killed this on principle after Dre took to YouTube about it.
Check out this episode of Hypercritical for info on everything wrong with Isaacson as an "expert"
John Siracusa lays out all the problems with him pretty well.
http://5by5.tv/hypercritical/42
"John Siracusa and Dan Benjamin discuss Walter Isaacson's authorized biography of Steve Jobs. Topics include Isaacson's failings as an author and biographer, the technical cluelessness on display in the book, and Steve Jobs, Enemy of Progress."
Amen to that.
Interesting but I don't buy the premise. I don't think Apple is suffering at all in the youth market. You could say they're suffering in the low end market but they haven't entered it yet and that's where your theory is interesting. But every market survey I've read has apple growing with teens faster than any other brand or phone.
I agree with all of this... Apple has hired some TV folks in the last couple years. For a guy like Jimmy Iovine, who has also done deals with the tv and movie industry, makes total sense. I said the same thing when the acquisition was speculated in this forum.
Apple needs to become and will become a media company... And eventually one day an ISP...
Apple needs to become and will become a media company... And eventually one day an ISP...
The old Apple was Steve of course, and Steve's principles could be a little twisted. Nobody spoiled Steve's surprises without paying a price for it. It is just possible that Tim Cook feels more or less the same way, which perhaps is why we haven't seen the official announcement of the acquisition yet. The message Cook might be putting to Dre is that if you want to be part of Apple, you need to live by Apple's rules. Apple Rule Number One is nobody says anything about what the company is doing until it is made official, and Apple Rule Number Two is to refer to Apple Rule Number One.
Good points about the content contracts. I am also having a difficult time seeing them being as the key to the Beat deal. It just doesn't seem like enough.
Exactly. I now have a very low opinion of this man. Wonder how many more times he'll say "oh, one more thing Jobs told me that I didn't put in the book." Reeks of desperation and limelight seeking. Not to mention, he's stating the obvious. Apple bought a company and probably most of the employees at Beats.
Can anyone shed some light on how content deals work? If Apple approached CBS or any other channel for that matter, and said we want to broadcast your channel on Apple TV, what would be the network's motivation to say NO. Wouldn't they increase viewership. Also, you would think it would be better for the networks as Apple could "force" people to watch the commercials, instead of DVRing through them. If AMC owns the rights to the Walking Dead, can't they allow Apple to broadcast the show for a fee, just like the cable companies and dish companies do? Anyone know about content deals and why Apple is having trouble securing rights?
Step 1: Buy Netflix
.......
That is the only step needed for Apple to regain its foothold in media.
Music is a dying medium and video is the next revolution.
Apple has fallen behind in this arena.
Still no AppleTV
Still no 4K
Still no subscription service
Still no Apps
Still no modern UI
.......
That is the only step needed for Apple to regain its foothold in media.
Music is a dying medium and video is the next revolution.
Apple has fallen behind in this arena.
Still no AppleTV
Still no 4K
Still no subscription service
Still no Apps
Still no modern UI
As far as I'm aware, see original idea here (post #11)
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1734727/
Well, Apple paid 500 million $ for a company that was on the red financially, without success, for a guy that was a previous failure. It came out well.
Beats is highly profitable, will pay itself and has great connections.
Not a chance, just a bit of sarcasm. There's more than a few potential interpretations, but overall it's just plain odd. What are they thinking?
The first fact you should have mentioned is that you are very confused and misinformed.
1. Whether Beats will have any IP value to Apple is arguable, at the end of the day it made sense to Apple. You have little to no information whether the deal is worth it or not, and how it actually benefits Apple...
2. iPhone 5c my friend is a 2+ year old phone that is being sold for almost the same price as the iPhone 5 when it first came out. It has the same specs as the 5, just a different case size and the addition of colors. If you look at just the numbers sold vs. the 5s, of course the flagship 5s will outsell it, but when you consider Apple is selling a phone with technology that has practically paid for itself from previous iterations, it equates to a high profit. 5c is not just a low end phone targeted towards kids or poor people, its a phone with colors, simply something different. They didnt market the 5c to be a low end device, because it simply isnt...
3. Apple is not a budget brand. There is nothing budget about it.
4. Beats is NOT a budget brand. It isnt targeted towards youth, they target young adults and upper age brackets. A "youth" is not able to afford Beats by any means.
5. Your Lexus-Toyota analogy is poor. Apple never really had a premium headphone that it could officially pair for their devices. Sure they sold Beats alongside their phones, but there was nothing Apple about them, i.e. similar color patterns and designs. Again, only Apple currently knows the benefits of the acquisition.
6. The fight with Google and Samsung comment made no absolutely no sense. Beats has nothing to do with either of those brands, besides having the music streaming service. If anything, it will strengthen Apple's presence in the music industry, which only slightly puts it behind Google, but not enough to have any serious effect.
