The longer we go without an announcement the more I'm inclined to think it's not happening. Or at least not a complete acquisition of the company. But that could be wishful thinking on my part since I really don't want it to happen.
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
I can't wait for the rubbish TV stations to close down, rather than being bundled with good TV stations.
We all record, pause, rewind, fast forward TV anyway using Sky+ or whatever that it makes me think live broadcast is unnecessary.
We all record, pause, rewind, fast forward TV anyway using Sky+ or whatever that it makes me think live broadcast is unnecessary.
Not sure how I feel about this. I wish Apple would stick to hardware and OS software. I think they might get spread too thin in too many areas and become a jack of all trades, master of none.
I'm still waiting on updated hardware for a new Mac Mini, still waiting on a new iPhone that will put Apple back on top hardware-wise. Still waiting on a mobile device OS that can do widgets and customizable homescreens, but be stable and fast like iOS is.
I'm still waiting on updated hardware for a new Mac Mini, still waiting on a new iPhone that will put Apple back on top hardware-wise. Still waiting on a mobile device OS that can do widgets and customizable homescreens, but be stable and fast like iOS is.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Commercials running on the "190" "rubbish" stations we never watch help pay for the programming on the "good TV stations" we do watch. It's like the subsidy for an iPhone. Other people- those who pay for the commercials to run on those channels- throw money at the existing machine. It's money that doesn't come out of our pockets. That money flows to the Studios. It pays the studios to make the "junk" on the "rubbish" stations as well as chips in toward the good programming on the good stations.
Get rid of those rubbish stations and you kill a big chunk of that subsidy. Who makes up for that financial loss for the studios? Do we want to pay much more in a subscription for just the handful of channels we do want to make up for that loss (it's a lot more money than most people think)? Or do the studios just absorb the hit? If they absorb the hit, do they cut their budgets for the good stuff "we" want to watch? Of course they do. So then the quality of the stuff we do want to watch goes down to fit the new revenue levels in this "new model."
Better option: hide those rubbish channels you never want to watch in your on-screen guide. Then, you can have a guide made up of only the channels you do want to watch. All those others still exist and the commercials still run on them… commercials (and junk shows) you'll never see. This is the current best way to watch "only the channels 'I' want to watch" without killing the "other peoples money" subsidy.
And by the way, those rubbish channels don't exist because no one is watching them. They must have an audience to entice those who pay for the commercials that run on them. If no one was watching them, there would be no eyeball numbers for advertising salespeople to tout. No big eyeball numbers means no commercial sales. No commercial sales would make the company that owns the channel kill the channel. They exist because enough people are watching them. One man's rubbish is another man's treasure.
Last edited:
I don't see what the problem is you hire specific people for specific test and you go from there. If they don't then everyone will complained that they're getting left behind by google Amazon etc. etc.
----------
How do you pay for the programming ?
One more comment...
So no one at all agrees this could make some sense? Per my last post, Apple is going to become a media company. I bet their hesitation is that they aren't a media company, but neither was Comcast!! They were a "dumb" cable provider that turned into a media conglomerate, ISP, and are now on their way to becoming a tech-company..
If bringing Iovine on board to support not only music, but media period (video, etc).is the motivator behind the deal i think its a great idea. If any company were to build a TV network, or simply a TV "station/channel" it could be apple combined with Beats Music.
Think about it.... One of the things missing today on TV? Music Television... Not current MTV, but the MTV we all grew up on that hosted music videos. Apple is in a position, with Iovine and Dre where they could create something similiar, bring back music, and also gain a mass following of younger people, and older folks (err the Mtv Generation).
I really think that could kick start everything... And please don't compare the idea to Vevo... Vevo is obviously not the solution...
So no one at all agrees this could make some sense? Per my last post, Apple is going to become a media company. I bet their hesitation is that they aren't a media company, but neither was Comcast!! They were a "dumb" cable provider that turned into a media conglomerate, ISP, and are now on their way to becoming a tech-company..
If bringing Iovine on board to support not only music, but media period (video, etc).is the motivator behind the deal i think its a great idea. If any company were to build a TV network, or simply a TV "station/channel" it could be apple combined with Beats Music.
Think about it.... One of the things missing today on TV? Music Television... Not current MTV, but the MTV we all grew up on that hosted music videos. Apple is in a position, with Iovine and Dre where they could create something similiar, bring back music, and also gain a mass following of younger people, and older folks (err the Mtv Generation).
I really think that could kick start everything... And please don't compare the idea to Vevo... Vevo is obviously not the solution...
Walter Isaacson is just guessing like all Apple rumour writers and analysts do. It's a nice prediction, I don't know if I totally agree with it. I don't think he'll get a senior position at Apple if this acquisition is to go through.
And I'd like to know exactly Apple is paying so much for this (if the rumours are true)? In good time Apple will reveal all of this to us. And we shall know.
And I'd like to know exactly Apple is paying so much for this (if the rumours are true)? In good time Apple will reveal all of this to us. And we shall know.
It's much easier to start with a low-cost brand and then introduce a premium brand (Toyota starts Lexus), than a premium brand starting a low cost brand.
The Beats/Monster scenario is really just the status quo as far as big business partnerships/acquisitions go. Yeah, Monster got screwed, but it's hard to blame Beats for that. They pursued the best deal for themselves. Kevin Lee was in way over his head and should never had put their company in that position.
Not to mention some could see it as a stroke of karma considering all the years Monster was fleecing gullible customers with their products.
The longer we go without an announcement the more I'm inclined to think it's not happening. Or at least not a complete acquisition of the company. But that could be wishful thinking on my part since I really don't want it to happen.
As time wears on, the deal becomes steadily less likely to be consummated. This is especially true if the source of the delay is differences over the roles of Iovine and Dre at Apple, and/or if Tim Cook is ticked off at having his hand tipped. As far as it going forward, I have no strong opinion one way or another. But obviously the company sees an opportunity in acquiring Beats, so there has to be more to it than what little we know, and the money they are throwing at the purchase is frankly trivial for Apple, so the downside is minimal. One thing we can say for sure: if the deal falls through, it will likely be seen as a failure for Apple.
This is the first thing I've read that makes any sense in terms of a reason for Apple to by Beats. By acquiring the Beats BRAND, Apple would gain "coolness" with the younger crowd.
If it was just a play for content, they would probably just hire Iovine for a lot less $. Not sure what Dre brings to the party (although his recent spouting off to the press that he was going to be a billionaire no doubt irritated the hell out of Cook.) Maybe Dre is just part of the Beats brand...
I have listened to a couple of Beats headphones, but, to be honest, my old Grado SR60's sound better, for a lot less $$. I'm certainly not a headphone expert, but my ears did not like the booming of the Beats cans. I have heard others review the Beats phones with not-great results. Even so, younger people seem to like them. At the Gym last night I saw no less than 10 young people with Beats phones (which are visually distinctive and, apparently, fashionable. (I wouldn't recognize "fashionable" if it hit me in the face like a baseball bat. Just ask my daughter....) I wonder if the new retail VP has a big hand in this?)
A Beats phone line (Lower cost/high quality) would make sense and the brand is already well known and regarded by the younger folks. (God, I sound like i'm 80!)
Last edited:
Off topic
By the way, has anyone else noted that before "smart phones" came along, there was a trend toward smaller and smaller cell phones? Now it is bigger and bigger. Kinda goofy...
By the way, has anyone else noted that before "smart phones" came along, there was a trend toward smaller and smaller cell phones? Now it is bigger and bigger. Kinda goofy...
Poor macrumors. This is utter nonsense.
(1) You've linked to a Dan Lyons ariticle.
He says that Walter Isaacson speculates that Apple is acquiring Beats mainly to get Iovine. Of course, there are no actual quotes. And Dan Lyons is a long-time Apple-baiter with a very robust history of making up wild claims about Apple.
If Dan Lyons is your main source of info on an Apple rumor, it's almost guarantteed to be false.
(2) You're other links to sources are all other Mac Rumors articles... which themselves either link to other Mac Rumors articles or to stories that do not support the Iovine "acquihire" narrative.
So sad.
----------
I think that's because before modern smart phones came along, people didn't actually find cell phones useful for much besides talking.
Now that people find them useful for all kinds of things they want a screen as large as possible while remaining portable.
(1) You've linked to a Dan Lyons ariticle.
He says that Walter Isaacson speculates that Apple is acquiring Beats mainly to get Iovine. Of course, there are no actual quotes. And Dan Lyons is a long-time Apple-baiter with a very robust history of making up wild claims about Apple.
If Dan Lyons is your main source of info on an Apple rumor, it's almost guarantteed to be false.
(2) You're other links to sources are all other Mac Rumors articles... which themselves either link to other Mac Rumors articles or to stories that do not support the Iovine "acquihire" narrative.
So sad.
----------
I think that's because before modern smart phones came along, people didn't actually find cell phones useful for much besides talking.
Now that people find them useful for all kinds of things they want a screen as large as possible while remaining portable.
I know it's my personal pet fantasy, but if Apple is going to acquire a media company as part of their content delivery plans, my vote is for Disney/ABC.
That covers 1 of the Big 4 TV networks, the most profitable cable network (ESPN), various ownership in a variety of other cable networks, two film distributors, at least one music label, multiple publishing houses, and so on.
And that doesn't even include all of the Disney (and Pixar) IP, which in recent years has expanded to include Marvel and Lucasfilm.
That covers 1 of the Big 4 TV networks, the most profitable cable network (ESPN), various ownership in a variety of other cable networks, two film distributors, at least one music label, multiple publishing houses, and so on.
And that doesn't even include all of the Disney (and Pixar) IP, which in recent years has expanded to include Marvel and Lucasfilm.
Toyota starts Scion... Lower price point for younger folks... At least that's how it started. Not sure if that's still true.
Maybe the rumored "big" iphone will be the first "Beats" phone?
Last edited:
I know quite well how to do my own research. And I wouldn't call citing Gruber as "research".
Frankly, I don't really care about this enough to spend much time on it. I think Isaacson raised some interesting things to think about regarding this acquisition which makes for interesting discussion.
What doesn't make for interesting discussion is when people like yourself "shoot the messenger" rather than discuss the theory he is raising. It doesn't matter who's idea it is if it makes for a good discussion. He has no inside information on this deal. This is just his opinion. This seems to be lost on you.
I'm well aware that its speculation. And, as the ability to speculate varies between individuals, its important to consider that he can't put together a meaningful analysis even when he has all the data. This is the guy who just recently said "Google is the most innovative" and then recanted the next day. He's enjoying the fame he's gotten from having spoken to the living Jobs, but sadly he doesn't have any insight to offer. The points he raised in this story are banal and have been raised by many others.