I wonder what happens if the athlete has a contract that states they will wear Beats headphones at the game when the NFL's contract says they cannot.
I smell lawyers.
Bad deal for the NFL and its players because anything Bose is just plain awful! Also, I don't think many of the players will conform to this due to the popularity of the Beats brand. They're good for what they're designed to do and I own a pair but I also own better cans that are made by Hifiman which are designed for more critical listening.
Apple really missed the mark with this marketing opportunity to increase the market's awareness to the Beats brand.
We'll definitely find out if that's the case but I'm sure the lawyers who brokered the deal between the NFL and Bose must have thought through the legal implications.That's the most interesting part of this. Can a league deal force the players to possibly violate individual contracts, sponsorship and endorsements?
The obvious retaliatory move by Apple would be to remove Bose® from the online and bricks and mortar Apple stores.
But it probably wouldn't make much of a difference, Bose® have always been industry leaders at marketing and finding new idiots to exploit.
edit: Typo, I forgot the ® !!!!
Please show mercy on me Bose®
I don't think Apple was that interested in the streaming service. I think they did it mostly for the talent.Apple is more like Bose than Beats, I think.
But Bose didn't have the streaming service that Apple wanted.
It's funny how people actually think brand names matter.
I could try the whole current lineup of beats headphones when they were at our company. They were ok if they were being offered for 50 or 100$ for the wireless ones.
My 30 sennheiser in ear sound better.
The talent was certainly part of it, but they wanted the service too, specifically for its human curation. Cook explains this in his recent Charlie Rose interview. There have been rumors that Apple will rebrand it next year, probably bringing it into iTunes.I don't think Apple was that interested in the streaming service. I think they did it mostly for the talent.
I don't think Apple was that interested in the streaming service. I think they did it mostly for the talent.
In fact, I would not be surprised that Apple--which now owns the Beats brand of products--may seriously contemplate a lawsuit against the NFL over this. And the NFL better watch out: Apple lawyers have a LOT of experience dealing with legal issues (e.g., the spat with Google over Android) and they have potentially much deeper pockets than Bose and the NFL legal teams combined.
Based on this NFL telling it's players what to use or not use, could Chevy sigh a sponsorship contract with NASCAR that banned Ford from the track?
Dale
I don't think Apple was that interested in the streaming service. I think they did it mostly for the talent.
Sorry, I couldn't resist quoting you for spelling "role model" wrong on your 1st two attempts, but then somehow getting it right on the 3rd.Roll model? Yeah, right - if you're a little boy and think you'll be like Rich if you wear Beats.
Roll model? Yeah, right - if you're a teenage boy & like to dish out the trash talk & impress the girls.
Role model? Yeah, right - if you're an out of control male & love to beat your way to anything even with Roger looked to the side.![]()
Even within the context of professional sports, which would seem to be the essence of "competition", all Apple's competition can think to doinstead of actually competing by producing better quality productsis to "restrict."
Now that's lame and that's sad.
Bose didn't attack Beats. They signed a deal with NFL, who told Beats to go home because they didn't pay up like Bose did. Does that warrant "retaliation"?![]()
Apple should've bought Bose instead. At least their products are decent.