Apple to buy Beats for 3.2B?

[MickMcGeough]

http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/8/569...or-3-2-billion

I love this for the sole reason that we get to watch the Apple haters & Beats haters collide in an epic hate-a-thon about who's products are more overpriced.

[bluejays]

I think you hit the nail on the head here. I've tried Beats products and it's more style than substance. Not a terrible product, but not high end at all when it comes to what it's supposed to do - create great sound quality. It's actually very mediocre sound enrichment. Apple buying it to make it exclusive integration on their own products? Could do better buying another company with better substance.

[strombad]

The higher end beats really are top of the line. The solos? Meh, whatever, they're a good class below, same with any ear buds.

The Pro model is, in fact, a professional level model.

Beats are simply overpriced. Drop them by 30% and they all become the best headphones you can buy in that price range by far.

The solos, in my opinion, are simply a "hey we've got this really great headphone, but how can we make it affordable?" model. A lot of shortcuts. Saying Beats in general aren't high end though, is wrong.

[Regulator75]

Big elitist d-bag company buys a smaller yet bigger d-bag company.

Well done.

D-bags unite!

Who owns Monster cable?

[dammage79]

Well, I guess that spells the end of HTC and HPs partnership with Beats. Damn you apple. Damn you all to hell.

[DownInFlames]

Originally Posted by dammage79

Well, I guess that spells the end of HTC and HPs partnership with Beats. Damn you apple. Damn you all to hell.

HTC sold their stake in Beats last year, which is unfortunate for them because they could've made 1.2 Billion if the sale to Apple is for real.

[jeffman]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Big elitist d-bag company buys a smaller yet bigger d-bag company.

Well done.

D-bags unite!

Who owns Monster cable?

I own both, I guess im a d0uchlord haha

[Russic]

An article I read claimed that Apple is far more interested in their streaming service than their headphones. Just speculation of course.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by strombad

The higher end beats really are top of the line. The solos? Meh, whatever, they're a good class below, same with any ear buds.

The Pro model is, in fact, a professional level model.

Beats are simply overpriced. Drop them by 30% and they all become the best headphones you can buy in that price range by far.

The solos, in my opinion, are simply a "hey we've got this really great headphone, but how can we make it affordable?" model. A lot of shortcuts. Saying Beats in general aren't high end though, is wrong.

Dropping 30% and becoming the best? I still disagree. 50% more like especially considering the quality in the workmanship that these things get.

[strombad]

Originally Posted by Anduril

Dropping 30% and becoming the best? I still disagree. 50% more like especially considering the quality in the workmanship that these things get.

Whatever you think, but your opinion doesn't mean much to me personally if you've just "tried them out."

Having dealt and worked with the headphones (along with probably 20-30 other brands over the past few years) I can tell you that despite whatever you may think, they are largely "high end" and worth near the money they're being sold for. For 120-130 the Solos would be one of the best value consumer headphones on the market, and the Pros at 300-350 would be an incredible bargain.

I don't even like the headphones myself, I think they're a bit goofy and overpriced, but I'm simply telling you the facts regarding where you are or are not wrong. They're top of the line headphones in each of their respective "groups," and while overpriced, still perform at an impressive standard.

Take it or leave it, from someone who has done a bit more than just "tried them out."

If anything, the mark against models like the Pro and Studio are that regular consumers don't need a headphone that capable, and likely wouldn't be able to fully appreciate the ability of the headphone with a substandard audio system or an MP3 player/phone.

[SHOGUN]

Good. Stay away from Sennheiser!

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by Regulator75

Big elitist d-bag company buys a smaller yet bigger d-bag company.

Well done.

D-bags unite!

Who owns Monster cable?

Bose is feeling left out of this conversation.

[Anduril]

Originally Posted by strombad

Whatever you think, but your opinion doesn't mean much to me personally if you've just "tried them out."

Having dealt and worked with the headphones (along with probably 20-30 other brands over the past few years) I can tell you that despite whatever you may think, they are largely "high end" and worth near the money they're being sold for. For 120-130 the Solos would be one of the best value consumer headphones on the market, and the Pros at 300-350 would be an incredible bargain.

I don't even like the headphones myself, I think they're a bit goofy and overpriced, but I'm simply telling you the facts regarding where you are or are not wrong. They're top of the line headphones in each of their respective "groups," and while overpriced, still perform at an impressive standard.

Take it or leave it, from someone who has done a bit more than just "tried them out."

If anything, the mark against models like the Pro and Studio are that regular consumers don't need a headphone that capable, and likely wouldn't be able to fully appreciate the ability of the headphone with a substandard audio system or an MP3 player/phone.

I probably should have been more specific but I was largely aiming my comment towards the lower end models like the Solo's. I don't disagree at all that the Pros are quality headphones.

The material used for the original models of the Solo's were quite surprising despite the price tag, even at $100. For example the headband, a little bit of glue, and some C rate foam for comfort. I've had to go through a couple of pairs before deciding to sell the last one (The Source warranty gave me a 3rd chance after 2 years) and wash my hands of it.
They had some positives relative to other cans like isolation, a removable cable, style and geared towards a lot of the popular music but performance and worksmanship is hard for me to accept having been able to try a number of other headphones in the $100~ category.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Russic

An article I read claimed that Apple is far more interested in their streaming service than their headphones. Just speculation of course.

Yeah the hardware side makes zero sense for Apple to get into, it's gotta be about the streaming service. Which honesty confuses me a bit as it's only been out since January, and I'm not aware of it having a huge market hold in that area.

[photon]

Probably more the technology that Apple wants than the streaming service's customers. Quick way to get a technology going instead of spending time to develop it themselves.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by photon

Probably more the technology that Apple wants than the streaming service's customers. Quick way to get a technology going instead of spending time to develop it themselves.

I don't know, if they gave me 3.2 billion dollars, I could probably get something pretty slick up and running pretty quickly. Hell, I'd do it for half of that!

Seems that whatever iTunes radio is, is part of the way there anyway. Wouldn't think it would be too hard to expand that to the Beats/Spotify type model. I don't see what Beats adds to them in that area. iTunes probably has more brand cache than beats if they wanted to get into the on-demand streaming arena. Seems like just simply launching a iTunes branded Spotify clone would surpass the customer base of Beats instantly.

If Apple wanted in this arena, why didn't they do it a couple years instead of coming in so late to the game? I guess they didn't want to give up the high margin itunes model for the low margin Spotify model, but have probably started losing all their customers to the monthly sub services. And now they are looking a little desperate trying to buy their way in late to the game.

Those Beats headphones will probably sell well in the Apple stores though.

[Anduril]

Don't they already sell Beats headphones in Apple stores? I know they carry some other things as well but haven't walked into one for a while.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I don't know, if they gave me 3.2 billion dollars, I could probably get something pretty slick up and running pretty quickly. Hell, I'd do it for half of that!

Seems that whatever iTunes radio is, is part of the way there anyway. Wouldn't think it would be too hard to expand that to the Beats/Spotify type model. I don't see what Beats adds to them in that area. iTunes probably has more brand cache than beats if they wanted to get into the on-demand streaming arena. Seems like just simply launching a iTunes branded Spotify clone would surpass the customer base of Beats instantly.

If Apple wanted in this arena, why didn't they do it a couple years instead of coming in so late to the game? I guess they didn't want to give up the high margin itunes model for the low margin Spotify model, but have probably started losing all their customers to the monthly sub services. And now they are looking a little desperate trying to buy their way in late to the game.

Those Beats headphones will probably sell well in the Apple stores though.

I've heard the start-up boom is making it difficult for Apple and similar companies to attain a high volume of skilled people. You can go work your fingers to the bloody stubs at Apple or go work in somebody's backyard for more money and less stress. It could just be a purchase to get a groundwork and people who understand how it functions. 3.2 billion does seem admittedly a little high for groundwork and bodies, but this is an industry that seems to drop billions for anything these days.

[FanIn80]

This is more about the curation technology behind the Beats streaming service than it is about the headphones. Not to mention immediate, inside access to some of the most brilliant minds in the music industry. Not just Iovine or Dre themselves, but the huge braintrust of radio program directors that provide the human element behind the Beats curation process.

Part of the deal is to bring Iovine inside Apple to report directly to Cook as a creative advisor. Iovine would also be bringing his address book with him, which represents some pretty significant personal relationships with some of the most infleuantial people in the entire industry.

Alot of market and media people are looking at this as Apple simply purchasing the Beats brand and are worried about Apple potentially pushing another brand besides its own (MacBook with Beats Audio, etc). Apple doesn't really buy brands though. It buys technology and resources, and I think that's exactly what its doing here as well.

[Regular_John]

Originally Posted by Russic

I've heard the start-up boom is making it difficult for Apple and similar companies to attain a high volume of skilled people. You can go work your fingers to the bloody stubs at Apple or go work in somebody's backyard for more money and less stress. It could just be a purchase to get a groundwork and people who understand how it functions. 3.2 billion does seem admittedly a little high for groundwork and bodies, but this is an industry that seems to drop billions for anything these days.

Speaking of which, you and Ktrain interested in helping me in creating up a cloud powered social SAAS start up with the sole intention of being acquired for billions of dollars by Apple/Facebook/Google?

We'll just need a flashy parallax website with some vapourware promises and maybe a kickstarter campaign. Honestly we could probably bang this out over the long weekend, lemme know your plans.