6 ms·

Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

41 points by Reltair 12y ago

gdilla 12y ago
Now samsung will buy Chambers by RZA [1]! j/k [1] http://wesc.com/chambersbyrza http://wesc.com/chambersbyrza
bitwarrior 12y ago
Billion is the new million.
iambateman 12y ago
Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A watch? I doubt it. All the granola 16-year-old white girls already have their iPhone. There's no room for crazy growth among middle class white people. Apple needs to use it's expertise to pursue new markets, which is exactly what they're doing. Tim Cook isn't afraid, he's strategic. Beats by Dre is a high-end consumer lifestyle brand that GREATLY appeals to black, hispanic, urban-context, young men and women. They sell expensive products. They care about design. They represent a way of living. They're Apple in another market. Beats is about to be Apple's international foray into a completely new growth segment. And it's genius.
- johnward 12y ago
  I agree. Not to mention that Dre and Jimmy are pretty damn savvy businessmen. They basically beat monster at their own game: http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-h...
- pook1e 12y ago
  > They sell expensive products. They care about design. They represent a way of living. They're Apple in another market. Except they don't care about quality, which is one of Apple's strongest selling points.
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    Perception of quality is one of Apple's strongest selling points.
    - unfunco 12y ago
      Without sounding rude, what's the actual difference? Or for that matter, how do we define quality? If you're talking about planned obsolescence then Apple could be excused for being in the technology market; which changes rapidly. I use Apple products (except for a phone, which is a Nexus 4) and I nearly always feel that their products are of a higher quality, this might be because of materials (rarely plastic) or it might be because their UI seems much more refined than other offerings, I always feel with Apple that they have obsessed over the details. If quality is perceived (perception, past-tense) – is it not quality? Or am I missing something? Quality can come from an assembly line too.
      - InclinedPlane 12y ago
        Some measures of quality are objective. In headphones, for example, one can measure the degree of distortion of the headphones in reproducing sounds. In smartphones one can measure the quality of the camera, the screen, the durability of the device, and so on. Many of Apple's products do represent quality construction, but they extract a premium beyond even that and they often put out products which are objectively no better than the competition but which the public nevertheless swoons over and eagerly buys at a premium. Indeed, the excess perception of quality in Apple products is such a well known phenomenon that it has a name: the Apple Reality Distortion Field. I've seen many comments in this thread alone demonstrating the truthfulness of that phenomenon.
        12y ago
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ChrisArchitect 12y ago
  amazing summary that I've not yet seen today nailing it so concisely. +1
- sharkweek 12y ago
  I was given a pair of Beats Studios almost two years ago, so maybe that makes it easier to say this but, speaking as a non-audiophile, they're... good? I read a lot about how terrible they are, but in my experience, they're comfortable, their noise cancellation is great at work, and I have never noticed degraded audio quality (once again, as a non-audiophile). Could someone point me to a defacto better pair of headphones in the same price range as the studios ($200)? I'll give them a shot; I have no problem admitting that I might very well be missing something when listening to music.
  - ProAm 12y ago
    They aren't bad headphones, the thing is you can get equivalent quality spending ~$50-70.
    - dopamean 12y ago
      > you can get equivalent quality spending ~$50-70 That's what he was asking for. I've frequently heard this and I believe it to be true but as a non-audiophile how do I identify a pair of $70 headphones that are as good as Beats' $200 ones.
      - falcolas 12y ago
        You listen to them. Listen to a piece of music that you know well, and listen to the two side by side. Ideally something which isn't all in one frequency range. With better headphones, you will hear more detail in the sound. Words which sounded mushed together in the Beats will be distinct in better headphones. The mids and highs will come through much more clearly. Music will just sound better. Beats have decent bass, but they're hardly the only ones with good bass out there, and many which have good bass are also capable of sounding better in the rest of the frequencies as well.
        superuser2 12y ago
        This is an easy thing to say, but stores with a reasonable selection of headphones you can listen to are rare. The best option for your taste/budget at the Best Buy display, for example, are rarely the best choice for the money. Many of the beast headphones aren't consumer products and aren't sold in mainstream retail outlets. I love my Sennheiser HD380s but I know about them because I'm an amateur engineer and they're great for live monitoring. Really, just look at Sennheiser, AT, Shure, Koss, Grado, Beyerdynamic, ... Anything mainstream that's not Beats or Bose is probably worth looking into.
- ithought 12y ago
  It's interesting that Dre didn't create his music (*sampled), didn't write his lyrics and didn't come up with the idea for the headphones yet is celebrated as a genius. It was Monster's idea and then Jimmy Iovine propelled it to where it went. Dre is a quiet, private person, who rarely tours or produces new music. The idea that he is a billionaire now from putting his name on exorbitantly expensive headphones and marketing them to people who can't really afford them, seems wrong.
  - aneisf 12y ago
    >Dre didn't create his music (*sampled) This is a highly ignorant statement. Sampling recorded music is in fact a very musical process, from the first 20th-century musique concrete experiments to the more modern intricate, multilayered compositions of artists like The Beastie Boys, DJ Shadow, Public Enemy, etc. Musicians always take inspiration from other music. Build a song around a chunky 'AC/DC-style' riff. Channel Quincy Jones in the drum sound. Sampling was very important in the democratization of music production because it allowed artists without access to a studio and a host of instruments to work from a baseline of recorded sound. It quickly developed into an artform unto itself. Yes, there was and still is a contingent of artists who sample lazily and with disregard for the original music, but Dr. Dre's productions--especially his early stuff--are full of musical reverence, high-quality engineering, and even improvements over the source material. Not to mention that after the NWA days he was increasingly bringing in session musicians to replay and reinterpret source material rather than actually sampling it digitally. edit - And to expand a bit more on the last sentence, that is exactly what music producers do. It's only in recent years that the end-to-end musician, producer, recording engineer, mixing engineer, and mastering engineer has come into fruition. And that democratization of the recording process largely stems from technological advances like digital sampling.
    - ithought 12y ago
      You're right and my comment was off-base. I was just annoyed by the video release of Dre bragging about being a billionaire. Also it's somewhat interesting that he sued Napster and intended to sue college students and universities then becomes immensely successful via the digital music market. Regardless, I let my personal bias influence an asinine comment. I'm aware that sampling music is artistic endeavor and takes talent and hard work.
- return0 12y ago
  I don't even know beats, and the way you describe them, they sound pretty mediocre. Just because the amount of money being gambled is huge, that doesn't make it genius. Apple must know something about beats that nobody else does, otherwise there is no way it's genius.
  - johnward 12y ago
    You can't go anywhere in the US and not see someone on the street wearing beats headphones. It's a huge brand. Plsu they also have a streaming service that Apple could use.
  - 001sky 12y ago
    Plenty of "mediocre" brands are great businesses. The thesis is that Beats has marketing expertise--can sell cheap things for high prices--in a market where apple lacks it. Apple must know something about beats that nobody else does, otherwise there is no way it's genius. Again, this is false. Its not about "know something" its about "do something". A market-expansion play into high-growth (new) demographic is all about leveraging the existing asset base @ apple. It's not about "knowledge", its about "leverage"...and the only people who can leverage apple's existing products and asset base are...apple. The counter-argument to targeting the "urban market" if you believe (potentialy race-tinged) NY/london advertsining and marketing professionals....is lack of buying power in this "non abc1" demographic. But Beats has succeeded--seeling expensive price-point goods (ie, apple's specialty) into this market. That is a HUGE mark of success for beats...the fact that they are selling "junk" at high-mark-ups just underscores their marketing genius. TLDR (1) apple is buying the marketing genius; (2) that genius already selling at Apple-esque price points; and(3) into a growth-demographic where apple lacks strong histrical expertise.
    - return0 12y ago
      I do not consider myself an apple fan, but i also don't feel my iphone is 'mediocre'. You certainly pay a premium, but it's not like you're paying overpriced fabrics made in bangladesh. I 'm not sure how big a deal beats is outside the US, as well. I also don't agree that 1) they needed to buy any marketing genius (Apple is a marketing genius itself) 2) they are looking to sell overpriced products or 3) that they want to expand in demographics that can't afford to pay for the premiums
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  I'd hardly describe it as genius. Apple saw an opportunity: a headphone maker with such a strong brand they can demand a 100-200% markup on their products and still maintain strong sales. Apple is also in exactly that same market, deciding to pickup Beats isn't genius it's obvious.
  - nsxwolf 12y ago
    To be fair, I didn't see you or anyone else predicting a Beats acquisition by Apple. So how obvious is it really?
    - InclinedPlane 12y ago
      So you're saying that acquiring an incredibly well-known high-margin manufacturer in the same market is in some way a completely surprising and non-intuitive decision?
      - nsxwolf 12y ago
        No, not at all - but I don't think that is the same thing as "obvious" the way that word is usually used.
  - adamlett 12y ago
    Obvious? Maybe if the didn't have to pay anything for the company, it would be. But why is it obvious that this acquisition makes sense at that particular price? I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense, only that you have to at the very least consider how much the company is worth to Apple, before you declare it a no-brainer acquisition. Would it still make sense at $4B? $6B? How much would be too much before this is “obviously” a bad deal?
    - InclinedPlane 12y ago
      Beats has a marketshare of something like 2/3 to 3/4 for headphones over $100 and annual revenue of about $1.4 billion in 2013 (1/6 of Facebook's revenue). If anything, $3.2 billion was a steal.
- GBond 12y ago
  So you are arguing that this is larger hardware growth play here... and it is all about race?
- abvdasker 12y ago
  Any sources to back up your claim that Beats has a stronger presence among the "black, hispanic, urban-context, young men and women" dempgraphic? I'd believe it, but I'd rather not take that at face value given the entire point your making rests on that statistic.
- glomph 12y ago
  Every big sale there are always loads of people who say it is genius and loads who say it is stupid. Usually the answer is that it it is pretty boring.
epistasis 12y ago
I'm not sure how much of any of this I believe until we have some word from Apple. Under the Jobs regime, such premature talk would have almost certainly spoiled the deal. We'll have to see how Cook responds to that.
- k-mcgrady 12y ago
  The drunken celebration video featuring Dre was all the proof I needed. He wouldn't do something that stupid unless everything was agreed. They're probably waiting until the markets close to officially announce.
canvia 12y ago
Apple's next acquisition is going to be Monster Cable.
rwhitman 12y ago
What Beats has in its corner, that Spotify doesn't, is a favorable relationship with the music industry, particularly the artists themselves. I've never used Beats streaming service but I was aware of it because of musicians like Trent Reznor plugging for it before it even came to market. Apparently they make deals where the artists get paid substantially more than Spotify. Beats is in a unique position to get music that other services can't, and could potentially have a monopoly on distribution of new releases from some major artists in a few years. Thats what Apple just bought here, I'm fairly certain they could give a hoot about the technology, its the artist relationships and favorable streaming contracts that they're after.
- return0 12y ago
  Doesn't apple itself have a great relationship with the music industry and a huge foothold in the consumers mind? Apple seems more than capable to build their own streaming service if they wanted to
  - adwf 12y ago
    Apple may have a great relationship with the music corporations, but not necessarily with the artists themselves. The big businesses are still taking the large slice of the pie and giving the artist very little back. A streaming service where the artists can sell directly and pick up a larger percentage of the pie will quickly gather a large catalogue of new music.
encoderer 12y ago
If the deal closes, any guess on what happens to Beats Music? Doesn't seem to be room for that and iTunes radio (and iTunes itself) as separate brands. I think it will based on, eg, the Dr Dre video where he's bragging about it -- makes me think the deal is already done.
- gdilla 12y ago
  it'll be itunes radio 2.0.
mavaso 12y ago
Beats aren't that amazing, yet so many people wear them. My v-moda's cost $300 and have incredible sound. Worth every penny! http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00A39PPDK?pc_redir=1399523882&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00A39PPDK?pc_redir=1399523882...
scelerat 12y ago
This is not a snark at all: was there any more information in this clip that hasn't already been discussed in FT, NYT, etc. USA Today almost makes it sound like a done deal, but there's nothing substantial here that I can see.
parasubvert 12y ago
Beats Studio released a new model in 2013 that is significantly better than the 2008-2012 model. Beats is not "crap". Overpriced, perhaps, but there's not much competition to stop that. Reading the audiophile boards, the trends seems to be that the Beats Studio is now roughly competitive to the venerable Audio Technica ATH M50 , widely considered to be one of the most popular entry-level audiophile quality over-ear headphones. The main difference is not audio quality (the M50 probably has an edge here) but rather comfort and ear fatigue, with the Beats just being more comfortable. I love my M50s but admit they do lead to sweaty-ear. Examples: http://www.head-fi.org/t/683959/new-beats-studios-2013-vs-audio-technica-ath-m50 http://www.head-fi.org/t/683959/new-beats-studios-2013-vs-au... http://www.head-fi.org/products/beats-studio-over-ear-headphone-black-new http://www.head-fi.org/products/beats-studio-over-ear-headph... http://www.head-fi.org/t/673273/new-2013-beats-studios http://www.head-fi.org/t/673273/new-2013-beats-studios http://www.head-fi.org/t/675031/new-redesigned-2013-beats-by-dre-studio-v2-in-red-white-unboxing-newbeatsstudio http://www.head-fi.org/t/675031/new-redesigned-2013-beats-by... The main legitimate complaint about Beats is not that they're one of the two best sounding headphones under $300. It's that the market will bear that much of a price difference when the ATH M50 is $150. But, people will pay a lot for a wide selection of colours and a bit more comfort. And price can be seen as a feature. In short - Beats sells decent quality for its class, overpriced for what you get, but between comfort and colour selection, customers don't seem to mind. These guys will fit with Apple's philosophy well.
arjn 12y ago
I dont understand this. I've never even heard of "Beats" before today. Does apple know something I dont ?
msane 12y ago
Please tell me this is bullshit.
DonGateley 12y ago
Has anyone looked to see if Beats might have an interesting patent portfolio? Something perhaps to augment Apple's recently granted patent on bioinformatic earphones?
taksintik 12y ago
3.2 billion for an equalizer with deep brand recognition. AAPL must be swimming in cash.

41 points by Reltair 12y ago

gdilla 12y ago

Now samsung will buy Chambers by RZA [1]! j/k [1] http://wesc.com/chambersbyrza http://wesc.com/chambersbyrza

bitwarrior 12y ago

Billion is the new million.

iambateman 12y ago

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A watch? I doubt it. All the granola 16-year-old white girls already have their iPhone. There's no room for crazy growth among middle class white people. Apple needs to use it's expertise to pursue new markets, which is exactly what they're doing. Tim Cook isn't afraid, he's strategic. Beats by Dre is a high-end consumer lifestyle brand that GREATLY appeals to black, hispanic, urban-context, young men and women. They sell expensive products. They care about design. They represent a way of living. They're Apple in another market. Beats is about to be Apple's international foray into a completely new growth segment. And it's genius.

johnward 12y ago
I agree. Not to mention that Dre and Jimmy are pretty damn savvy businessmen. They basically beat monster at their own game: http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-h...
pook1e 12y ago
> They sell expensive products. They care about design. They represent a way of living. They're Apple in another market. Except they don't care about quality, which is one of Apple's strongest selling points.
- InclinedPlane 12y ago
  Perception of quality is one of Apple's strongest selling points.
  - unfunco 12y ago
    Without sounding rude, what's the actual difference? Or for that matter, how do we define quality? If you're talking about planned obsolescence then Apple could be excused for being in the technology market; which changes rapidly. I use Apple products (except for a phone, which is a Nexus 4) and I nearly always feel that their products are of a higher quality, this might be because of materials (rarely plastic) or it might be because their UI seems much more refined than other offerings, I always feel with Apple that they have obsessed over the details. If quality is perceived (perception, past-tense) – is it not quality? Or am I missing something? Quality can come from an assembly line too.
    - InclinedPlane 12y ago
      Some measures of quality are objective. In headphones, for example, one can measure the degree of distortion of the headphones in reproducing sounds. In smartphones one can measure the quality of the camera, the screen, the durability of the device, and so on. Many of Apple's products do represent quality construction, but they extract a premium beyond even that and they often put out products which are objectively no better than the competition but which the public nevertheless swoons over and eagerly buys at a premium. Indeed, the excess perception of quality in Apple products is such a well known phenomenon that it has a name: the Apple Reality Distortion Field. I've seen many comments in this thread alone demonstrating the truthfulness of that phenomenon.
      - 12y ago
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ChrisArchitect 12y ago
amazing summary that I've not yet seen today nailing it so concisely. +1
sharkweek 12y ago
I was given a pair of Beats Studios almost two years ago, so maybe that makes it easier to say this but, speaking as a non-audiophile, they're... good? I read a lot about how terrible they are, but in my experience, they're comfortable, their noise cancellation is great at work, and I have never noticed degraded audio quality (once again, as a non-audiophile). Could someone point me to a defacto better pair of headphones in the same price range as the studios ($200)? I'll give them a shot; I have no problem admitting that I might very well be missing something when listening to music.
- ProAm 12y ago
  They aren't bad headphones, the thing is you can get equivalent quality spending ~$50-70.
  - dopamean 12y ago
    > you can get equivalent quality spending ~$50-70 That's what he was asking for. I've frequently heard this and I believe it to be true but as a non-audiophile how do I identify a pair of $70 headphones that are as good as Beats' $200 ones.
    - falcolas 12y ago
      You listen to them. Listen to a piece of music that you know well, and listen to the two side by side. Ideally something which isn't all in one frequency range. With better headphones, you will hear more detail in the sound. Words which sounded mushed together in the Beats will be distinct in better headphones. The mids and highs will come through much more clearly. Music will just sound better. Beats have decent bass, but they're hardly the only ones with good bass out there, and many which have good bass are also capable of sounding better in the rest of the frequencies as well.
      - superuser2 12y ago
        This is an easy thing to say, but stores with a reasonable selection of headphones you can listen to are rare. The best option for your taste/budget at the Best Buy display, for example, are rarely the best choice for the money. Many of the beast headphones aren't consumer products and aren't sold in mainstream retail outlets. I love my Sennheiser HD380s but I know about them because I'm an amateur engineer and they're great for live monitoring. Really, just look at Sennheiser, AT, Shure, Koss, Grado, Beyerdynamic, ... Anything mainstream that's not Beats or Bose is probably worth looking into.
ithought 12y ago
It's interesting that Dre didn't create his music (*sampled), didn't write his lyrics and didn't come up with the idea for the headphones yet is celebrated as a genius. It was Monster's idea and then Jimmy Iovine propelled it to where it went. Dre is a quiet, private person, who rarely tours or produces new music. The idea that he is a billionaire now from putting his name on exorbitantly expensive headphones and marketing them to people who can't really afford them, seems wrong.
- aneisf 12y ago
  >Dre didn't create his music (*sampled) This is a highly ignorant statement. Sampling recorded music is in fact a very musical process, from the first 20th-century musique concrete experiments to the more modern intricate, multilayered compositions of artists like The Beastie Boys, DJ Shadow, Public Enemy, etc. Musicians always take inspiration from other music. Build a song around a chunky 'AC/DC-style' riff. Channel Quincy Jones in the drum sound. Sampling was very important in the democratization of music production because it allowed artists without access to a studio and a host of instruments to work from a baseline of recorded sound. It quickly developed into an artform unto itself. Yes, there was and still is a contingent of artists who sample lazily and with disregard for the original music, but Dr. Dre's productions--especially his early stuff--are full of musical reverence, high-quality engineering, and even improvements over the source material. Not to mention that after the NWA days he was increasingly bringing in session musicians to replay and reinterpret source material rather than actually sampling it digitally. edit - And to expand a bit more on the last sentence, that is exactly what music producers do. It's only in recent years that the end-to-end musician, producer, recording engineer, mixing engineer, and mastering engineer has come into fruition. And that democratization of the recording process largely stems from technological advances like digital sampling.
  - ithought 12y ago
    You're right and my comment was off-base. I was just annoyed by the video release of Dre bragging about being a billionaire. Also it's somewhat interesting that he sued Napster and intended to sue college students and universities then becomes immensely successful via the digital music market. Regardless, I let my personal bias influence an asinine comment. I'm aware that sampling music is artistic endeavor and takes talent and hard work.
return0 12y ago
I don't even know beats, and the way you describe them, they sound pretty mediocre. Just because the amount of money being gambled is huge, that doesn't make it genius. Apple must know something about beats that nobody else does, otherwise there is no way it's genius.
- johnward 12y ago
  You can't go anywhere in the US and not see someone on the street wearing beats headphones. It's a huge brand. Plsu they also have a streaming service that Apple could use.
- 001sky 12y ago
  Plenty of "mediocre" brands are great businesses. The thesis is that Beats has marketing expertise--can sell cheap things for high prices--in a market where apple lacks it. Apple must know something about beats that nobody else does, otherwise there is no way it's genius. Again, this is false. Its not about "know something" its about "do something". A market-expansion play into high-growth (new) demographic is all about leveraging the existing asset base @ apple. It's not about "knowledge", its about "leverage"...and the only people who can leverage apple's existing products and asset base are...apple. The counter-argument to targeting the "urban market" if you believe (potentialy race-tinged) NY/london advertsining and marketing professionals....is lack of buying power in this "non abc1" demographic. But Beats has succeeded--seeling expensive price-point goods (ie, apple's specialty) into this market. That is a HUGE mark of success for beats...the fact that they are selling "junk" at high-mark-ups just underscores their marketing genius. TLDR (1) apple is buying the marketing genius; (2) that genius already selling at Apple-esque price points; and(3) into a growth-demographic where apple lacks strong histrical expertise.
  - return0 12y ago
    I do not consider myself an apple fan, but i also don't feel my iphone is 'mediocre'. You certainly pay a premium, but it's not like you're paying overpriced fabrics made in bangladesh. I 'm not sure how big a deal beats is outside the US, as well. I also don't agree that 1) they needed to buy any marketing genius (Apple is a marketing genius itself) 2) they are looking to sell overpriced products or 3) that they want to expand in demographics that can't afford to pay for the premiums
InclinedPlane 12y ago
I'd hardly describe it as genius. Apple saw an opportunity: a headphone maker with such a strong brand they can demand a 100-200% markup on their products and still maintain strong sales. Apple is also in exactly that same market, deciding to pickup Beats isn't genius it's obvious.
- nsxwolf 12y ago
  To be fair, I didn't see you or anyone else predicting a Beats acquisition by Apple. So how obvious is it really?
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    So you're saying that acquiring an incredibly well-known high-margin manufacturer in the same market is in some way a completely surprising and non-intuitive decision?
    - nsxwolf 12y ago
      No, not at all - but I don't think that is the same thing as "obvious" the way that word is usually used.
- adamlett 12y ago
  Obvious? Maybe if the didn't have to pay anything for the company, it would be. But why is it obvious that this acquisition makes sense at that particular price? I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense, only that you have to at the very least consider how much the company is worth to Apple, before you declare it a no-brainer acquisition. Would it still make sense at $4B? $6B? How much would be too much before this is “obviously” a bad deal?
  - InclinedPlane 12y ago
    Beats has a marketshare of something like 2/3 to 3/4 for headphones over $100 and annual revenue of about $1.4 billion in 2013 (1/6 of Facebook's revenue). If anything, $3.2 billion was a steal.
GBond 12y ago
So you are arguing that this is larger hardware growth play here... and it is all about race?
abvdasker 12y ago
Any sources to back up your claim that Beats has a stronger presence among the "black, hispanic, urban-context, young men and women" dempgraphic? I'd believe it, but I'd rather not take that at face value given the entire point your making rests on that statistic.
glomph 12y ago
Every big sale there are always loads of people who say it is genius and loads who say it is stupid. Usually the answer is that it it is pretty boring.

epistasis 12y ago

I'm not sure how much of any of this I believe until we have some word from Apple. Under the Jobs regime, such premature talk would have almost certainly spoiled the deal. We'll have to see how Cook responds to that.

k-mcgrady 12y ago
The drunken celebration video featuring Dre was all the proof I needed. He wouldn't do something that stupid unless everything was agreed. They're probably waiting until the markets close to officially announce.

canvia 12y ago

Apple's next acquisition is going to be Monster Cable.

rwhitman 12y ago

What Beats has in its corner, that Spotify doesn't, is a favorable relationship with the music industry, particularly the artists themselves. I've never used Beats streaming service but I was aware of it because of musicians like Trent Reznor plugging for it before it even came to market. Apparently they make deals where the artists get paid substantially more than Spotify. Beats is in a unique position to get music that other services can't, and could potentially have a monopoly on distribution of new releases from some major artists in a few years. Thats what Apple just bought here, I'm fairly certain they could give a hoot about the technology, its the artist relationships and favorable streaming contracts that they're after.

return0 12y ago
Doesn't apple itself have a great relationship with the music industry and a huge foothold in the consumers mind? Apple seems more than capable to build their own streaming service if they wanted to
- adwf 12y ago
  Apple may have a great relationship with the music corporations, but not necessarily with the artists themselves. The big businesses are still taking the large slice of the pie and giving the artist very little back. A streaming service where the artists can sell directly and pick up a larger percentage of the pie will quickly gather a large catalogue of new music.

encoderer 12y ago

If the deal closes, any guess on what happens to Beats Music? Doesn't seem to be room for that and iTunes radio (and iTunes itself) as separate brands. I think it will based on, eg, the Dr Dre video where he's bragging about it -- makes me think the deal is already done.

gdilla 12y ago
it'll be itunes radio 2.0.

mavaso 12y ago

Beats aren't that amazing, yet so many people wear them. My v-moda's cost $300 and have incredible sound. Worth every penny! http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00A39PPDK?pc_redir=1399523882&robot_redir=1 http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B00A39PPDK?pc_redir=1399523882...

scelerat 12y ago

This is not a snark at all: was there any more information in this clip that hasn't already been discussed in FT, NYT, etc. USA Today almost makes it sound like a done deal, but there's nothing substantial here that I can see.

parasubvert 12y ago

Beats Studio released a new model in 2013 that is significantly better than the 2008-2012 model. Beats is not "crap". Overpriced, perhaps, but there's not much competition to stop that. Reading the audiophile boards, the trends seems to be that the Beats Studio is now roughly competitive to the venerable Audio Technica ATH M50 , widely considered to be one of the most popular entry-level audiophile quality over-ear headphones. The main difference is not audio quality (the M50 probably has an edge here) but rather comfort and ear fatigue, with the Beats just being more comfortable. I love my M50s but admit they do lead to sweaty-ear. Examples: http://www.head-fi.org/t/683959/new-beats-studios-2013-vs-audio-technica-ath-m50 http://www.head-fi.org/t/683959/new-beats-studios-2013-vs-au... http://www.head-fi.org/products/beats-studio-over-ear-headphone-black-new http://www.head-fi.org/products/beats-studio-over-ear-headph... http://www.head-fi.org/t/673273/new-2013-beats-studios http://www.head-fi.org/t/673273/new-2013-beats-studios http://www.head-fi.org/t/675031/new-redesigned-2013-beats-by-dre-studio-v2-in-red-white-unboxing-newbeatsstudio http://www.head-fi.org/t/675031/new-redesigned-2013-beats-by... The main legitimate complaint about Beats is not that they're one of the two best sounding headphones under $300. It's that the market will bear that much of a price difference when the ATH M50 is $150. But, people will pay a lot for a wide selection of colours and a bit more comfort. And price can be seen as a feature. In short - Beats sells decent quality for its class, overpriced for what you get, but between comfort and colour selection, customers don't seem to mind. These guys will fit with Apple's philosophy well.

arjn 12y ago

I dont understand this. I've never even heard of "Beats" before today. Does apple know something I dont ?

msane 12y ago

Please tell me this is bullshit.

DonGateley 12y ago

Has anyone looked to see if Beats might have an interesting patent portfolio? Something perhaps to augment Apple's recently granted patent on bioinformatic earphones?

taksintik 12y ago

3.2 billion for an equalizer with deep brand recognition. AAPL must be swimming in cash.