>I can’t see Apple keeping the “Beats” brand around for headphones. If Apple wanted to sell expensive high-end headphones, they don’t need to spend $3 billion.

So it's not like what the parent implied -- whether Gruber saying it wasn't for the licenses also meant Gruber though it was about the headphones.

Plus, Gruber could be totally right about the licenses not being transferable.

Apple didn't buy Beats neither for the licenses nor for the licenses. It bought them for the users, the know-how, and the connections (through Iovine and Dre).

Then: > The origin of the issue is really the fact that Apple is not releasing the 30% tax.

I'm honestly not sure if you're contradicting your first statement or if I'm misunderstanding your choice of words.

Is Apple failing to pay out? Seems like I would have read about it if they reneged on their contract with a highly visible third party.

I definitely agree it was a strategy. No way Spotify thought they would get away with that, it's a PR exercise. The issue isn't Apple's 30% though - it's Spotify's business model. Apple charges all publishers the same flat rate. If you can't sustain your business on it either leave the App Store or force your users to register through your website. I can see how it sucks for Spotify but it is not unfair in my opinion (unless Apple had a monopoly on streaming music, then it would be anticompetitive but for now it's an advantage they have and should be free to use).