Currently there are a lot of different headphones that have very similar specs - I suspect that some company is mass producing drivers and other companies are iust putting these into fashion shells and selling them at large profit. (WESC is an example of a company that I think is doing this).
In this market - not very good headphones sold with large profits to people who care more about looks than sound quality - Beats headphones is exciting buy.
Don't forget that many people will be listening to poor quality source material - poorly ripped; weird dynamic compression; etc.
Steve would roll in his grave. He had Magnepans.
Hmm... is there a company out there whose sales disprove this statement?
...
Oh yeah, Apple. Maybe you forgot about them?
They're overpriced, certainly. But poor quality is not fair. They've got good sound, heavy bass, and the build feels solid.
EDIT: I don't actually own beats, I prefer my Sennheiser's. But my brother got a pair of Beats as a gift and I've used them.
† The Momentum over ear have a totally different, much more balanced sound. Almost a monitor headset, except with detail being just right so that they don't give too much fatigue.
I'm sure Beats, Pandora, Spotify, or any other streaming service would have killed to launch with the full support of the iTunes ecosystem.
How do they objectively have "incredibly poor quality"? Do you have a link that support they have really poor sound quality or bad build quality or horrible customer satisfaction rate?
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/beats-headphones-...
Modular phones will create opportunities for high quality audio drivers for Android.
Apple products are synonymous with quality audio, and Apple's success is partly attributed to it's investment in music technology.
A brand like Beats which is popular with young audiophiles could potentially transform Android into a recognizable music platform if they provided a Beats audio driver and quality headphones.
This is a risky proposition for Apple as it would drive more of their high-end audience to view Android as a serious audio contender.
Are they?
I like Apple products but the headphones really aren't great, certainly not for what you pay for them (looking at the prices for the headphones alone).
In that sense you might argue there is a certain synergy with Beats...
1. Apple has the tech and library to do their own subscription service if they want to. You think they can't do their own licensing deal? They surely don't need to pay $3B to acquire someone else's.
2. Apple wouldn't want to operate a cross-platform service. They'd pay a huge premium to acquire a bunch of Android customers than they'd promptly purge. Plus, it'd probably invite anti-trust scrutiny.
3. The argument about Beats headphone quality is moot. Even if it's more than just marketing / bass-heavy EQ, Apple would not pay $3B to acquire headphone technology.
None of that makes any sense at all. I have to believe someone thinks Beats and Square are interesting to Apple because their products have a certain superficial Apple design aesthetic. But it makes no sense from a business model standpoint.
Or maybe Apple's doing some kind of next-level mole hunt here to level-up on secrecy.
It simultaneously gets rid of people that leak to the press as well as anyone working for the company that hears something like that and not only believes it, but doesn't speak out against it.
1. Apple might actually need to acquire a team to do better licensing deals with the music (and TV/movie?) industry. Beats, I didn't realize, has some incredible people involved and has a lot of industry buy-in. That sets it apart from Spotify, etc. even though it has no subscribers.
2. Maybe Apple does want to buy a brand. The Beats brand has a lot of pull with communities where Apple doesn't, especially African-Americans. They may see it as an opportunity to upsell them from Android to Apple products.
3. Maybe Apple does need a cross-platform service to do the deals it needs. Like they did with iTunes on Windows back in the day. They get that, without any awkward "iTunes for Android"
4. Beats' headphones business is totally not Apple's approach.. yet? Right now it's more like Monster Cable, commodity product dressed up with sales & marketing & cachet. But what's to stop Apple from improving the quality of the brand? Apple-designed Beats headphones could be something very special. (But that is the weirdest part of this.. Monster is the antithesis of Apple and Apple's never done sub-brands. Maybe they literally bought them just for the preceding reasons.)
[1] http://www.dailydot.com/technology/apple-beats-jimmy-iovine-...
When you are the richest guy in town it is hard to negotiate a good deal. It is probably much smarter to just buy Beats. If they bought Spotify, they would be stuck supporting Android and Windows customers.
The $3B price probably reflects the current profitability of the headphone line. For what it is worth, audio brands seem to have staying power. I am not sure if the quality criticisms are a positive or negative value signal personally.
That means that it doesn't matter if Apple (or anyone else) buys someone who already has a deal - the previous terms go away and the record companies get to start the negotiations all over again.
Do you mean that the negotiation will go something like "come on, we know you can afford more!"? Granted, I haven't ever participated in negotiations at this level but I really doubt that being rich is a disadvantage.
When you control distribution and can offer larger revenue streams, you have a lot of negotiating power. See: Walmart.
My grandmother does not have Beats.
No amount of licensing, etc. is going to get Apple the branding that Beats have right now in the music hardware space.
Also, most people aren't aware that Beats are junk. Many consumers mistake a strong bass for good audio quality (or even more shockingly, they don't care about quality, and bass is _what they want_).
Exactly. Heavy bass sounds powerful, psychologically speaking. And personally, although I prefer a flat response, I'd prefer one with more bass over one with more treble. Consumers have basically associated treble-heavy with the "tinny sound" of cheap headphones/earphones - there's a reason why there's no competing equivalent brand to Beats that emphasises treble (I suppose an appropriate name would be "Shrieks"?)
As for Beats, they (or at least their components) are made by the same OEMs in China that make tons of other headphones/headphone components, just sold at a ridiculous markup. You can buy headphones with the exact same bassy sound (and often the same or very similar looks!) from them, and get the same experience at a more appropriate price.
On the other hand, when have Apple been interested in selling anything branded with someone else's name?
Actually, they have one. (iTunes Radio)
Of course, the fact that this has to be pointed out to someone arguing how strong Apple's brand is relative to Beats might illustrate the value they get from buying Beats better than anything else.
It's amazing that HP's series "With Beats Audio" actually cheapens their product.
As for Bose, they probably wouldn't be a bad choice, but they do a lot more than headphones and their market cap is $20B, quite a bit more than the $3B we are being told for Beats.
Currently even as an iTunes Match subscriber, if I hear a song on iTunes radio I still need to go and purchase the song if I like it.
Potentially the deals Beats currently have mean I could just tag that song as one I like, and each time I listen to it some amount of revenue is split between the label and Apple.
Acquiring beats would undoubtedly mean they also acquire their licencing contracts, which seem to have been traditionally difficult for Apple in the past.
"The service uses a personalization system combining recommendations based on listening habits and algorithms with human curation and playlists from music professionals, including other "guest" curators, such as Rolling Stone, Rap Radar, and Pitchfork. Song searches prioritize the original, master recordings of songs over other versions (such as covers). A feature known as "The Sentence" allows users to generate playlists by filling four blanks in a sentence with words describing various activities, moods, and genres."
They can put them in with iPhones (adapted to include hands free) but I'm not sure how much that would influence people to buy an iPhone over something else.
Btw, HTC One audio sound quality is emotionally exhilarating. (Tears)
Beats could fit that profile. Just make the colors a bit brighter and the successor to the 5c cheaper.
Or sicking with the beats brand (style over quality): Why not use 4s internals ;)?
- or -
Beats 5c http://i60.tinypic.com/103hnjb.jpg
iPod with Beats Audio
Ctrl-F: user acquisition
Look at the last couple of massive acquisitions e.g. Facebook buying companies that made little revenue which made even less sense. Most of the big ones I can think of were for user acquisition and not product/technology. This seems like the same type of play.
Also, Apple is primarily a hardware + associated services company. They're not interested in getting users that aren't Apple hardware owners.
Could it be about patents? Beats got custody of all the intellectual property when they divorced Monster. https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&hl=en#aq=f&aqi=&aql=&hl=en&q...
I'm afraid this will end up costing Apple more billions down the road as it creates uncertainty about their growth strategy.
I guess there is some disagreement about whether or not Beats is "worth" $3.2B. Such stories, on the eve of an acquisition, are always about trying to get the price raised it seems. Would be interesting if Apple walks away from the deal at this point.
So I wouldn't be surprised if the labels are being somewhat difficult to Apple about streaming rights - they'll dominate, and once again the labels lack control.
This deal could get round that somehow?
Add to that that I think the labels have vested interests in Spotify and very favourable deals, (while cautious of the streaming model) and it makes sense to not let another player in just yet, especially one like Apple.
Apples service is one that'll ride roughshod over everything, installed instantly on 100's of millions of devices with an iOS update - Sounds like a good use of their money to get that sooner rather than later.
I haven't used Beats headphones but if their tech could be used to perceivably improve idevice's and laptops built in speaker audio it's a win there too.
I'll believe it when I see it though.
Apple building mood sensing tech for personalized streaming service is a bit creepy. Apple adding mood sensing tech to a huge, young, existing, user base is broadly exciting.
Does Apple have an answer to Nest? To Tesla? To Comcast?
I understand Beats is a powerful brand, with a youthful and enthusiastic customer base, and they've entered the streaming space with some panache. Apple already knows how to do music. Is this what they're focusing on? It seems like a distraction and not a terribly advantageous one.
http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/04/01/a...
HTC bought it for 300 million, they sold it as they had no use. Their in the same market as Apple (and with Sense / HTC, they also could use a music broadcast service).
They sold it. Now Apple wants to buy it at a much higher level... Doesn't make any sense.
That said, I think this is a deception to get Samsung to do something costly and stupid.
Should make us ponder...