This makes even less sense than the Square acquisition rumor.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Or maybe Apple's doing some kind of next-level mole hunt here to level-up on secrecy.
I cannot figure out any way to reconcile the incredibly poor quality of Beats products with a hopeful future for Apple. Can someone make the argument for why this is a good idea?
This seems like a strange thing to acquire. It's not like Apple couldn't make headphones of that sort if they wanted to, and if they wanted cachet, they'd probably scoop up Bose or Sennheiser, a name with some actual weight behind it.<p>It's amazing that HP's series "With Beats Audio" actually cheapens their product.
So much for Apple's appearance of being a premium brand. Beats products are junk. Until 2012, they were basically white-labeled Monster Cable products.
$3.2B? I don't get this at all. What exactly does Apple get out of the deal? (1) Their brand is much stronger than Beats. (2) They could design and build high quality headphones if they wanted, the design is quite simple. And (3) if they wanted a music subscription service, they could easily create one of their own.
I'm puzzled by this. If it's about a streaming service, why not acquire Spotify?<p>Could it be about patents? Beats got custody of all the intellectual property when they divorced Monster. <a href="https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&hl=en#aq=f&aqi=&aql=&hl=en&q=%22Beats+Electronics+LLC%22&tbm=pts" rel="nofollow">https://www.google.com/?tbm=pts&hl=en#aq=f&aqi=&aql=&hl=en&q...</a>
I think this is pretty damaging to the Apple brand.<p>I'm afraid this will end up costing Apple more billions down the road as it creates uncertainty about their growth strategy.
The comments in this thread are similar to the comments in any Facebook related post on HN. Arrogant. People who likely haven't used the product for more than a few minutes have a concrete opinion on it. You may think Beats suck but they sell $500m of headphones per year. People clearly like the sound they produce even if you think it's shit and overpriced.
The history of Beats is itself fascinating: <a href="http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-how-monster-lost-the-world" rel="nofollow">http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre-the-inside-story-of-h...</a>
I really think people are underestimating the streaming service they could be acquiring here.<p>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.<p>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.<p>Acquiring beats would undoubtedly mean they also acquire their licencing contracts, which seem to have been traditionally difficult for Apple in the past.
<i>"Apple is in talks to acquire Beats Electronics for about $3.2 billion, according to a person briefed on the matter."</i><p>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.
The major labels have a love/hate relationship with iTunes. It brings in loads of cash, but it's a monopoly and the majors have little to no control (on price and promo, compared to retail). <p>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. <p>This deal could get round that somehow?<p>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. <p>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. <p>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. <p>I'll believe it when I see it though.
If true, seems like a submarine into wearable technologies.<p>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.<p>H/T: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7718083" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7718083</a>
In my eyes, this paints Apple as just another "big company" making acquisitions that don't make sense. Maybe they are going to bundle all ipods with beats...? Not sure where they are going with this unless it's for the music service licensing agreements.
...because music is the next big thing on the horizon?<p>Does Apple have an answer to Nest? To Tesla? To Comcast?<p>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.
It's weird how this April Fools article about Apple buying Beats [1] doesn't seem ridiculous right now.<p><a href="http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/04/01/apple-buys-beats/" rel="nofollow">http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2014/04/01/a...</a>
As I see it it's not for the hardware, but for the streaming service and for Jimmy Iovine and his connections/knowledge in the music industry. I don't know how he could fit with Eddy Cue but I think Jimmy Iovine would bring a lot if he was in charge of the music services in iTunes.
For all the people that think its worth it.<p>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).<p>They sold it. Now Apple wants to buy it at a much higher level... Doesn't make any sense.
Apple make very smart acquisitions and have a track record in creating markets where others have failed to do so. They are also good at spotting opportunities in existing markets.<p>That said, I think this is a deception to get Samsung to do something costly and stupid.
So where does that leave HTC? They own 50.1% stake. They need cash pretty quickly. And I think they would continue to want implementing Beats audio in their phones.<p>Btw, HTC One audio sound quality is emotionally exhilarating. (Tears)
I could see one way that would make sense: To fix the iPhone 5C debacle. You want to reach lower level customers without tarnishing your main brand...<p>Beats could fit that profile. Just make the colors a bit brighter and the successor to the 5c cheaper.<p>Or sicking with the beats brand (style over quality): Why not use 4s internals ;)?
Does this mean we're about to get a new iPod classic? 1,702 days and counting ... [1]<p>[1] <a href="http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iPod_Classic" rel="nofollow">http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iPod_Classic</a>
12 hours after being posted:<p><pre><code> Ctrl-F: user acquisition
</code></pre>
Zero results.<p>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 <i>not</i> product/technology. This seems like the same type of play.