Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine Would Both Join Apple in Beats Deal(online.wsj.com)
online.wsj.com
Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine Would Both Join Apple in Beats Deal
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304655304579552363078848706
59 comments
Non pay-walled version http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%...
Does anyone else feel that this deal tarnishes their perception of the Apple brand? I struggle to think of a brand of consumer electronics for which I have more contempt than Beats Electronics (and Monster Cable, who once manufactured all Beats products, between tricking the naive masses into buying hundred dollar HDMI cables…).
The cultural values of these two companies couldn't be much more different. While both are extremely image-conscious and fashionable, Apple has nevertheless built its reputation by delivering innovation and quality to its customers. Beats on the other hand has a built a reputation by selling very expensive headphones of highly questionable quality whose value, I would argue, is primarily superficial.
The cultural values of these two companies couldn't be much more different. While both are extremely image-conscious and fashionable, Apple has nevertheless built its reputation by delivering innovation and quality to its customers. Beats on the other hand has a built a reputation by selling very expensive headphones of highly questionable quality whose value, I would argue, is primarily superficial.
I hate to be that guy, but have you ever actually listened to a pair of Beats? It seems like most people are agressively derisive of them without having actually tried on a pair. Hell, even I used to be that guy.
I use a pair of Sennheisers as my go to headphones because I prefer the accuracy, but Beats are kind of great to listen to. They're inaccurate and hyped as all hell, but in a really pleasing way (so much bass) if you mostly listen to modern pop or dance music.
EDIT: And with respect to having a reputation of selling overpriced, inferior products on the basis of fashionability: isn't that what Android fans say about Apple and the iPhone? Seems to me the two companies have a lot in common. Both sell well designed products at high markups on the basis of fashion, and not necessarily on feature superiority. Plus, I wouldn't expect Apple to integrate the Beats brand into their own, as that'd destroy a lot of the value associated with the acquisition.
I use a pair of Sennheisers as my go to headphones because I prefer the accuracy, but Beats are kind of great to listen to. They're inaccurate and hyped as all hell, but in a really pleasing way (so much bass) if you mostly listen to modern pop or dance music.
EDIT: And with respect to having a reputation of selling overpriced, inferior products on the basis of fashionability: isn't that what Android fans say about Apple and the iPhone? Seems to me the two companies have a lot in common. Both sell well designed products at high markups on the basis of fashion, and not necessarily on feature superiority. Plus, I wouldn't expect Apple to integrate the Beats brand into their own, as that'd destroy a lot of the value associated with the acquisition.
Yes – I had a good listen to a friend's Studio headphones in 2010. They were not bad and I understand why the sound appeals to some – I just thought they represented terrible value for money. IIRC they cost >£200 in 2010. This particular pair was stored in a hard case yet snapped due to fatigue in the plastic headband after a few months, although I expect their construction has improved a fair bit since then.
In response to your edit, the difference between the two companies is that Apple generally backs up the superficial appeal of its products with very good, if not market leading user experience, engineering and manufacturing. The iPhone is relatively expensive (part of the reason I own a Nexus device), but its quality is undeniable.
In response to your edit, the difference between the two companies is that Apple generally backs up the superficial appeal of its products with very good, if not market leading user experience, engineering and manufacturing. The iPhone is relatively expensive (part of the reason I own a Nexus device), but its quality is undeniable.
Fair enough -- and I don't disagree in the slightest about value for the money (my Sennheisers are a tank, sound great, and they were only about $100).
> Beats on the other hand has a built a reputation by selling very expensive headphones of highly questionable quality whose value, I would argue, is primarily superficial.
Sounds like a match made in heaven.
Sounds like a match made in heaven.
I couldn't agree more.
Is this the new Apple? Style and sales numbers over substance? Seems like the first signs of rot.
Is this the new Apple? Style and sales numbers over substance? Seems like the first signs of rot.
Anybody else more interested in when Dr.Dre is going to release Detox? I'd love to hear him rap about multi-billion deal
Dre wasn't really the type of rapper to brag about his money.
Then why did he brag about it in the Facebook video that was taken down?
He didn't. It looked like Tyrese Gibson camera since he was the one talking, and it was posted on Tyrese Gibson facebook.
Yes, he did. Here's the youtube copy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guMFKBXp544
Watch it all the way through, it was Dre himself who spoke and did that "first hip-hop billionaire on the mother$$#8ker west coast" quote.
Watch it all the way through, it was Dre himself who spoke and did that "first hip-hop billionaire on the mother$$#8ker west coast" quote.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Can an audiophile comment on the actual quality of Beats' technology? Or is it just successful due to celebrity endorsements?
I am not an audiophile, and I'm usually happy with sub-$10 earbuds from Amazon.
I am not an audiophile, and I'm usually happy with sub-$10 earbuds from Amazon.
I'm not sure who calls themselves an audiophile, but would guess that most people would call me one (music industry background, more money spent on stereo equipment than computer equipment, etc).
I've used two pairs of Beats headphones and disliked both. I guess the best way to describe it is that they sounded non-neutral... they change the audio.
When I try stereo equipment I have a few pieces of music I always return to and I know well, my reference points. I, and most audiophiles, shoot for equipment that is as neutral as possible, that introduces nothing new into the recording whilst reproducing the recording as faithfully as possible.
If you're asking audiophiles what equates to good, the answer will be neutrality; not modifying the audio at all. Usually this means introducing no warmth where there was none, no harshness where there was none, emphasising nothing that wasn't originally emphasised in the recording and studio, etc. You shouldn't hear the equipment used for reproduction in the music that you're reproducing.
Beats headphones are a bit like a Mega-Bass switch on old Walkman systems. What they do to the audio isn't enjoyable if you tend to like things with acoustic sections, folk music, classical, jazz, and rock.
But... for House music, Hip Hop and other club beats the changes may actually be something you enjoy and seek as they reproduce an element of how you enjoy music (closer to the memory of the club, or a loud car stereo than a perfect recording).
They are crap, for want of a better word, because they change the music noticeably. But you've got to realise this is super-subjective stuff as some people want those changes.
They are also crap, probably the right word this time, because the material choice at this price point is pretty dire. But hey, they made plastic a luxury thing again, you could argue there's some brilliance there too. Most issues around durability come from the choice of materials.
As to whether they're crap full stop... well, no.
If you like the big beats of clubs, reverberating bass that dominates, and you rank the iconic fashion statement above durability (because fashion isn't designed to last anyway)... then Beats aren't a bad choice.
I've used two pairs of Beats headphones and disliked both. I guess the best way to describe it is that they sounded non-neutral... they change the audio.
When I try stereo equipment I have a few pieces of music I always return to and I know well, my reference points. I, and most audiophiles, shoot for equipment that is as neutral as possible, that introduces nothing new into the recording whilst reproducing the recording as faithfully as possible.
If you're asking audiophiles what equates to good, the answer will be neutrality; not modifying the audio at all. Usually this means introducing no warmth where there was none, no harshness where there was none, emphasising nothing that wasn't originally emphasised in the recording and studio, etc. You shouldn't hear the equipment used for reproduction in the music that you're reproducing.
Beats headphones are a bit like a Mega-Bass switch on old Walkman systems. What they do to the audio isn't enjoyable if you tend to like things with acoustic sections, folk music, classical, jazz, and rock.
But... for House music, Hip Hop and other club beats the changes may actually be something you enjoy and seek as they reproduce an element of how you enjoy music (closer to the memory of the club, or a loud car stereo than a perfect recording).
They are crap, for want of a better word, because they change the music noticeably. But you've got to realise this is super-subjective stuff as some people want those changes.
They are also crap, probably the right word this time, because the material choice at this price point is pretty dire. But hey, they made plastic a luxury thing again, you could argue there's some brilliance there too. Most issues around durability come from the choice of materials.
As to whether they're crap full stop... well, no.
If you like the big beats of clubs, reverberating bass that dominates, and you rank the iconic fashion statement above durability (because fashion isn't designed to last anyway)... then Beats aren't a bad choice.
Thanks for this clear, useful, expert opinion. I've heard disparaging things about the Beats headphones and good (I suppose) to have them confirmed. I was shopping for headphones for as a gift and the store chap (who seemed quite knowledgeable) assured me that Beats were way overpriced. I got some Sennheisers at a lower price and they were amazing.
The neutrality point is kind of interesting because if the sound engineers start adjusting recordings to sound best though Beats headphones (or other audio 'enhancers'), then the recording will actually sound 'worse than intended' if it's listened to through a neutral system....
I've been with artists in the studio and in post-production... a point that most audiophiles miss is this: Who says the artists knew what the hell they were doing?
Not to mention one of my favorite quotes on audiophiles:
"Regular people buy sound systems to listen to their music. Audiophiles buy music to listen to their sound system."
"Regular people buy sound systems to listen to their music. Audiophiles buy music to listen to their sound system."
I guess neutrality is what Jimmy meant sounded Flat during the Interview. Where Steve Jobs liked it that way. There are reference that SJ was an Audiophile, so may be that is why he prefer it that way.
Which pieces of music are your reference points and why?
They should be something you know extremely well, have heard on most equipment you've owned, and reflect your listening. Ideally it will have bits that challenge the equipment.
Beck - Paper Tiger (on Sea Change) about 3 minutes 15 seconds in.
Because of the combination of rich and deep bass combined with delicate strings. Single speaker systems (headphones) struggle with reproducing bass at the the same as reproducing treble.
Charlatans - Page One (on Between 10th and 11th) the first minute
It's an example of massive over-production. It's left the sound stripped and clinical, and anything less than a faithful reproduction sounds terrible. This one track exposes compression artifacts really well, the top-end becomes washed out and blurred.
Belle and Sebastian - Me and the Major (on If You're Feeling Sinister) the end of the track
I've seen them live over 100 times, been in their studio and rehearsal space, worked with them. I know his voice, how it should sound, and I know that this record did not go through great post production (or much of an amateur post production either). The mouth organ bits at the end are not controlled very well and cause systems to clip the peaks, it can be uncomfortable to listen to, and is made worse by a less than great reproduction.
I tend to also throw in Nirvana, Led Zep, Beethoven, Chopin, and some dodgy pop music. But what I look for there is mostly whether the equipment isn't killing the thing I love.
Beck - Paper Tiger (on Sea Change) about 3 minutes 15 seconds in.
Because of the combination of rich and deep bass combined with delicate strings. Single speaker systems (headphones) struggle with reproducing bass at the the same as reproducing treble.
Charlatans - Page One (on Between 10th and 11th) the first minute
It's an example of massive over-production. It's left the sound stripped and clinical, and anything less than a faithful reproduction sounds terrible. This one track exposes compression artifacts really well, the top-end becomes washed out and blurred.
Belle and Sebastian - Me and the Major (on If You're Feeling Sinister) the end of the track
I've seen them live over 100 times, been in their studio and rehearsal space, worked with them. I know his voice, how it should sound, and I know that this record did not go through great post production (or much of an amateur post production either). The mouth organ bits at the end are not controlled very well and cause systems to clip the peaks, it can be uncomfortable to listen to, and is made worse by a less than great reproduction.
I tend to also throw in Nirvana, Led Zep, Beethoven, Chopin, and some dodgy pop music. But what I look for there is mostly whether the equipment isn't killing the thing I love.
I wouldn't put too much stock into audiophile opinions anyway (speaking as someone who got sucked into the community at head-fi.org before I realized how much bullshit there is).
>Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of ‘specialty’ audio equipment (known as the ‘high end’), however, connect both forms of resistance. These ‘audiophiles’ construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user ‘tweaks’ of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/34/5/783.abstract
>Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of ‘specialty’ audio equipment (known as the ‘high end’), however, connect both forms of resistance. These ‘audiophiles’ construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user ‘tweaks’ of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate
http://sss.sagepub.com/content/34/5/783.abstract
They're way overpriced & not good headphones. If you're seriously into good headphones with close to balanced EQ, brands like Sennheiser or Beyerdynamic are ones to look out for, not Beats. Beats is essentially a fashion brand when it comes to headphones.
I'm a music producer and a dj(minimal/tech house and hiphop),this is definetly not professional gear.
People buy them because of the brand not because of the qualitity of the headphones. And yes you can get way better headphones for half the price.
I have nothing against Beats and i'm happy for the team.But it's just not worth the price for a professional or someone that actually cares about high fidelity.
It would be like buying a low end Huawei phone at the price of a high end Samsung phone just because Dr Dre is endorsing it.
People buy them because of the brand not because of the qualitity of the headphones. And yes you can get way better headphones for half the price.
I have nothing against Beats and i'm happy for the team.But it's just not worth the price for a professional or someone that actually cares about high fidelity.
It would be like buying a low end Huawei phone at the price of a high end Samsung phone just because Dr Dre is endorsing it.
Why would you be happy for the Beats team of if they are actively trying to trick people into buying an inferior product at a premium price through celebrity endorsements?
I've never listened to Beats, so I can't say first hand.
However, the general sentiment from the audiophile community is that they are not terrible headphones, but you can get much much better for your money. Especially if you want transparency in your audio equipment(ie: doesn't cut/boost certain parts of the audio spectrum).
http://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/search?q=beats&restrict_s...
However, the general sentiment from the audiophile community is that they are not terrible headphones, but you can get much much better for your money. Especially if you want transparency in your audio equipment(ie: doesn't cut/boost certain parts of the audio spectrum).
http://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/search?q=beats&restrict_s...
This article http://www.dailydot.com/technology/apple-beats-jimmy-iovine-... speculates that the main attractions for Apple are the streaming service and the deal-making juice, which makes sense to me.
Can an audiophile even comment? They routinely embarrass themselves in double blind tests.
Beats headphones have very heavy Bass, a little bit overpowered Treble, and low Mids. This is basically what you get if you try to make a cheap headphones and add a lot of bass on it. This makes them fun for HipHop but sucks for everything else, specially anything with vocals.
They are, however, pretty good looking (imho), sturdy and extremely comfortable. They have also become (amongst non-geeks) the go-to headphones if you want something good as they don't have time to research the differences between HD598 and HD650.
If you buy a good pair of headphones that are balanced (eg. Sennheiser HD598), you can use a equalizer on your computer to make them sound just like Beats.
Basically, you can make Sennheisers sound like Beats, but you can't make Beats sound like Senheisers.
They are, however, pretty good looking (imho), sturdy and extremely comfortable. They have also become (amongst non-geeks) the go-to headphones if you want something good as they don't have time to research the differences between HD598 and HD650.
If you buy a good pair of headphones that are balanced (eg. Sennheiser HD598), you can use a equalizer on your computer to make them sound just like Beats.
Basically, you can make Sennheisers sound like Beats, but you can't make Beats sound like Senheisers.
I agree that some "audiophiles" are susceptible to ignorant beliefs, which they then zealously defend. I used to work with a guy who bought a CD player with a weighted turntable for the CD to sit on, on the grounds that it increased the "stability" of the bitrate. I laughed at the time and I'm still laughing now but he just could or would not understand why such a setup was useless. He'd also claim computers simply could not produce good audio, for some ludicrous reason I can't remember. So I suppose that's the type of person you're talking about.
But remember, the word "audiophile" simply means someone who loves sound, and in practise that means someone who cares about good sound and will expend money and effort to achieve it. I'd count myself in that category, and am annoyed at the misguided noisy minority who give us a bad reputation.
There's plenty of well informed, intelligent audiophiles who know their shit, aren't susceptible to marketing hype, and just want a faithful reproduction of their treasured music. Unfortunately, there's also a certain type of person who needs "something to believe in" in life and so gets on board with this kind of pseudo-religion with about as much credibility as the healing vibrations of crystals. You'll find them at the high-end stereo shop buying $500 ethernet cables (the network packets are so much more vibrant!) or signing up for the Pono kickstarter.
But remember, the word "audiophile" simply means someone who loves sound, and in practise that means someone who cares about good sound and will expend money and effort to achieve it. I'd count myself in that category, and am annoyed at the misguided noisy minority who give us a bad reputation.
There's plenty of well informed, intelligent audiophiles who know their shit, aren't susceptible to marketing hype, and just want a faithful reproduction of their treasured music. Unfortunately, there's also a certain type of person who needs "something to believe in" in life and so gets on board with this kind of pseudo-religion with about as much credibility as the healing vibrations of crystals. You'll find them at the high-end stereo shop buying $500 ethernet cables (the network packets are so much more vibrant!) or signing up for the Pono kickstarter.
I guess we need to define what you call an Audiophile first.
I dont consider myself one. As i think spending over certain amount of money is just silly. In that regards i am just a consumer who expect high quality headphone within a price, that could be around $200 - $300.
To simply put, if you are heavy Bass listener. And dont listen to any type of music other then Rock / Hip Hop. Then may be Beats is perfect.
You could argue most audiophile would embarrass themselves with blind test, but the traits in Beats are so different that any normal human being should easily distinguish it.
To simply put, if you are heavy Bass listener. And dont listen to any type of music other then Rock / Hip Hop. Then may be Beats is perfect.
You could argue most audiophile would embarrass themselves with blind test, but the traits in Beats are so different that any normal human being should easily distinguish it.
I was just wondering the same. I tried a couple of my colleagues headphones when I had left me own at home. He seemed annoyed at me for preferring the 30 euro ones over the 100 euro noise cancelling ones, but I preferred the sound that came from them.
Ok, the deal is not even officially announced, how the ef is so much info leaking out?
If it's leaking out of Beats, then they're already demonstrating how poor of a cultural fit for Apple they are. From... literally not day 1, but day -N.
If it's leaking out of Beats, then they're already demonstrating how poor of a cultural fit for Apple they are. From... literally not day 1, but day -N.
See also https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s2e5ZibypDk .
That said, it's not Dre's first entry into Apple's orbit. He has two entries in Isaacson's /Steve Jobs/.
That said, it's not Dre's first entry into Apple's orbit. He has two entries in Isaacson's /Steve Jobs/.
Agreed. It will be very interesting to see if this deal actually happens. Only time will tell whether the leak was very clever or completely idiotic. The whole world now knows what Beats is "worth" and that Apple is interested in them. I would love to know how much Beats sunk into the development of their flailing music streaming product that they are now trying to unload. If anyone can make it work it is Apple, but regardless something smells fishy. It seems like leaks like this happen when deals are on the rocks, to try to find a lifeboat in the form of another offer, only time will tell
Multi billion dollar acquisitions involve a lot of people. It was always going to be leaked eventually. Plus the whole Dr Dre getting drunk and telling everyone on Facebook that it was happening sort of confirmed it.
I'm a lot more curious about what the point of this is. Beats is about more than just headphones - they have the branded audio systems in some laptops and I think phones - but I didn't realize any of it was technically compelling. I thought they were all sales and marketing. Apple doesn't really need any help with that, do they?
Beats is an aspirational fashion brand. Apple have risen to dominance as... an aspirational fashion brand. They seem very aligned: high-margin, relatively expensive, weakly aspirational electronic goods which play a huge role in pop culture.
Not only does Apple get a well-aligned brand poised for growth, but they also eliminate a potential threat in the weak-aspirational electronics space.
Apple and Beats are also unique: they're the only two weakly aspirational brands I can think of that present organically in haute/celebrity culture. Both brands have managed, somehow, to punch up and mingle with strong-aspirational / luxury products while still being accessible to a large audience. You're more likely to see a movie star, rapper, or trust-funder get out of their Ferrari wearing an Audemars carrying an iPhone than a Vertu, and Beats headphones rather than Sennheisers.
That's a powerful, rare achievement in brand position and it makes sense for one company which has truly mastered the art to snap up an upstart that seems to be on track to accomplish the same thing.
Not only does Apple get a well-aligned brand poised for growth, but they also eliminate a potential threat in the weak-aspirational electronics space.
Apple and Beats are also unique: they're the only two weakly aspirational brands I can think of that present organically in haute/celebrity culture. Both brands have managed, somehow, to punch up and mingle with strong-aspirational / luxury products while still being accessible to a large audience. You're more likely to see a movie star, rapper, or trust-funder get out of their Ferrari wearing an Audemars carrying an iPhone than a Vertu, and Beats headphones rather than Sennheisers.
That's a powerful, rare achievement in brand position and it makes sense for one company which has truly mastered the art to snap up an upstart that seems to be on track to accomplish the same thing.
There is a fantastic interview with Levine which explains it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2Fkj427wDE
Beats' streaming service has a recommendation engine that is a combination of automated and manual curation. And iTunes Radio has shown that is Apple may be fine on the first but clearly fails at the second. What Levine mentions during the interview is how they know which producers and DJs are coming/going etc. So clearly they have extensive insider connections within the music industry. That is definitely worth spending money for.
Beats' streaming service has a recommendation engine that is a combination of automated and manual curation. And iTunes Radio has shown that is Apple may be fine on the first but clearly fails at the second. What Levine mentions during the interview is how they know which producers and DJs are coming/going etc. So clearly they have extensive insider connections within the music industry. That is definitely worth spending money for.
Iovine (it's an i, not an L) alone is worth spending money on. If Apple is struggling with iTunes and looking to revamp it with an eye towards streaming, as has been rumored, a guy with Iovine's connections to the industry is someone you'd like to have on your team. Add in the fashion aspects the of Beats brand, the fact that Apple already sells their hardware in large quantities, the fact that Beats is profitable, and whatever existing streaming licenses they have with the labels, and the acquisition makes a lot of sense.
Beats has a streaming service that Apple has previously shown interest in as well as people with contacts in the music industry.
The contracts are likely not transferrable. And the streaming service is not a huge technical accomplishment, by any stretch. Honestly I have no idea why this would be desirable. It would damage Apple IMHO.
I wouldn't assume anything about the contracts either way until the details of the deal are announced.
EDIT: Actually, I might lean toward thinking the contracts are transferrable, given Beats built its streaming service by purchasing MOG.
EDIT: Actually, I might lean toward thinking the contracts are transferrable, given Beats built its streaming service by purchasing MOG.
I think you misread the parent, it was “contacts”, not “contracts”. As in “insider connections”.
I watched the Interview, about how he think EarPod quality were poor, and how he wanted the Music to Feel exactly right, with the Beats Headphone.
All these are great. His sales pitch was Apple ish too. There will likely be people on the net falls for it.
But may be, just may be he loves Rocks and Dre is Hip Hop, their Beats Headphone are essentially only suited for these two type of music. And may be that is what is was talking about how the music should feel.
And may be, just may be, Amercians love the way it sounds, as in Audiophile world there are people who could distinguish those Stereo equipments from different region.
I am definitely on the UK and Japan camp, B&W being my favourite. Not that they are the best, but most of the time it is best suited to me, and it depends on price range and other factors.
Beats? If it wasn't for the design and looks, i would put it at the bottom of all branded Headphones. And that is not a problem because there will always be a loser. But for a Brand that consistently put out crap at its price range, and talk about it so passionately as if they were the best? I just feel sick. The worst thing about Beats headphone is the audio coming out has no soul in it. I dont feel any attention to details were ever put into it.
Heck that is why there are so many cheap knock off, and some even claim those fake version sounded better.
Now back to Apple, assuming the Headset business worth nothing. Why would you spend 3.2B on a streaming services? Do knowing what songs next really worth 3.2B?
All these are great. His sales pitch was Apple ish too. There will likely be people on the net falls for it.
But may be, just may be he loves Rocks and Dre is Hip Hop, their Beats Headphone are essentially only suited for these two type of music. And may be that is what is was talking about how the music should feel.
And may be, just may be, Amercians love the way it sounds, as in Audiophile world there are people who could distinguish those Stereo equipments from different region.
I am definitely on the UK and Japan camp, B&W being my favourite. Not that they are the best, but most of the time it is best suited to me, and it depends on price range and other factors.
Beats? If it wasn't for the design and looks, i would put it at the bottom of all branded Headphones. And that is not a problem because there will always be a loser. But for a Brand that consistently put out crap at its price range, and talk about it so passionately as if they were the best? I just feel sick. The worst thing about Beats headphone is the audio coming out has no soul in it. I dont feel any attention to details were ever put into it.
Heck that is why there are so many cheap knock off, and some even claim those fake version sounded better.
Now back to Apple, assuming the Headset business worth nothing. Why would you spend 3.2B on a streaming services? Do knowing what songs next really worth 3.2B?
>> I watched the Interview, about how he think EarPod quality were poor
Do people actually think Apples earbuds (the current as well as the previous version) sound good?
I never liked the first generation ones because they didn't fit in my ear very well. I saw the presentation about the current earpods, and when I got my new iPhone I tried them out. They are a joke.
Don't get me wrong - they are about what I was expecting for pack-in headphones. Apple was known for their earbuds, with the white cord and white bodies. They are iconic.
But a few years ago, I went headphone crazy since I started working at a place with an open environment and ended up wearing them most of the day. I didn't buy anything crazy, the single most expensive pair I bought was $140 and I even bought a few pair used. But $50/$70 earbuds are just on another level compared to the Apple earpods and are really worth it if you use them a lot.
Do people actually think Apples earbuds (the current as well as the previous version) sound good?
I never liked the first generation ones because they didn't fit in my ear very well. I saw the presentation about the current earpods, and when I got my new iPhone I tried them out. They are a joke.
Don't get me wrong - they are about what I was expecting for pack-in headphones. Apple was known for their earbuds, with the white cord and white bodies. They are iconic.
But a few years ago, I went headphone crazy since I started working at a place with an open environment and ended up wearing them most of the day. I didn't buy anything crazy, the single most expensive pair I bought was $140 and I even bought a few pair used. But $50/$70 earbuds are just on another level compared to the Apple earpods and are really worth it if you use them a lot.
I think they're good. Not good good but I hate vacuum buds and I'm happy to find some that fit my ears nicely. I'd welcome suggestions for quality headphones if they: (1) fit as good as current Apple model, (2) aren't vacuum, (3) are the same form factor (I can't wear large headphones).
If you compare the new Apple EarPod with its official retail price range to others, yes it is not good.
But if i compare to any other earphones that came with other phone or equipment. i.e those given to you for free or part of the package? Then i guess joke is on them.
And i wouldn't blame Apple. Why? Because Apple isn't a earphone , audio equipment company. So it would be like comparing Apple's Macbook to Yamaha or Onkyo's Laptop.
But if i compare to any other earphones that came with other phone or equipment. i.e those given to you for free or part of the package? Then i guess joke is on them.
And i wouldn't blame Apple. Why? Because Apple isn't a earphone , audio equipment company. So it would be like comparing Apple's Macbook to Yamaha or Onkyo's Laptop.
Nobody cares what audiophiles think except for themselves.
Beats has a 67% market share in particular amongst younger audiences who are the most valuable demographic in the music industry. Clearly Apple must be seeing that al a carte sales are stable in the higher ages ranges but they are losing to Spotify, Soundcloud etc at the younger ages. So from a hardware perspective creating some lock in between the headphones and iPod/iPhone could be very lucrative. The type of lock in that Apple is rumoured to be developing right now i.e. in ear health measuring functionality.
On the software side it's not the technology but their manual curation abilities, inside connections within the industry at all levels and understanding of younger markets. Apple failed miserably with iTunes Radio and are desperate.
So yes. Given that iTunes is the key to iPod/iPhone sales which in turn is the key to Mac sales I would say it is easily worth a tiny $3.2B.
Beats has a 67% market share in particular amongst younger audiences who are the most valuable demographic in the music industry. Clearly Apple must be seeing that al a carte sales are stable in the higher ages ranges but they are losing to Spotify, Soundcloud etc at the younger ages. So from a hardware perspective creating some lock in between the headphones and iPod/iPhone could be very lucrative. The type of lock in that Apple is rumoured to be developing right now i.e. in ear health measuring functionality.
On the software side it's not the technology but their manual curation abilities, inside connections within the industry at all levels and understanding of younger markets. Apple failed miserably with iTunes Radio and are desperate.
So yes. Given that iTunes is the key to iPod/iPhone sales which in turn is the key to Mac sales I would say it is easily worth a tiny $3.2B.
That is why i posted in another thread, Define Audiophile.
If you consider spending anything more then $40 - 50 on earphone as audiophile then we have a different of opinion. Because in my view those are people who spend $100s to $1000s in audio equipment.
Therefore i dont consider myself an Audiophile. I just wanted a better audio equipment for my money then what most technology company do which is throw a piece of crap speaker at me.
I dont agree on iTunes being Key to iPhone Sales. I would actually say requiring iTunes is the problem to iPhone sales. Whether the curation and Human connection, executive etc are worth 3.2B is up for debate.
If you consider spending anything more then $40 - 50 on earphone as audiophile then we have a different of opinion. Because in my view those are people who spend $100s to $1000s in audio equipment.
Therefore i dont consider myself an Audiophile. I just wanted a better audio equipment for my money then what most technology company do which is throw a piece of crap speaker at me.
I dont agree on iTunes being Key to iPhone Sales. I would actually say requiring iTunes is the problem to iPhone sales. Whether the curation and Human connection, executive etc are worth 3.2B is up for debate.
What would seem to be the danger is that it's not a good look for Apple to buy/own/be associated with something that is quite so obviously "all style, no substance" - basically the exact same thing that many haters already accuse Apple of, unfairly in my view. Same if Apple bought Monster Cables. It's the kind of link that would actually hurt one, other, or both brands.
That's even assuming a word of this nonsense is true. I just can't see how Beats would have one single thing that Apple would want.
That's even assuming a word of this nonsense is true. I just can't see how Beats would have one single thing that Apple would want.