111–120 of 165 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I hope they are "doing some kind of next-level mole hunt to level-up on secrecy" here. I do not see any value in Beats other than a superficial fashion trend that has already run its course.
A cynic would say the same about the iphone. I think there's a good fit here - the same kind of people buy both, so there's lots of opportunity for cross-promotion.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are over marketed a bit and over priced, sure, but just as much as Bose, B&O and a lot of other premium sound brands. 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?
Bose is a damn bad example as a premium brand to compare Beats to. Their consumer headphones are widely considered to be way overpriced and gimmicky. The brands Beats should really be compared to are Sennheiser, Shure, A-T, Denon, Beyerdynamic and the like. Any offerings from these brands at a price point from $100 and up offer at least as good sound quality as Beats' cans and for a much lower price, and many of thei…
This makes even less sense than the Square acquisition rumor. 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,…
> You think they can't do their own licensing deal? 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…
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.
This makes even less sense than the Square acquisition rumor. 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,…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Beats was made popular by the Monster Cable marketing machine, who is specifically known for selling well-marketed overpriced crap. Claiming that they're good because they sell is silly.
It depends on how you define 'good'. They may not be good for listening to certain genres and they may not have a very balanced sound which a lot of audiophiles desire, but the sound they produce is clearly a sound people want and that is proven by how well they sell. They are not an impulse purchase, they are ridiculously expensive. If people really hated the sound most of them wouldn't buy Beats even with the marke…
Most people are easily fooled when it comes to audio quality and have no idea what sound they "want", so they have to judge the quality of the product on the basis of marketing/branding and design instead. That's exactly what's happening with Beats.
And it is entirely sustainable because (in the mainstream) headphones are first and foremost a fashion accessory, and neither Beats wearers nor the observers are know a thing about what good audio quality is. As long as they look hip wearing Beats in the eyes of mainstream observers (a phenomenon that doesn't show any signs of abating), it'll continue to fly off the shelves.
As someone else commented above, the job of quality headphones is to reproduce the recorded signal as faithfully as possible - a flat frequency response. If you want enhanced base (for example), that should be done in the software equalizer, before the signal gets fed to the hardware. On an objective level, the audio quality of Beats blows. There's simply no other way to put it. Of course, this is all irrelevant to the unwash^H^H^H^H^H^Huneducated masses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm a bit of an audiophile myself, so I wouldn't listen to Beats, but I do think "bad" is a value judgement. I want a neutral reproduction of the music, and I get that with my Grado's. The Beats customer wants lots of thumpy bass. We each get what we want.
This is exactly it - they give a 'fun' listening experience that people enjoy, and mistake for sound quality. They're paying a high price for a brand and experience, rather than for the quality of the components, like many other premium brands. I don't wear them, but I don't hate the people who do (though I'm not huge on Beats' "the way it was meant to sound/the way the musician intended" branding)
"You're listening to it wrong"
Does this mean we're about to get a new iPod classic? 1,702 days and counting ... [1] [1] http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#iPod_Classic
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.