Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

mobile.nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 165 posts

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#131

Post by luma »

kristiandupont wrote: post #114
jcampbell1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>When you are the richest guy in town it is hard to negotiate a good deal. 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.

All negotiations start with what you think the other party can afford. I've never worked on a billion dollar deal, but I've worked on plenty of million dollar deals and I can assure you, perception of the other parties' ability and desire to pay does in fact play a factor.

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#132

Post by Jtsummers »

kristiandupont wrote: post #114
jcampbell1 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>When you are the richest guy in town it is hard to negotiate a good deal. 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.

Especially if you have other options and aren't in a rush. "You've got a nice portfolio of licenses, we're interested in working with you." "Fine, but we know you're worth over $120 billion so pay us $1 billion." "Thanks, we'll talk to your competitors now, or maybe just get our own licenses."

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#133

Post by prawks »

abalone wrote: post #44

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,…

My grandmother has an iPad.

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.

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#134

Post by userbinator »

quotient wrote: post #16
lawnchair_larry wrote: post #3

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.

Yes, it's precisely about appearance. Beats head/earphones are very popular. They were also in some sort of partnership with HP (and perhaps others?) previously --- you can find many HP laptops with Beats Audio. This appears to be a selling point, so combined with the fashionable image of Beats, it makes sense that Apple would want to absorb this brand. Also, most people aren't aware that Beats are junk. Many consume…

Many consumers mistake a strong bass for good audio quality

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.

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#135

Post by calinet6 »

DanBC wrote: post #121
state wrote: post #9

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?

Quality of product is unimportant. Vast market of "gullible fools" proves this. 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…

Apple's market, however, is not gullible fools. They produce quality products that do not lie about their quality. This authenticity and quality is key to their success.

Steve would roll in his grave. He had Magnepans.

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#136

Post by zerohm »

state wrote: post #9

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?

Beats certainly has one thing going for it in brand recognition: they are the preferred headphone of the professional athlete.

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#137

Post by userbinator »

Veratyr wrote: post #109
woah wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some people, perhaps most people, want a strong bass. Are they wrong? Not to say that Beats are great or anything, but applying a bass boost to something with a flat response is not going to produce better bass than housing, speaker, etc that all resonate together at the right frequency. Another thing to keep in mind is that most people will be using these in noisy environments.

> Some people, perhaps most people, want a strong bass. Are they wrong? I think that if people want a strong bass, they should listen to music that has strong bass and use headphones that will accurately reproduce it. If they want music that doesn't have strong bass to sound like it does, well that's the role of the equalizer, not the headphones. The role of the headphones is to take whatever signal they're given and…

I think a lot of people that want strong bass don't even know what an EQ is, so they'll just buy headphones with strong bass, since that's the easiest way (to them) of getting the sound they want.

People who want really strong bass will buy headphones that have strong bass --- and then turn the bass up on the EQ too. :)

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#138

Post by inthewoods »

jcampbell1 wrote: post #49
abalone wrote: post #44

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…

"When you are the richest guy in town it is hard to negotiate a good deal."

When you control distribution and can offer larger revenue streams, you have a lot of negotiating power. See: Walmart.

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#139

Post by gregsq »

calinet6 wrote: post #135
DanBC wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quality of product is unimportant. Vast market of "gullible fools" proves this. 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…

Apple's market, however, is not gullible fools. They produce quality products that do not lie about their quality. This authenticity and quality is key to their success. Steve would roll in his grave. He had Magnepans.

I was downvoted for a snarky comment about having to replace Beats if they were provided as the standard quality for iPhones in particular. OK that's fair. But with what I believe to have been Job's fastidious attention to quality, I find it difficult to understand how he would have accepted the sound quality. The branding issue has a certain, even large value, but there's also the loss of reputation for quality that using what are objectively poor quality sound reproducers will I think bring, to consider as well.

The quality of the audio electronics in iPhones is quite alright. The iPhone's have measured well and sound quite OK given the limitations on space and power. The standard earbuds provided with them are poor quality though, and as an electronics engineer, audio engineer, and musician I would be quite disappointed if Apple allowed this sound reproduction shortcoming to persist. Monster Turbines like the Copper Pro are substantially better than Beats, so upgrading quality might happen, and what I say will be irrelevant.

I want Apple to continue to strive for excellence in quality, and not to let that focus lapse if concentrating on branding and market share.

Re: Apple Said to Be in Talks to Buy Beats for $3.2 Billion

#140

Post by dev360 »

halviti wrote: post #95
abalone wrote: post #44

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,…

The mole hunt is a great thought. 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.

Crush all opposition, just like Stevie would have done!
Post reply on HN