Live data from Hacker News

Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

nytimes.com

161–170 of 351 posts

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#161
I just want to go on record with an entirely different idea as to why Apple is buying beats. They're going to make a label.

Why Apple doesn't do streaming: Apple hates committing to something unless it's absolutely perfect. There are numerous examples, but NFC technology is a good one that comes to mind. Granted, they've made mistakes, like Mobile Me, but that was due to poor implementation, rather than immature technology and infrastructure. A similar problem has been in their way as far music streaming goes. The obstacle in their path to connecting consumers to content are labels (the same applies to cable companies and iTV, but that's a different story). Labels are greedy, difficult to deal with, and a general nuisance who provide little or no value. Meanwhile, the actual content providers, i.e. songwriters and performers, view labels as a necessary evil, but no one believes for a second that needing them is ideal.

The vision: The idea is that Apple is looking to buy Beats to start their own label so they can cut out the label, who is an unnecessary middleman. My reasoning behind this is that Beats is a very strong brand, mainly because it's been run by two very savvy music industry veterans who know how to "produce", in every sense of the word. They're more of a household name than any other headphone maker can claim. If any company had the power, skill, and recognition to pull off disrupting the record industry, it would be beats. The only problem is they don't have enough money, do you know who does? Boom. It's as simple as that. Just take a look at this http://cdn.macrumors.com/article-new/2014/05/beats-royalty-s.... and tell me, from Apple's perspective, what the problem is with a music streaming service? The labels get all the money and the artists get none. All Beats has to do is say, "Boom, we're starting a label and we own the streaming service, so you can have a 30% cut per play and we'll keep 70%". If you were an artist and you could literally improve your earnings by 10x wouldn't you? $248K vs $22K is criminal.

Just imagine, from Apple's perspective, what this would open up? Essentially, it's total vertical integration, a pipe from artist to audience, unadulterated by stupid bullshit. For example they could have complete coordination of everything from the original recording quality of an album to specialized super high end digital to analog converters in the hardware - from lossless media formats that were recorded especially for that format to headphones that are tuned to provide optimal performance. This is a complete bargain and no ones talking about it. It will serve as a prototype for what Apple would love to do to the television industry (think Apple acquires HBO, a win win for both), and they're doing right under everyone's noses because no one can think big enough. Apple would never, in a million years, purchase a company like that for so much money if they didn't have a very good idea of how it would pay off 10x.

And remember, this is the same company that seriously considered becoming a carrier, in order to launch the iPhone.

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#162
The headphones are crap, way too much bass and the build quality is pretty bad even for low-end headphone. But they have fooled people into thinking they are a premium product, somehow. Is that why Apple bought them? I hope we don't start getting "iPad with Beats audio" gimmicks.

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#163
post #126
post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not really true - Sony and Sennheiser (as well as AKG and other less known companies) had the market covered already.

Except Beats created a new market - a group of people who couldn't actually afford $300 headphones but bought them anyway. Just as you see people who buy iPhones and iPods but can't really afford them.

Reminds me of some long-early post when hackers gf begged him to buy her a new iPhone5. Instead the hacker somehow skinned and make her old iPhone4 to look like iPhone5 and she didn't even noticed.

Consumers, right? :)

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#164
post #157

The amount of people in this thread who are unable to understand the brilliance of this deal is astounding. What they bought is not one thing, but all the components that came together in the right way, at the right time. * Beats Music, a music service that is truly different from the others and is in my opinion better in many ways. * Legendary founder of Interscope records Jimmy Iovine (who then ran it for 25 years)…

Apple made 170 Billion dollars last year. They are insane not to try to spend chump change on the music industry. The own the delivery of sound from that industry INTO a vast % of the consumers of it. Apple is going to own the entire experience of media consumption for some % of their customer base. They will be the label, the distribution, the hardware and the content. A 100% apple audio feed, all wrapped up in a ti…

Exactly. You're absolutely right. They will try to control the flow right from the time artists make the sounds to the time the audio hits the listener's ear.

Just as they control an app from the time it's written to the time the user uses the app on their phone (while taking a nice 30% cut of proceeds).

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#165
post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That doesn't mean they're not part of the higher-end headphone market .

High-end is a sonic category, not a price category. There are extremely expensive audio systems that are targeted towards concerts, etc..

Probably better to call them luxury headphones. That doesn't carry the same connotation of quality that "high-end" does.

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#166
post #39

The meat of this deal isn't likely the streaming service. Beats Music had only 111,000 subscribers as of March [1]. Compare that to Spotify's 10 million paying subscribers, 30 million non-paying users, and $4 billion valuation. The deal's financial logic is driven by Beats's $1.3 billion business (in 2013) of selling high-priced headphones. Given Apple's P/E ratio of 14.9x earnings [2], the acquisition would make sen…

Your argument makes sense, but it kind of falls apart when you consider that Beats aren't actually good headphones, to the point where The Wirecutter actually did an article[1] where they listed all the various Beats products and then provided examples of better deals (some of them with significantly better quality at half the price). I don't understand why Apple would buy a headphone company that makes pretty but lo…

You have to remember the difference between your perception and the public's perception. The public has no idea what good audio sounds like. They've probably never heard of The Wirecutter. They are not audiophiles.

Beats, _regardless of its actual quality_, is perceived as high quality. That's why people pay for the headphones. That's why they make so much money. That's why Apple bought them.

They are considered fashionable and high-end. It's the perception that counts.

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#167
post #44
post #25

Apple redefined the mp3 player market, the ultraportable laptop market, the smartphone market, the tablet market, and now they're buying a company that reinvented the higher-end headphone market. Is it smart of a brand that has traditionally created their own iconic images to buy another cultural icon for $3 billion? I don't think so. Maybe this gets used a lot, but would Steve Jobs have done this? Or would he have c…

> reinvented the higher-end headphone market. Rebranded mid-range electronics with pop star endorsements and hype. Do people really consider Beats to be high end?

>Do people really consider Beats to be high end?

People who buy them do and that's what matters.

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#168
post #142
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> would Steve Jobs have done this? Or would he have created his own headphones and music streaming service? I don't know, would he have? You asked the question in such a way as to imply the answer that no, he wouldn't, but you can't actually know that for sure. Also, we shouldn't be holding Apple to the standard of 'Steve Jobs was perfect so if he wouldn't have done this then it's bad'; Jobs made his share of mistake…

They also get the legendary founder of Interscope records (who ran it for 25 years) and Dr. Fucking Dre as part of the deal to serve as Apple management. That's got to worth something.

Yes, but what's the over/under on how long either of them stay? Seems a bit like Michael Ovitz at Disney: he lasted a year.

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#169
Apple paid ~10% of its $35b 2013 free cash flow* for Beats, a company with a software-side growth story and actual positive free cash flow of its own driving investment in the software piece.

Apple: spinning off cash, buying companies that themselves spin off cash.

A delight to see P. Oppenheimer's conservative approach thriving. Financially, Apple is a thrilling company to watch.

* N.B. That's actual GAAP free cash flow. It is pure cream. What better than to accrete to FCF while acquiring, as noted by @onedev, some terrific assets, personnel, and goodwill. This is a smart and cheap move.

Re: Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics

#170
post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

High-end is a sonic category, not a price category. There are extremely expensive audio systems that are targeted towards concerts, etc..

That's an interesting definition. I think of it as a synonym of "upscale," which refers explicitly to high price but does generally have a connotation of high quality as well.

I agree - I think of "high-end" as indicative of price.
Post reply on HN