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

31–40 of 165 posts

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

#31

Post by Aqwis »

Cookingboy wrote: post #20
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?

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 their phones look pretty good as well.

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

#34

Post by tomrod »

Aqwis wrote: post #31
Cookingboy wrote: post #20

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…

Wait--don't compare to Bose, compare instead to Bose?

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

#35

Post by cschmidt »

nerfhammer wrote: post #28
Cookingboy wrote: post #20

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?

“In terms of sound performance, they are among the worst you can buy,” says Tyll Hertsens, editor in chief of InnerFidelity.com, a site for audiophiles. “They are absolutely, extraordinarily bad.” http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/business/beats-headphones-...

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.

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

#36

Post by bobbles »

I really think people are underestimating the streaming service they could be acquiring here.

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.

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.

Acquiring beats would undoubtedly mean they also acquire their licencing contracts, which seem to have been traditionally difficult for Apple in the past.

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

#37

Post by bherms »

Cookingboy wrote: post #20
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?

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?

Quality when applied to speakers and headphones is typically demonstrated by frequency response, with a perfectly flat response being the pinnacle. Headphones like Beats appeal to people who have only had bargain headphones (think a few bucks), and they do this by having attractive packaging and just basically amping up the bass response because bass has a "wow factor".

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

#38

Post by Aqwis »

tomrod wrote: post #34
Aqwis wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wait--don't compare to Bose, compare instead to Bose?

Oops, didn't think straight.

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

#39

Post by paul_f »

dragonwriter wrote: post #23
paul_f wrote: post #11

$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.

> if they wanted a music subscription service, they could easily create one of their own. Actually, they have one. (iTunes Radio) Of course, the fact that this has to be pointed out to someone arguing how strong Apple's brand is relative to Beats might illustrate the value they get from buying Beats better than anything else.

My understanding is iTunes radio is Pandora, not Spotify. Big difference. One is Internet radio, the other a true music subscription service.
Post reply on HN