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

Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

usatoday.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 79 posts

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#31

Post by johnward »

return0 wrote: post #18
iambateman wrote: post #2

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A w…

I don't even know beats, and the way you describe them, they sound pretty mediocre. Just because the amount of money being gambled is huge, that doesn't make it genius. Apple must know something about beats that nobody else does, otherwise there is no way it's genius.

You can't go anywhere in the US and not see someone on the street wearing beats headphones. It's a huge brand. Plsu they also have a streaming service that Apple could use.

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#33

Post by dopamean »

ProAm wrote: post #10
sharkweek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was given a pair of Beats Studios almost two years ago, so maybe that makes it easier to say this but, speaking as a non-audiophile, they're... good? I read a lot about how terrible they are, but in my experience, they're comfortable, their noise cancellation is great at work, and I have never noticed degraded audio quality (once again, as a non-audiophile). Could someone point me to a defacto better pair of headph…

They aren't bad headphones, the thing is you can get equivalent quality spending ~$50-70.

> you can get equivalent quality spending ~$50-70

That's what he was asking for. I've frequently heard this and I believe it to be true but as a non-audiophile how do I identify a pair of $70 headphones that are as good as Beats' $200 ones.

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#34

Post by warfangle »

sharkweek wrote: post #8
iambateman wrote: post #2

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A w…

I was given a pair of Beats Studios almost two years ago, so maybe that makes it easier to say this but, speaking as a non-audiophile, they're... good? I read a lot about how terrible they are, but in my experience, they're comfortable, their noise cancellation is great at work, and I have never noticed degraded audio quality (once again, as a non-audiophile). Could someone point me to a defacto better pair of headph…

Beyerdynamic DT660: http://www.amazon.com/beyerdynamic-DT-660-Premium-Headphones... (go for the 770 if you're in a quieter situation, as they're open-backed and you get a bit of a cleaner sound)

Grado is almost always a stellar choice. http://www.amazon.com/Grado-Prestige-Series-SR125i-Headphone...

Both cheaper than beats.

Both much, much better.

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#35

Post by 001sky »

return0 wrote: post #18
iambateman wrote: post #2

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A w…

I don't even know beats, and the way you describe them, they sound pretty mediocre. Just because the amount of money being gambled is huge, that doesn't make it genius. Apple must know something about beats that nobody else does, otherwise there is no way it's genius.

Plenty of "mediocre" brands are great businesses. The thesis is that Beats has marketing expertise--can sell cheap things for high prices--in a market where apple lacks it.

Apple must know something about beats that nobody else does, otherwise there is no way it's genius.

Again, this is false. Its not about "know something" its about "do something". A market-expansion play into high-growth (new) demographic is all about leveraging the existing asset base @ apple. It's not about "knowledge", its about "leverage"...and the only people who can leverage apple's existing products and asset base are...apple.

The counter-argument to targeting the "urban market" if you believe (potentialy race-tinged) NY/london advertsining and marketing professionals....is lack of buying power in this "non abc1" demographic.

But Beats has succeeded--seeling expensive price-point goods (ie, apple's specialty) into this market. That is a HUGE mark of success for beats...the fact that they are selling "junk" at high-mark-ups just underscores their marketing genius.

TLDR (1) apple is buying the marketing genius; (2) that genius already selling at Apple-esque price points; and(3) into a growth-demographic where apple lacks strong histrical expertise.

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#36

Post by IBM »

sharkweek wrote: post #8
iambateman wrote: post #2

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A w…

I was given a pair of Beats Studios almost two years ago, so maybe that makes it easier to say this but, speaking as a non-audiophile, they're... good? I read a lot about how terrible they are, but in my experience, they're comfortable, their noise cancellation is great at work, and I have never noticed degraded audio quality (once again, as a non-audiophile). Could someone point me to a defacto better pair of headph…

You're not missing anything, don't worry. I was a former audiophile spending way too much money like everyone else at Head-fi.org

Then I realized the collective delusion everyone was living in when I forced myself to double-blind test headphones and various audio formats. Audiophiles are a tiny minority and you can find all of them poo-pooing this deal on Twitter (a lot of them overlap with Apple's customers), but regular people are just fine with Beats or Bose (another derided brand among audiophiles) products.

You can easily get sucked into that world and make yourself believe that those really expensive headphones are worth it, but it will be because you want to believe it after spending all that money.

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#37

Post by nsxwolf »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #23
iambateman wrote: post #2

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A w…

I'd hardly describe it as genius. Apple saw an opportunity: a headphone maker with such a strong brand they can demand a 100-200% markup on their products and still maintain strong sales. Apple is also in exactly that same market, deciding to pickup Beats isn't genius it's obvious.

To be fair, I didn't see you or anyone else predicting a Beats acquisition by Apple. So how obvious is it really?

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#38

Post by adamlett »

InclinedPlane wrote: post #23
iambateman wrote: post #2

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A w…

I'd hardly describe it as genius. Apple saw an opportunity: a headphone maker with such a strong brand they can demand a 100-200% markup on their products and still maintain strong sales. Apple is also in exactly that same market, deciding to pickup Beats isn't genius it's obvious.

Obvious? Maybe if the didn't have to pay anything for the company, it would be. But why is it obvious that this acquisition makes sense at that particular price? I'm not saying that it doesn't make sense, only that you have to at the very least consider how much the company is worth to Apple, before you declare it a no-brainer acquisition. Would it still make sense at $4B? $6B? How much would be too much before this is “obviously” a bad deal?

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#39

Post by epaladin »

pdubs wrote: post #19
sharkweek wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was given a pair of Beats Studios almost two years ago, so maybe that makes it easier to say this but, speaking as a non-audiophile, they're... good? I read a lot about how terrible they are, but in my experience, they're comfortable, their noise cancellation is great at work, and I have never noticed degraded audio quality (once again, as a non-audiophile). Could someone point me to a defacto better pair of headph…

Sony MDR-V6/MDR-7506 http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/the-best-150-over-ear-headp...

Agreed. The MDR-7506 is a "studio standard" for reference/monitor headphones in pro audio and video. The frequency response is not "enhanced" at the low end like the Beats and many other modern headphones. I don't think the curve is really flat- they always sound a little bright to me (thought in that hear-more-detail sort of naturally pleasant way), but they're definitely more flat than the Beats. The 7506 is like $90. The V6 has the same drivers, but doesn't have a gold plated plug (seriously). I got my V6s refurbed for $50. The closed earpads passively block external sound pretty well, and they're relatively comfortable. They don't come in green or pink, but they sound good, are still made with some metal parts for durability, and they're way cheaper than Beats. Source: work in a couple different TV production studios, a friend that's in the audio/acoustics industry, and a lot of reviews at B & H.

Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal

#40

Post by abvdasker »

iambateman wrote: post #2

Beats headphones are crap, sure. And their streaming service isn't as mature as Spotify. But three billion dollars isn't about headphones or online music streaming or Dr Dre's drunken celebration. It's about growth. Apple has a chokehold on the iPod market. They've rocked the market with the iPod, iPhone, iPad and those products will be cash cows for a long time. But where is their next growth going to come from? A w…

Any sources to back up your claim that Beats has a stronger presence among the "black, hispanic, urban-context, young men and women" dempgraphic? I'd believe it, but I'd rather not take that at face value given the entire point your making rests on that statistic.
Post reply on HN