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

51–60 of 165 posts

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

#51

Post by Braveatom »

The major labels have a love/hate relationship with iTunes. It brings in loads of cash, but it's a monopoly and the majors have little to no control (on price and promo, compared to retail). 

So I wouldn't be surprised if the labels are being somewhat difficult to Apple about streaming rights - they'll dominate, and once again the labels lack control. 

This deal could get round that somehow?

Add to that that I think the labels have vested interests in Spotify and very favourable deals, (while cautious of the streaming model) and it makes sense to not let another player in just yet, especially one like Apple. 

Apples service is one that'll ride roughshod over everything, installed instantly on 100's of millions of devices with an iOS update - Sounds like a good use of their money to get that sooner rather than later. 

I haven't used Beats headphones but if their tech could be used to perceivably improve idevice's and laptops built in speaker audio it's a win there too. 

I'll believe it when I see it though.

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

#52

Post by baddox »

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?

I would argue they're way worse than Bose. Bose products, at least to me, sound good but are overpriced. Beats products are overpriced but also sound bad.

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

#53

Post by baddox »

bherms wrote: post #37
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?

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".

A flat response is rarely desirable, or at least rarely intended, except for equipment designed for audio production.

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

#54

Post by Braveatom »

Scorponok wrote: post #50
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…

Other services (like spotify) have tended to have clauses in their licenses saying something like "If you get acquired, the deal is cancelled and you have to renegotiate it" so that the record companies can prevent exactly this from happening. I would be surprised if Beats doesn't as well. That means that it doesn't matter if Apple (or anyone else) buys someone who already has a deal - the previous terms go away and…

True, but if they have a system ready to roll and are in a good negotiation position (iTunes is effectively a monopoly) it puts a lot of pressure on the labels to sign

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

#55

Post by baddox »

paul_f wrote: post #39
dragonwriter wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They've got iTunes Match and iTunes radio, which are both similar to but just slightly to either side of Spotify.

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

#56

Post by batiudrami »

cschmidt wrote: post #35
nerfhammer wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

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)

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

#57

Post by pohl »

bobbles wrote: post #36

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 be…

Even if they're not interested in the subscription service model, there may be something here that can improve iTunes Radio's song selections:

"The service uses a personalization system combining recommendations based on listening habits and algorithms with human curation and playlists from music professionals, including other "guest" curators, such as Rolling Stone, Rap Radar, and Pitchfork. Song searches prioritize the original, master recordings of songs over other versions (such as covers). A feature known as "The Sentence" allows users to generate playlists by filling four blanks in a sentence with words describing various activities, moods, and genres."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beats_Music

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

#58

Post by abalone »

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…

I don't understand your argument. Beats also supports Android and Windows, like Spotify.

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

#59

Post by leemcalilly »

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,…

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.

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

#60

Post by gcv »

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?

I don't know anything about build quality or customer satisfaction, but this video gives you an excellent idea how they sound: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pK7QbLNjno — try to listen to the demo with relatively neutral headphones. FWIW, I listened to Beats at an Apple store, and the video fits nicely with my impressions.
Post reply on HN