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

71–80 of 165 posts

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

#71

Post by justinreeves »

baddox wrote: post #55
paul_f wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'd say more than slightly. Spotify's main draw is that you can search for the song you want to listen to, and you can hear that song.

iTunes match works off your own personal collection, and Radio is just like Pandora. Neither allows you to look for things you don't own and listen to them.

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

#72

Post by lawnchair_larry »

mahouse wrote: post #26
quotient wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not only HP, but HTC phones, until several months ago.

Interestingly, HTC bought a majority share (50.1%) in Beats, and slowly sold it back in pieces. Based on the timing, I wonder if Beats may have had to buy it back in order to sell to Apple.

In August 2013, reports surfaced that Beats' founders planned to buy back HTC's remaining minority stake in the company, and pursue a new, unspecified partner for a future investment.[11][12] On September 27, 2013, HTC confirmed its plan to sell its remaining 24.84% stake in Beats back to the company for $265 million, with the deal expected to close by the end of the year. Concurrently, Beats announced that the Carlyle Group would make a minority investment in the company"

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

#73

Post by [deleted] »

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,…

[deleted]

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

#74

Post by pbreit »

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.

iTunes Radio is not a music subscription service. First, it is free. Second, it doesn't allow you to call up tracks on demand. BIG difference.

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

#75

Post by pbreit »

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…

Actually, it's extremely doubtful the licensing would transfer during an acquisition to Apple.

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

#77

Post by doe88 »

leemcalilly wrote: post #63
doe88 wrote: post #27

As I see it it's not for the hardware, but for the streaming service and for Jimmy Iovine and his connections/knowledge in the music industry. I don't know how he could fit with Eddy Cue but I think Jimmy Iovine would bring a lot if he was in charge of the music services in iTunes.

Apple saved the music business with iTunes. Why do they need Jimmy Iovine's connections? I don't see why they need Jimmy Iovine for anything.

Because he is the music industry, because maybe the now mighty Apple has lot of difficulties securing licensing music rights, especially in the streaming area. Now I don't say it's worth 3.2bn$ (I don't think it's even worth 1bn$) but at least I think there is more value there than with the headsets. Anyway spending so much on such a shallow thing would send a wrong signal in my opinion, for the same amount I would have bought AMD or something more significant hardware related.

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

#78

Post by k-mcgrady »

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…

Don't forget Beats is run by a record label boss. He is extremely well positioned to make those deals.

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

#79

Post by k-mcgrady »

hamburglar wrote: post #70
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 have also read a lot of complaints about their streaming app being just plain garbage as well.

I've been using their streaming app since it was released and it's fantastic. It puts the others to shame IMO. I'd been using Spotify for about 4 years before Beats. The volume and quality of playlists they have created is amazing and the app design is quite nice. I find it great for discovering new music (and you still have the option to search the catalog too).

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

#80

Post by k-mcgrady »

The comments in this thread are similar to the comments in any Facebook related post on HN. Arrogant. People who likely haven't used the product for more than a few minutes have a concrete opinion on it. You may think Beats suck but they sell $500m of headphones per year. People clearly like the sound they produce even if you think it's shit and overpriced.
Post reply on HN