Please tell me this is bullshit.
Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
71–79 of 79 posts
Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#72Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's like this: Beats headphones are worth about $50, at the most. Noise-cancelling in an office, you barely need to pay anything, because "noise-cancellation" is achieved by the headphones picking up background noise with a small microphone and then playing a dampening noise in reaction to a sound wave. This is easy when the background noise is constant - that's why "white noise" in offices works so well. But if the…
THough it's not about the headphones. It's about the style and brand. Everyone knows the iphone isn't the best bang for your buck feature wise in smartphones. Everyone knows Nest costs $60 to make on your own. But the point is, mass market needs stuff that looks good, performs well, and where design was matters (looks/functions well for most people).
The only thing Beats headphones have going for them is their looks (which IMO is average at best).
Headphones are appliances, not complex gadgetry. Beats are poorly designed and built appliances. Most that buy them don't know any better, and there are far more well-designed headphones on the market that have a discernibly better sound than do Beats. It doesn't perform well, and its design is average.
The Audio-Technica ATH-M50x isn't as sexy a headphone as a Beats Pro, but its sound more than makes up for the difference.
It's just simple economics as to why the other brand is more popular. Have you EVER seen an Audio-Technica ad?
Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#73Earlier quoted context omitted.
> They sell expensive products. They care about design. They represent a way of living. They're Apple in another market. Except they don't care about quality, which is one of Apple's strongest selling points.
Perception of quality is one of Apple's strongest selling points.
Perception is reality.
Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#74Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Look at Audio-Technica, Sennheiser, and/or Koss. All make headphones in both price ranges which are (more or less) worth what they cost.
Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#75Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
You listen to them. Listen to a piece of music that you know well, and listen to the two side by side. Ideally something which isn't all in one frequency range. With better headphones, you will hear more detail in the sound. Words which sounded mushed together in the Beats will be distinct in better headphones. The mids and highs will come through much more clearly. Music will just sound better. Beats have decent bas…
This is an easy thing to say, but stores with a reasonable selection of headphones you can listen to are rare. The best option for your taste/budget at the Best Buy display, for example, are rarely the best choice for the money.
Many of the beast headphones aren't consumer products and aren't sold in mainstream retail outlets. I love my Sennheiser HD380s but I know about them because I'm an amateur engineer and they're great for live monitoring.
Really, just look at Sennheiser, AT, Shure, Koss, Grado, Beyerdynamic, ... Anything mainstream that's not Beats or Bose is probably worth looking into.
Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#76Has anyone looked to see if Beats might have an interesting patent portfolio? Something perhaps to augment Apple's recently granted patent on bioinformatic earphones?
Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#77Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#78Beats 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…
It's interesting that Dre didn't create his music (*sampled), didn't write his lyrics and didn't come up with the idea for the headphones yet is celebrated as a genius. It was Monster's idea and then Jimmy Iovine propelled it to where it went. Dre is a quiet, private person, who rarely tours or produces new music. The idea that he is a billionaire now from putting his name on exorbitantly expensive headphones and mar…
Monster had the idea to do headphones. But Iovine and Dre came to them with their idea to do electronics. Monster didn't go to them, they came to Monster.
Re: Apple set to get Beats in $3.2B deal
#793.2 billion for an equalizer with deep brand recognition. AAPL must be swimming in cash.