91–100 of 165 posts
In my eyes, this paints Apple as just another "big company" making acquisitions that don't make sense. Maybe they are going to bundle all ipods with beats...? Not sure where they are going with this unless it's for the music service licensing agreements.
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.
So much for Apple's appearance of being a premium brand. Beats products are junk. Until 2012, they were basically white-labeled Monster Cable products.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A flat response is rarely desirable, or at least rarely intended, except for equipment designed for audio production.
This is simply untrue. The best headphones, speakers, and amplifiers, are designed to faithfully reproduce the recorded signal. Anything that does something other than that is a poorly designed product, or a product that is intentionally misleading the consumer. Most cheap products accidentally fail at this goal. Beats products are intentionally designed to be cheap to manufacture, while being bass-heavy and overly b…
Not to say that Beats are great or anything, but applying a bass boost to something with a flat response is not going to produce better bass than housing, speaker, etc that all resonate together at the right frequency.
Another thing to keep in mind is that most people will be using these in noisy environments.
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,…
It simultaneously gets rid of people that leak to the press as well as anyone working for the company that hears something like that and not only believes it, but doesn't speak out against it.
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…
But - from an Apple perspective, they're not buying just the headphones tech, but the manufacturing capacity as well, I'd assume.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Quality is in the eye of the beholder, and there were several blokes sporting them on the U-bahn train this morning, all much cooler than me.
[1] http://www.innerfidelity.com/content/monster-beats-dr-dre-so...
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…
I could see one way that would make sense: To fix the iPhone 5C debacle. You want to reach lower level customers without tarnishing your main brand... Beats could fit that profile. Just make the colors a bit brighter and the successor to the 5c cheaper. Or sicking with the beats brand (style over quality): Why not use 4s internals ;)?
- or -
Beats 5c http://i60.tinypic.com/103hnjb.jpg
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
A cynic would say the same about the iphone. I think there's a good fit here - the same kind of people buy both, so there's lots of opportunity for cross-promotion.
