Printable View
Apple are in talk to buy Beats for $3.2 Billion (the biggest accusation since buying NeXT).
Obviously Apple are not stupid and Beats are not the best headphones in the world, but It's understandable if they want to develop their headphones more and I think Apple are more buying the company for its music service.
Lets not forget Facebook bought Whatsapp for $19 Billion and they've done nothing with that.
What do you think Apple will do with Beats?
Congrats Dre, Hip Hops first Billionaire. Everybody was acting like they forgot about Dre.
Looks like the deals confirmed.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Yep. Was quite likely to happen when the rumours first emerged yesterday since iirc Apple has 150 Billion on hand, the most any company has had on hand in history.Quote:
Originally Posted by iBlueBox
they're buying them for the name and the reputation surrounding them
they don't really give a **** about how they sound, they could produce gear on par, even better than beats if they dedicated the funds to it, but they want the name
now they can brand iphones/macs with having "beats audio" and kids will eat this up
Pretty much. The products will go hand in hand since people buy both apple and beats products for the aesthetic appeal and the name as opposed to the product itself (not saying they're bad products, just overpriced for what they are).Quote:
Originally Posted by Futz
Do you blame them? If Apple buys them they will have control over a powerful/popular consumer brand. Beats also has a music streaming service which Apple are also probably interested in seeing as Spotify is getting bigger and bigger. Will be interesting to see what they do with it anyway.
Edit: Has it been fully confirmed they have bought it yet?
Not yet, but it will in a few days.Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
What I wonder though, Apple already owns iTunes Radio (not doing so good) that rivals streaming services so why would they need Beats streaming service.
Like if they needed a streaming service, why didn't they just buy spotify?
Depends if Spotify would sell as some companies want to do it on their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by iBlueBox
As for the news, the two go hand in hand for me anyways, overpriced products
I forgot Beats existed :P I remember the adverts not so long ago - Gaga's "Do What You Want" appeared as the song for one.
It makes sense, as the tech can be used by Apple although Apple's own headphones are not too bad as far as I recall (used to be, but not any more). Doesn't particularly affect me.
I have Beats after wanting them for like 6 years or w/e and after two times they're just sat in the draw they irritate me, actually they're currently on the floor lol
Prob a good decision as they have an established reputation
Beats are horrible. Got some for Christmas but just too much effort to fold them away and put them on and whatever. I am lazy. Apple earpods are easier.
I sold my Beats like 2 months after Christmas lol
only buying them because of how well they are doing, apple care about the £££
Of course, that's how businesses work :SQuote:
Originally Posted by james,
Quote:
Originally Posted by james,
Don't understand why people think people make business's to be nice and gain 0% on all there itemsQuote:
Originally Posted by The Don
a business is to make money...
I hate that phrase - businesses are diverse in nature and different businesses exist for different reasons :P Not for profit organisations are alive and well, not all businesses are for profit :P In this instance, Apple is your typical modern organisation that takes over other businesses (successful or not) for their expertise, resources and any useful property.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenMerc
Its a charity if its not there for money, not entirely a businessQuote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Charities are businesses. "Business" is not a specific term or phrase.Quote:
Originally Posted by GoldenMerc
I think what Ross said is accurate in this context, since as well all know Apple is far from a not for profit organisation.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
Oh yeah that's perfectly accurate, but "a business" is not just there for profit - there are many different varieties :PQuote:
Originally Posted by The Don
Apple is your typical run of the mill organisation that adsorbs other organisations to increase their intellectual property and expand their product ranges. It's a must if you run a large organisation these days.
Today is the day it's now officially confirmed!
Quote:
Apple has just confirmed plans to purchase Beats Electronics for $3 billion. The acquisition ranks as the largest Apple has ever made, and will see the company take ownership of an enormously successful and profitable line of consumer headphones. Beats Music, a subscription service that launched in January, is also thought to have influenced Apple's decision as it looks for new ways to secure its standing atop the music business. Apple will pay $2.6 billion in cash for the service and $400 million in stock.
Full article at: http://www.theverge.com/2014/5/28/57...ts-acquisition
I'm not too interested in it at the moment but that's pretty expensive.
overpriced but it's not like Apple don't have the $
If you bought headphones, beats were the only ones you get but for me they're outdated now...old fashioned/TOO mainstream? Definitely space in the market for a new rival competitor.
They're loaded!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak
Apple should buy Shazam too.
Rumours that Shazam is being integrated into iOS 8, so you can shazam from anywhere sort of like how twitter / Facebook isQuote:
Originally Posted by Zak
Apple beats. Sounds interesting.. An already over priced pair of head phones with an apple on it, to have it charged more, noty. Haha
- - - Updated - - -
Totally agree!Quote:
Originally Posted by Zak
Didn't Apple buy it for the streaming services, not the headphones? They need it seeing as streaming is a big thing these days.
A report came out today with some actual figures and if it's true they paid more for Beats Electronics than for the Beats Music. So I do wonder what their actual plan is for them.Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
I think it will pay x much a year to have unlimited music? Rather like Spotify.Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
ANYWAY, does this mean we will get beats headphones instead of the white ones? haha *i wish:(*
Really? That confuses everything. The electronics side seems to be the part of the business people dislike - expensive headphones that do not really do anything spectacular compared to other headphones (going by the opinions on here too).Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx
According to a report by the Wall Street Journal, I'm getting this from Neowin as the WSJ article is behind a pay wall:Quote:
Originally Posted by GommeInc
But a lot of the other articles about the whole deal is them believing Apple bought them for the streaming service "Beats Music" so then they try and get into that game.Quote:
A report from the Wall Street Journal (via MacRumors) breaks down the financials of the deal further than the $3 billion on Apple's press release, of which $2.6 billion is cash and $400 million is stock. According to the report, Apple paid $2.5 billion for Beats Electronics and a little under $500 million for Beats Music, which has 250,000 paying subscribers in the US.
I guess we will only really find out in the next couple of years what Apple will actually do with it.
Does beats music have much of an audience though? I didn't think it would be worth it for Apple considering it could probably do its own service better. Does beats audio have something apple doesn't?Quote:
Originally Posted by xxMATTGxx