Comments
Apple + Beats Doesn't Make Sense
Oldest First  |  Newest First  |  Threaded View
Shane M. O'Neill
50%
50%
Shane M. O'Neill,
User Rank: Author
5/9/2014 | 10:58:58 AM
Streaming
Curious acquisition. I don't think Apple did this with hardware/headphones in mind. It's about streaming. Apple could never get into a groove with its own attempts at streaming. If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em. This shows Apple is actually afraid of Spotify and Pandora.
Bryansix
100%
0%
Bryansix,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/9/2014 | 11:23:22 AM
Culture of Ignorance
Of course this makes sense. Apple thrives off of people who want to look cool rather than get the best value. This is a match made in Shangri LA.
Jim Donahue
50%
50%
Jim Donahue,
User Rank: Strategist
5/9/2014 | 5:00:11 PM
Lala
Don't forget that Apple also bought the Lala streaming service (which I loved), shut it down ... and then if it did anything with the technology, I never heard about it. I've seen references to it saying that Lala's tech was turned into Match, but Match seems pretty different--and in any event, it wasn't pushed very hard. (If it sounds like I still miss Lala, it's because I do.)
Thomas Claburn
50%
50%
Thomas Claburn,
User Rank: Author
5/9/2014 | 5:11:00 PM
Re: Streaming
Apple is afraid of missing out on the streaming gravy train. Sales of paid apps are declining and digital music downloads declined for the first time last year. Streaming could keep iTunes afloat as consumers sour on downloads. I hope that doesn't happen. I prefer having control over files.
Fidelio1@gmail.com
50%
50%
Fidelio1@gmail.com,
User Rank: Apprentice
5/10/2014 | 10:46:18 AM
Beats is "high-end"?
Really. Westone, Shure, and Ety (still), but Beats and Bose? Gracious. Last time I tried a pair of Bose they hardly measured up to the first three. And for over-the-ear phones, Beats may be fine for those who think Bose in-ear is "high-end," I guess.

High-end means Sennheiser (as in the HD800s and several others in their line) and Beyer, Grado and a few others.
danielcawrey
50%
50%
danielcawrey,
User Rank: Ninja
5/11/2014 | 1:17:17 PM
Re: Streaming
I think that this is all about competing in the streaming market. It's a crowded space, and unlike selling digital music in the form of files Apple is relatively late to the game. 

But a company with so much branded cachet is not going to concede. It's an odd match when you think about it at first, but Apple has the financial might to make this deal and worry about the very long term prospects of the music business. Today's music scene is very much a technological one now, and Apple will ultimately figure it out. 
Number 6
50%
50%
Number 6,
User Rank: Moderator
5/12/2014 | 11:58:03 AM
Re: Culture of Ignorance
Agreed. I don't think it's as much about streaming as getting a boost from the brand name association. iPhone sales are levelling off and the bulk of the target market knows only that Beats is the cool accessory, regardless of whether other brands are technically better. Buy an iPhone and get Beats, or buy an Android and get some no-name earbuds.  Hmmm.... shiny...


Register for InformationWeek Newsletters
White Papers
Current Issue
InformationWeek Tech Digest, Dec. 9, 2014
Apps will make or break the tablet as a work device, but don't shortchange critical factors related to hardware, security, peripherals, and integration.
Video
Slideshows
Twitter Feed
InformationWeek Radio
Sponsored Live Streaming Video
Everything You've Been Told About Mobility Is Wrong
Attend this video symposium with Sean Wisdom, Global Director of Mobility Solutions, and learn about how you can harness powerful new products to mobilize your business potential.