Support NeoGAF

[thefunkyman]

Right. So Apple has zero brand equity in making headphones. Thanks for proving my point.

That's not "proving your point". I didn't say that Apple had any brand equity in that market to begin with. I said that they could be successful if they entered it based on the fact that their brand image is excellent when it comes to premium products. £12 earbuds don't "premium products" and nobody would ever say "no way am I buying those £300 Apple headphones, cos their £12 earbuds suck!".

What point? That Apple has money and power and can throw tons of money into a new headphone business? I understand the point completely, any idiot would, but do you understand mine? Do you understand that there's RISK to cultivate their own headphone business to the degree of Beats? Do you understand that it takes substantial financial investment and MOST IMPORTANTLY, takes time to do so? Both the risk and time factor are enormous considerations that you are outright ignoring.

I'm not ignoring those things. You shouldn't make assumptions.

This is just going round in circles now.

 

[Guevara]

Looks like they did pay too much but, and I know this will shock everyone, not for any of the reasons the haters in this thread have said:


http://www.privco.com/apple-acquire...the-true-financial-story-of-beats-electronics

Wow this article is pretty crazy. How reliable is PrivCo? It's written sort of like a blog.

 

[Gr1mLock]

The most frivolously spent 3 billion ever.

 

[nubbe]

I would predict this to be one lousy investment
The headphones usually get 5-6/10 in consumer opinions

 

[ReAxion]

Wow this article is pretty crazy. How reliable is PrivCo? It's written sort of like a blog.

It does seem kinda... manic. I was thankful for the summary to say the least. I'm looking around, they get cited a lot. Not sure about their track record. They were a week off in predicting Twitter's IPO date by backdating it from the ending lock-up date.

 

[MrGerbils]

These cost $48

These cost $1,250

They both let you walk just fine. As a matter of fact, the New Balance shoes are probably more comfortable for walking long distances.

This costs $700

This costs $79

Both will keep you warm. And don't argue about material quality, because if the first one started to fall apart, you could buy 8 more and still have spent less money.

Headphones aren't just something you listen to, they're also something you wear on your head.

You can tell me you're above brands, but if you're wearing anything other than $30 shoes from payless, brandless jeans from walmart, and a plain white t-shirt, while drinking a can of RC cola, then you sure as hell care at least a little about brands and how you present yourself. Some people prioritize different aspects of their appearance than you do. It's really not that big a deal.

Nobody buys limited quantity Jordan's because they think they're superior shoes. They're buying them because they visibly wear them on their feet and want people to notice.

There are lots of things like a Rolex that are pretty much just spending money to show that you can spend money. There's no way that a Rolex is really sooo much better than a Casio that its improved function is "worth" the % price increase. Some people can't afford a Range Rover, but they can pick up a pair of fancy branded headphones. What's there to get mad at with any of this?

Really this thread breaks down to a bunch of people not understanding pop culture's fashion choices. I don't wear Jordans, Rolex, or drive a Range Rover because I think they're all a waste of money, but I also don't give a shit if anyone else wants them.

 

[ReAxion]

Comparing something to the price of a cup of coffee used to be a statement of how little it was worth. Now we have Starbucks.

 

[Toparaman]

For a guy who beat a woman in public for no reason, Dre sure has come far. I wonder if Chris Brown will be a Facebook employee in 20 years.

 

[Desty]

This article is pretty interesting.

This week:
Google: Demos new self driving cars to revolutionize transportation
Apple: Buys headphone company

Apple needs to start swinging for the fences again.

 

[Cipherr]

This article is pretty interesting.

This week:
Google: Demos new self driving cars to revolutionize transportation
Apple: Buys headphone company

Apple needs to start swinging for the fences again.

I think the whole Apple Google war thing is a fucking mirage. Google wants to do that kind of stuff, they have a department built to do that kind of far out shit. Apple is a hardware company, they want to sell you manufactured items at an extremely high margin. These two companies just happened to face off in the mobile space for a bit, but they are not really similar companies at all when you delve into their DNA. So this idea that they would have similar pursuits outside of the mobile space is stupid.

 

[Deleted member 22576]

Yeah, and Apple has been doing what Apple does for like three times as long as Google has even existed. No doubt do they step on eachothers toes but there is not a lot in common between the two when it comes to their overall goals.

Also, Google's obsession with "moonshots" has always been a symptom of their habitual lack-of-anything-exciting. They don't have real cool stuff to announce the way Apple does so they show us whats cooking in their labs. Theres nothing inherently wrong with that, but it seems very silly to compare a company that shows you something exciting you can buy right now and a company who gets their mindshare from products that may or may not ever exist at all and even if so would require fundamental political and social shifts in society. I'm big on Self Driving cars as a concept and could easily see Google reaping the benefits of bringing them into reality.. but not until I'm like, forty-five.

a sapphire screened superphone today is worth ten self driving cars 20 years from now.

 

[jstripes]

a sapphire screened superphone today is worth ten self driving cars 20 years from now.

That kind of thinking is a little short sighted. Plenty of major companies started in other industries.

But ya, the car can't see in the rain and hasn't even been tested in the snow, so...

 

[Deleted member 22576]

I think its more pragmatic than shortsighted. They may do it, but they're selling them right now, and even though there is no product they are spending quite a bit of attention on them. There is not much distinction between this and a vanity project from where I'm sitting.

 

[Slayven]

This article is pretty interesting.

This week:
Google: Demos new self driving cars to revolutionize transportation
Apple: Buys headphone company

Apple needs to start swinging for the fences again.

Self driving cars aren't revolutionizing anything anytime soon.

 

[jstripes]

I think its more pragmatic than shortsighted. They may do it, but they're selling them right now, and even though there is no product they are spending quite a bit of attention on them. There is not much distinction between this and a vanity project from where I'm sitting.

It's important to have something in development for when your current product line falls out of fashion.

Prime example: iPod.

Of course, that's not to say Apple doesn't have things in development. They just tend to keep a very, very tight lid on it. (Leaks only happen when the supply chain comes into the picture.)

 

[Blackhead]

Yeah, and Apple has been doing what Apple does for like three times as long as Google has even existed. No doubt do they step on eachothers toes but there is not a lot in common between the two when it comes to their overall goals.

Also, Google's obsession with "moonshots" has always been a symptom of their habitual lack-of-anything-exciting. They don't have real cool stuff to announce the way Apple does so they show us whats cooking in their labs. Theres nothing inherently wrong with that, but it seems very silly to compare a company that shows you something exciting you can buy right now and a company who gets their mindshare from products that may or may not ever exist at all and even if so would require fundamental political and social shifts in society. I'm big on Self Driving cars as a concept and could easily see Google reaping the benefits of bringing them into reality.. but not until I'm like, forty-five.

a sapphire screened superphone today is worth ten self driving cars 20 years from now.

I think its more pragmatic than shortsighted. They may do it, but they're selling them right now, and even though there is no product they are spending quite a bit of attention on them. There is not much distinction between this and a vanity project from where I'm sitting.

Where can I purchase this sapphire superphone? What if I want a waterproof phone instead?

 

[Deleted member 22576]

It's important to have something in development for when your current product line falls out of fashion.

Prime example: iPod.

Of course, that's not to say Apple doesn't have things in development. They just tend to keep a very, very tight lid on it. (Leaks only happen when the supply chain comes into the picture.)

We're in agreement here. I'm aware of the importance of R&D and experimentation, but I'm also aware of the importance of things like tangibility. Apple spends nearly 100% of the attention it commands on tangible products, while Google has never had that reticence illuminating what they have in their labs.

Which is why headlines like Google wants to reinvent transportation, Apple wants to sell you fancy headphones are hilarious in how much they miss the point.

Where can I purchase this sapphire superphone? What if I want a waterproof phone instead?

Aw don't pick on my turn of phrase! How could I deny myself that alliteration? And I think sony has you covered on the waterproof front.

 

[Technosteve]

Where can I purchase this sapphire superphone? What if I want a waterproof phone instead?

i am pretty sure samsung will produce a product to your liking and similar enough to the apple product that you won't feel so alienated using their product.

 

[FrankieMcGuire]

BEATS lol

 

[lupinko]

Self driving cars aren't revolutionizing anything anytime soon.

http://youtu.be/RZZHNt83p4U

 

[Liu Kang Baking A Pie]

This article is pretty interesting.

This week:
Google: Demos new self driving cars to revolutionize transportation
Apple: Buys headphone company

Apple needs to start swinging for the fences again.

Apple has some sort of giant, highly anticipated yearly event in a couple of days. I've never heard of it before. Maybe they'll just show off headphones.

 

[Bboy AJ]

Yeah, and Apple has been doing what Apple does for like three times as long as Google has even existed. No doubt do they step on eachothers toes but there is not a lot in common between the two when it comes to their overall goals.

Also, Google's obsession with "moonshots" has always been a symptom of their habitual lack-of-anything-exciting. They don't have real cool stuff to announce the way Apple does so they show us whats cooking in their labs. Theres nothing inherently wrong with that, but it seems very silly to compare a company that shows you something exciting you can buy right now and a company who gets their mindshare from products that may or may not ever exist at all and even if so would require fundamental political and social shifts in society. I'm big on Self Driving cars as a concept and could easily see Google reaping the benefits of bringing them into reality.. but not until I'm like, forty-five.

a sapphire screened superphone today is worth ten self driving cars 20 years from now.

Exactly. Anytime Google announces something, you need to wait years before it's truly good. Apple products are ready to go. I know Apple has a ton of cool products in development but I don't care because I can't buy it yet. Google just throws whatever into the public and points to legitimate problems as a result of beta or prototyping.

 

[Blackhead]

Exactly. Anytime Google announces something, you need to wait years before it's truly good. Apple products are ready to go. I know Apple has a ton of cool products in development but I don't care because I can't buy it yet. Google just throws whatever into the public and points to legitimate problems as a result of beta or prototyping.

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense? Siri launched in beta. Apple Maps was in an even worse state. AppleTV is still a hobby. The first iPhone was released without 3G, third party apps and copy n paste; Apple had to give it a 30% price cut after less than 10 weeks to boost sales.

The main difference between two is presentation of the process (i.e. marketing). Apple always insists that their products are wonderful, a marvelous feat of engineering, designed by their genius developers who know exactly what you should want and how to give it to you. Google on the other hand activtively solicits feedback from developers and users. They publicly accept feature suggestions which Apple never does. Google is happy to empower the other stakeholders of its products but Apple prefers to keep control for itself

 

[Vyse The Legend]

Exactly. Anytime Google announces something, you need to wait years before it's truly good. Apple products are ready to go. I know Apple has a ton of cool products in development but I don't care because I can't buy it yet. Google just throws whatever into the public and points to legitimate problems as a result of beta or prototyping.

It's a testament to Apple's marketing that people not only say this absolute falsity but also believe it. Incredible.

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense? Siri launched in beta. Apple Maps was in an even worse state. AppleTV is still a hobby. The first iPhone was released without 3G, third party apps and copy n paste; Apple had to give it a 30% price cut after less than 10 weeks to boost sales.

The main difference between two is presentation of the process (i.e. marketing). Apple always insists that their products are wonderful, a marvelous feat of engineering, designed by their genius developers who know exactly what you should want and how to give it to you. Google on the other hand activtively solicits feedback from developers and users. They publicly accept feature suggestions which Apple never does. Google is happy to empower the other stakeholders of its products but Apple prefers to keep control for itself

Well said.

 

[KtSlime]

Everyone buys into marketing, that's the entire purpose; corporations wouldn't invest so much into it if that weren't the case, and Google is a giant ads corporation, so both companies know how to market and the value of it. What's annoying is that some people go around acting superior stating that they didn't drink the kool-aid, that their preferred corporation has taken the superior/correct path, and that if you buy into the other corporations marketing you are nothing but a sheep. The truth is we are all sheep, and shame on you for thinking otherwise.

 

[Blackhead]

Everyone buys into marketing, that's the entire purpose; corporations wouldn't invest so much into it if that weren't the case, and Google is a giant ad corporations, so both companies know how to market and the value of it. What's annoying is that some people go around acting superior stating that they didn't drink the kool-aid, that their preferred corporation has taken the superior/correct path, and that if you buy into the other corporations marketing you are nothing but a sheep. The truth is we are all sheep, and shame on you for thinking otherwise.

Lol no.

Although it's nice to see you've become self-aware after being already being banned from GAF how many times for acting superior about Apple taking the 'superior/correct path'

 

[KtSlime]

Lol no.

Although it's nice to see you've become self-aware after being already being banned from GAF how many times for acting superior about Apple taking the 'superior/correct path'

For your information, I have only been banned once from GAF, that that was due to me stating my superior/correct path in regards to religious beliefs, try again.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I still can't wrap my head around why :/

I feel like I'm missing something here. I just don't get it.

I don't get it...can't they just make their own headsets? I mean why spend 3 billion for something you can make? How much R&D could it take?? Beats aren't exactly innovative or revolutionary in any way....

Jobs must be rolling.

okay, here's my shot in the dark analysis of what's going on.

I say Apple spending $3 billion on a manufacturer of mediocre headphones that isn't even well known outside the U.S. isn't very fitting with the vision and innovation which characterize a company like Apple.

So why then? Well, I think people emphasizing the brand recognition have got an important part of it right, but maybe not the whole picture. Beats are a brand that has been accepted on a large scale and its success has been difficult to replicate. People feel comfortable wearing the Beats brand and being seen in public with Beats devices on their heads.

The last sentence could be the most important part as far as Apple is concerned. These are big, bulky devices and Apple has been working on ways to further integrate the consumer electronics/wearable computing experience for years. If you remember Steve Jobs commenting on lanyards back in the day, this is what I'm getting at.

Probably the biggest barrier standing in the way of wearable computing taking off has been a widely socially accepted form factor. Apple may believe Beats has gained enough trust from consumers that they'd be willing to wear Beats headphones that also integrate other unique features (god knows there's enough room in those bulky headsets), and if it works out, maybe even future Beats branded devices with new form factors.

Just my $.02

 

[Korey]

What I don't get is what Apple can add to the Beats brand. Do they just want the current profits Beats are pulling in, or do they think they can take it to another level and reach more customers? People who like Beats already have them, and people who hate Beats already don't buy them.

I read somewhere that Beats Music was the main draw, but I don't really buy that because Beats Music has like 2 subscribers, and I feel like it would be cheaper to develop their own streaming service if they wanted to.

 

[Blackhead]

For your information, I have only been banned once from GAF, that that was due to me stating my superior/correct path in regards to religious beliefs, try again.

Good for you

okay, here's my shot in the dark analysis of what's going on.

People feel comfortable wearing the Beats brand and being seen in public with Beats devices on their heads.

The last sentence could be the most important part as far as Apple is concerned. These are big, bulky devices and Apple has been working on ways to further integrate the consumer electronics/wearable computing experience for years. If you remember Steve Jobs commenting on lanyards back in the day, this is what I'm getting at.

Probably the biggest barrier standing in the way of wearable computing taking off has been a widely socially accepted form factor.

Just my $.02

People have been comfortably publicly wearing headphones since the Sony Walkman thirty years ago. Beats 'uniqueness' is not normalizing wearable technology but turning headphones into a fashion accessory that a young hip demography would paid hundreds of dollars for.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Beats 'uniqueness' is not normalizing wearable technology but turning headphones into a fashion accessory that a young hip demography would paid hundreds of dollars for.

My point precisely.
Apple believes wearable computing should be just that: a lucrative fashion accessory, first and foremost. It's a logical extension to how they approached ipod and iphone as lifestyle devices.

edit: It's also precisely where their competitors are failing right now. Look at smart watches as an example. Other companies realize the importance of a fashionable design to shifting the perception of those products away from being "wearable electronics", which is a very un-sexy term, but they don't know how to achieve that shift.

I'm not saying Apple is going to make a Beats branded smart watch, in fact they may go in a completely different direction to avoid the stigma that's already building around those products. But they are definitely actively looking into ways to further integrate computing into our daily lives, in a manner that is not only unobtrusive, but pleasurable and desirable. They've tried similar things before with their partnership with NIKE, but one reason that never seriously took off is that the brands were too different. Beats is almost as much as a fashion brand as NIKE in the U.S., but has the advantage of also being a technology brand, which puts them much closer to the kind of product category Apple would want to create.

 

[Bboy AJ]

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense? Siri launched in beta. Apple Maps was in an even worse state. AppleTV is still a hobby. The first iPhone was released without 3G, third party apps and copy n paste; Apple had to give it a 30% price cut after less than 10 weeks to boost sales.

The main difference between two is presentation of the process (i.e. marketing). Apple always insists that their products are wonderful, a marvelous feat of engineering, designed by their genius developers who know exactly what you should want and how to give it to you. Google on the other hand activtively solicits feedback from developers and users. They publicly accept feature suggestions which Apple never does. Google is happy to empower the other stakeholders of its products but Apple prefers to keep control for itself

Siri and Maps are products that needed to be in the hands of users to get better. There is little alternative to that.

What's your beef with the OG iPhone? Mine worked great. To say it didn't have 3G, copy and paste, or third party apps is comparing it to what's out there today. Sure, my Winmo phones had 3G, copy and paste, and ability to use third party apps, but were done poorly. Except copy and paste but that's because of a stylus. Everything Apple did then still works today -- it works well. And frankly, I had third party apps on my OG iPhone. If you knew how to install apps on WinMo phones, you could jailbreak to install apps on your iPhone. No big deal. But don't take what's out there today and compare it to the first widely successful smartphone.

Google sells whatever it can, as weak as it is. Google TV? Rubbish. Glass? Pay $1500 to alpha test our nonsense. Honeycomb? At least Apple TV, being a hobby, is useful and has traction.

You're getting away from my point. Apple puts out stuff that works. Google puts out stuff that you hope will eventually work. These two companies have different philosophies in how they put things out. Do you disagree?

 

[mcfrank]

Why do people keep repeating this nonsense? Siri launched in beta. Apple Maps was in an even worse state. AppleTV is still a hobby. The first iPhone was released without 3G, third party apps and copy n paste; Apple had to give it a 30% price cut after less than 10 weeks to boost sales.

The main difference between two is presentation of the process (i.e. marketing). Apple always insists that their products are wonderful, a marvelous feat of engineering, designed by their genius developers who know exactly what you should want and how to give it to you. Google on the other hand activtively solicits feedback from developers and users. They publicly accept feature suggestions which Apple never does. Google is happy to empower the other stakeholders of its products but Apple prefers to keep control for itself

This post is wrong on multiple levels. Siri and apple maps were both features, not products so to compare them to a stand alone product is a bit disingenuous. Also, they needed to be released to begin gathering users and working out the kinks. By all accounts most people have stopped using google maps on their iPhones and have switched to using apple maps full time (non transit users)

The first iPhone was amazing and blew away anything else on the market at the time and it was announced 6 months before release to consumers. How long ago did we find out about google self driving cars? Years ago. You cannot walk into a store and buy one and won't be able to for another 5-10 years. Google glass was announced years ago and is still not a shipping consumer product. Apple does not announce products it is not going to be selling soon. They don't invite news crews to come film in the lab.

In addition, you say the difference between apple and google is marketing, but I disagree. The fundamental difference between apple and google is Apple sells products to customers and Google sells user data to advertisers. That is how google makes its money. Never lose sight of that.

 

[Blackhead]

Siri and Maps are products that needed to be in the hands of users to get better. There is little alternative to that.

What's your beef with the OG iPhone? Mine worked great. To say it didn't have 3G, copy and paste, or third party apps is comparing it to what's out there today. Sure, my Winmo phones had 3G, copy and paste, and ability to use third party apps, but were done poorly. Except copy and paste but that's because of a stylus. Everything Apple did then still works today -- it works well. And frankly, I had third party apps on my OG iPhone. If you knew how to install apps on WinMo phones, you could jailbreak to install apps on your iPhone. No big deal. But don't take what's out there today and compare it to the first widely successful smartphone.

Google sells whatever it can, as weak as it is. Google TV? Rubbish. Glass? Pay $1500 to alpha test our nonsense. Honeycomb? At least Apple TV, being a hobby, is useful and has traction.

You're getting away from my point. Apple puts out stuff that works. Google puts out stuff that you hope will eventually work. These two companies have different philosophies in how they put things out. Do you disagree?

I already explained how that first widely successful (touchscreen) smartphone was not the iPhone OG. Apple wouldn't have given it a 30% price cut after less than 10 weeks if it were. Only people caught up in the Jobs reality distortion field would think otherwise. The iPhone 3G was their first widely successful model.

Same with the iPod, didn't go blockbusters until Apple introduced iTunes for Windows about two versions later. You laugh about Android Honeycomb but the iPad — Apple's third 'new product category' so far — launched with a forked version of iPhone OS (3.2) before the reconciled with iOS 4 months later. Everyone is so quick to forget Apple's failures. In the topics over the past few weeks about how Apple shouldn't buy Beats because they could easily successfully launch any music service of their own with iTunes nobody remembers Ping...

The difference between Apple and Google when putting out products is in primarily in presentation and marketing.

 

[mcfrank]

I already explained how that first widely successful (touchscreen) smartphone was not the iPhone OG. Apple wouldn't have given it a 30% price cut after less than 10 weeks if it were. Only people caught up in the Jobs reality distortion field would think otherwise. The iPhone 3G was their first widely successful model.

Same with the iPod, didn't go blockbusters until Apple introduced iTunes for Windows about two versions later. You laugh about Android Honeycomb but the iPad — Apple's third 'new product category' so far — launched with a forked version of iPhone OS (3.2) before the reconciled with iOS 4 months later. Everyone is so quick to forget Apple's failures. In the topics over the past few weeks about how Apple shouldn't buy Beats because they could easily successfully launch any music service of their own with iTunes nobody remembers Ping...

The difference between Apple and Google when putting out products is in primarily in presentation and marketing.

Name me one apple product that we have been waiting on as long as self driving cars. No one said apple never had an unsuccessful product like ping, nice strawman. The OG iPhone blew away everyone's sales predictions and sales really took of when the price point became subsidized so you are half right on that, but wrong on your main point. No one could legitimately argue that the OG iPhone was not successful.

 

[kehs]

It really isn't fair to compare Apple and Google.


One is cooking up new angus flavor bugers for McDs and the other is Ramsay.

 

[Bboy AJ]

Grey, you're being purposely obtuse. OG iPhone was successful. It wasn't flying off shelves due to price but there were no other phones people desired like that. Everyone wanted it. What other phone ever did that?

Don't understand why you're bringing up Ping. Why not Newton? Stick to the topic. No one is discussing failures. We are discussing release product philosophy.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Grey, you're being purposely obtuse. OG iPhone was successful. It wasn't flying off shelves due to price but there were no other phones people desired like that. Everyone wanted it. What other phone ever did that?

Don't understand why you're bringing up Ping. Why not Newton? Stick to the topic. No one is discussing failures. We are discussing release product philosophy.

what do you think of my interpretation of the deal?
(a few posts up)

 

[Blackhead]

Grey, you're being purposely obtuse. OG iPhone was successful. It wasn't flying off shelves due to price but there were no other phones people desired like that. Everyone wanted it. What other phone ever did that?

Don't understand why you're bringing up Ping. Why not Newton? Stick to the topic. No one is discussing failures. We are discussing release product philosophy.

People wanted Blackberries too (it was called crackberry for a reason). It outsold the iPhone OG. I brought up Ping because uh, this is the Beats thread. It also ties into Apple's product philosophy. Perhaps you should stick to the topic.

 

[Bboy AJ]

what do you think of my interpretation of the deal?
(a few posts up)

I agree with your premise. Bears are hip. But did Apple spend $3B for them as a wearable computing product? I don't think so. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

 

[jstripes]

For your information, I have only been banned once from GAF, that that was due to me stating my superior/correct path in regards to religious beliefs, try again.

You sound like a fun guy.

I already explained how that first widely successful (touchscreen) smartphone was not the iPhone OG. Apple wouldn't have given it a 30% price cut after less than 10 weeks if it were. Only people caught up in the Jobs reality distortion field would think otherwise. The iPhone 3G was their first widely successful model.

Same with the iPod, didn't go blockbusters until Apple introduced iTunes for Windows about two versions later. You laugh about Android Honeycomb but the iPad — Apple's third 'new product category' so far — launched with a forked version of iPhone OS (3.2) before the reconciled with iOS 4 months later. Everyone is so quick to forget Apple's failures. In the topics over the past few weeks about how Apple shouldn't buy Beats because they could easily successfully launch any music service of their own with iTunes nobody remembers Ping...

The difference between Apple and Google when putting out products is in primarily in presentation and marketing.

The Apple I wasn't that much of a success outside of hobbyist circles. It wasn't until the Apple II that they had runaway success.

The Mac was revolutionary and cool when it was released, but didn't sell much, and it wasn't until a revision or two later when it began to have influence and kickstarted/dominated the desktop publishing industry.

This has always been Apple. The first version of anything is always "We've got a cool thing, let's see how people use it."

 

[iMax]

I agree with your premise. Bears are hip. But did Apple spend $3B for them as a wearable computing product? I don't think so. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

 

[SeanR1221]

The "beats suck" is like an internet meme, right?

Because I know lots of people with them and they're very happy with the product.

I've never used a pair personally, but I just see such a large disconnect from message boards to actual consumers I know. I would think if the general consensus was that they are overpriced garbage the market would dictate that and they wouldn't sell well.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

I agree with your premise. Bears are hip. But did Apple spend $3B for them as a wearable computing product? I don't think so. I'm really looking forward to seeing how it all shakes out.

Apple doesn't need Beats to create the product, they need Beats so that it's fashionable from day 1. That's what the $3B are for.


(Assuming wearable computing is indeed the direction Apple is pursuing.)

 

[Caboose]

The "beats suck" is like an internet meme, right?

Because I know lots of people with them and they're very happy with the product.

I've never used a pair personally, but I just see such a large disconnect from message boards to actual consumers I know. I would think if the general consensus was that they are overpriced garbage the market would dictate that and they wouldn't sell well.

They do, indeed, suck. They wouldn't suck if they were sold at half the price.

 

[Yaboosh]

The "beats suck" is like an internet meme, right?

Because I know lots of people with them and they're very happy with the product.

I've never used a pair personally, but I just see such a large disconnect from message boards to actual consumers I know. I would think if the general consensus was that they are overpriced garbage the market would dictate that and they wouldn't sell well.

They are objectively terrible for the price, sonically.

But I am sure you can buy a better made purse for much less than a Coach or Burberry branded one too.

 

[nhlducks35]

The "beats suck" is like an internet meme, right?

Because I know lots of people with them and they're very happy with the product.

I've never used a pair personally, but I just see such a large disconnect from message boards to actual consumers I know. I would think if the general consensus was that they are overpriced garbage the market would dictate that and they wouldn't sell well.

No, they are pretty bad for the money. However, since they're a brand name you can always get more resale value if you ever plan on selling them.

 

[Daria]

Did everybody forget that HTC once had Beats incorporated into their products? $3b to control a company that will be ran on it's own is silly but making sure they never do business with your rival again is priceless.

Not to mention the connections that Beats has with their board is nothing Apple could ever get on their own. The Beats brand is worth a lot more than just overpriced headphones.

 

[KHarvey16]

Did everybody forget that HTC once had Beats incorporated into their products? $3b to control a company that will be ran on it's own is silly but making sure they never do business with your rival again is priceless.

Not to mention the connections that Beats has with their board is nothing Apple could ever get on their own. The Beats brand is worth a lot more than just overpriced headphones.

Where's the "ran on its own" thing coming from? Also, HTC actually owned a large portion of Beats but has since sold all of it off. I don't know that denying HTC was really a factor in Apple's decision.

 

[efyu_lemonardo]

Not to mention the connections that Beats has with their board is nothing Apple could ever get on their own. The Beats brand is worth a lot more than just overpriced headphones.

care to elaborate? I'm not all that familiar..