Apple Reportedly Buying Beats Electronics For $3.2 Billion 198
An anonymous reader writes "Multiple publications report that Apple is undertaking its biggest acquisition ever, buying Beats Electronics for $3.2 billion. The deal would give Apple control over the popular 'Beats by Dre' headphones as well as a new music streaming service. Analysts suggest the headphones will open up a new series of product lines for Apple, while the streaming service will jumpstart its efforts to compete with Pandora and Spotify, as iTunes' growth slows. 'If Apple wanted to, it could certainly have built a streaming subscription service itself; the company had been floating the notion of one with label executives in recent months. But it's possible that Apple's most recent attempts to extend its music business beyond the iTunes store helped convince Cook that he was better off getting outside help.' The deal hasn't been completed yet, but a candid video of Dr. Dre was posted to Facebook in which he appeared to confirm it."
Don't understand it. (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't understand this deal yet, but my problem isn't with Beats headphones being a "rip off". That's not the issue for me. The larger issue for me is, I don't see why Apple couldn't have simply produced their own rip-off headphones if they wanted to, or their own music streaming service. They have the technical ability. They have the design and marketing talent. So what are they getting out of the deal?
I would imagine that this is either a waste of money, or there's some other calculation. Like maybe record labels have been trying to bend Apple over a barrel when they ask for streaming rights, and in this deal, Apple acquires the streaming rights that Beats had, thereby side-stepping the deal. Or maybe Apple looked at the organization and thought it was a good team as a whole, and rather than trying to steal the employees away one-by-one, they thought it was better to purchase them outright. There's always the explanation that they were buying the customer base, but I'm not sure that'll hold once they rebrand and integrate-- and I would be surprised if they didn't rebrand and integrate it into their existing products/services.
I don't know. Does anyone have info here that would shed light on the real motivation? Or has Apple just started buying random businesses because they're profitable, without a larger strategic plan?
Re:3.2 B (Score:5, Interesting)
Different meaning. In audio circles, compression is a technique used during mastering to make the sound louder without inducing clipping artifacts by selectively amplifying the quieter portions of the audio.
You're right about the ambiguity of the phrase "compressed to hell", but since the GGP then stated talking about "at least cd quality loss-less" I think he really was talking about the lossy file-size compression.
To the GGP: Try testing yourself at mp3ornot.com if you think you can hear the difference.
Re:Don't understand it. (Score:3, Interesting)
Buzzfeed, (The Beats Audio of blogspam) has a great article on how it's about hiring Jimmy Iovine.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/peterlauria/apples-beats-deal-is-all-about-bringing-music-mogul-jimmy-io
"As part of the $3.2 billion deal to acquire Beats, legendary music executive Jimmy Iovine is expected to join Apple in a “creative role.” The deal is essentially the biggest music industry acqui-hire."
Also here:
http://www.macrumors.com/2014/05/08/beats-jimmy-iovine-join-apple/
"Beats Electronics boss and veteran music industry executive Jimmy Iovine is in talks to join Apple as a “special adviser” to Tim Cook on creative matters, two sources close to talks tell The Post."