# Apple to acquire Beats in largest acquisition yet



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Not at all what I'd expect from Apple.

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2014/05/report-apple-to-acquire-beats-electronics-for-3-2-billion/


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Maybe we could get bluetooth headphones for television.


----------



## fireponcoal (Sep 26, 2009)

Wait, why?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Why? Sound has always been something they strive to do well at and this may help them get better.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It's the size that really surprises me. Looking at their list of acquisitions, the largest one listed with public disclosure of cost was NeXT, but that was only a little over 500,000,000 even adjusting for inflation. This is $3.2 billion.

I'm just glad that Monster had nothing left to do with them. At one point, HTC owned 50.1%, but they sold that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> Why? Sound has always been something they strive to do well at and this may help them get better.


Apple? Strive to do well??

I listened to a track one of my kids downloaded the other day from iTunes. Sounded like crap. Cut from Hotel California.

Got out my vinyl copy and had him listen to that.

You should have seen his eyes. Two hours later he was still listening and flipping through my 300+ albums. He now understands why I still keep my big "obsolete" albums.

Saturday he has a couple friends coming over to listen to some music.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

inkahauts said:


> Why? Sound has always been something they strive to do well at and this may help them get better.


Beats isn't known for quality among audiophiles ... They're more a fashion accessory now.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

Beats fits right in with Apple's business model. Huge mark up and stylish design. Also with Beats comes a nice chunk of customers that Apple can use to compete in the streaming music market 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

peds48 said:


> Beats fits right in with Apple's business model. Huge mark up and stylish design. Also with Beats comes a nice chunk of customers that Apple can use to compete in the streaming music market
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Except it's a poor quality, which Apple usually does well.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Except it's a poor quality, which Apple usually does well.


I have to disagree, their quality at least on the headphones is pretty good.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

peds48 said:


> I have to disagree, their quality at least on the headphones is pretty good.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Beats or Apple? Beats definitely isn't since breaking from Monster. AKG headphones are far superior ... heck, even Dre uses them.


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

It doesn't make much sense...... http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2014/05/09/why-apple-has-lost-the-plot-with-3-2-billion-purchase-of-beats-by-dre/



> But what really highlights the lunacy of the Beats deal are the alternatives Apple is spurning. As mentioned, if it is about headphones then Monster is the better and cheaper purchase and audiophile brands like Shure, Sennheiser, Grado, Bowers & Wilkins, AKG and ACS all wipe the floor with Beats and could be purchased for peanuts. Meanwhile if it is about streaming why not aim for the very top since Spotify itself carries a valuation of roughly $4 billion. Apple takes top spot and removes its biggest rival in one fell swoop.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

trh said:


> Apple? Strive to do well??
> 
> I listened to a track one of my kids downloaded the other day from iTunes. Sounded like crap. Cut from Hotel California.
> 
> ...


As well as can be accomplished when using majorly compressed music. There's a reason I still prefer CDs over mp3. And yeah vinyl is great but I can't get or afford to get all my music on vinyl.

I make the same argument every time someone says Bose is good to. They are terrible compared to real floor standing speakers but sometimes size and looks matters. I hate that so many cars come with their little speakers that are all compressed as well.

iPod is excellent when I'm out running and such. I can deal with lesser quality then but I can still tell the difference between good and bad headphones then.

With that said yeah why not go after spotify and senhiser if they are available.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

inkahauts said:


> As well as can be accomplished when using majorly compressed music. There's a reason I still prefer CDs over mp3. And yeah vinyl is great but I can't get or afford to get all my music on vinyl.


You're obviously younger than I am. When I started buying music, vinyl was the only option.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

trh said:


> Apple? Strive to do well??
> 
> I listened to a track one of my kids downloaded the other day from iTunes. Sounded like crap. Cut from Hotel California.
> 
> ...


Same equipment (other than the phono/ipad-phone-computer)? I.e., same preamp, amp, and speakers? Or same headphones? Same volume?

Very odd, that, as AAC usually sounds better than vinyl, if it's remastered properly from good source tapes. My Hotel California is of good quality.


----------



## trh (Nov 3, 2007)

Yes, to all the same equipment.

EDIT: I don't know how they have their iTunes set up. They may very well have it as MP3 so they can burn more music to a CD while traveling in the car.

Wired.com had an article two weeks ago on Steve Jobs:



> Steve Jobs was a closet audiophile. Yes, the man responsible for the iPod and the global domination of low-res MP3 files had a serious Hi-Fi fetish. As musician and audio quality champion Neil Young said in 2012, "Steve Jobs was a pioneer of digital music. But when he went home, he listened to vinyl."


http://www.wired.com/2014/04/steve-jobs-stereo-system/


----------



## sigma1914 (Sep 5, 2006)

More on how crappy the headphones are.... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/05/09/beats-headphones-reviews_n_5294628.html?ncid=fcbklnkushpmg00000015&ir=Business


> In April, Time magazine scored the sound quality of 18 different headphones brands by comparing specs and aggregating expert reviews from CNET, Wired, TechCrunch and others. Beats headphones ranked a measly 17th out of 18.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

Laxguy said:


> Same equipment (other than the phono/ipad-phone-computer)? I.e., same preamp, amp, and speakers? Or same headphones? Same volume?
> 
> Very odd, that, as AAC usually sounds better than vinyl, if it's remastered properly from good source tapes. My Hotel California is of good quality.


Acc can't even hold a candle to CDs. Not when it's all done well. And not when it's true full range speakers.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

inkahauts said:


> Acc can't even hold a candle to CDs. Not when it's all done well. And not when it's true full range speakers.


According to whom? In what situations?

CD's can't hold a candle to DSD or 24/192 files.... But, so what?


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

I once had a couple guys from cal tech come in with their mp3 player to listen to high end speakers. I told then get the cd it will sound better. They said no it won't because of tads yada yada Techincal reasons including the usual one, that people can't hear certain frequencies. I told them grab the CDs and we will compare. They did. They where shocked. The difference is obvious when listen on a real set if speakers. Real being full range speakers with proper crossovers and no old school paper cones and a real good amp. 

And again all things held equal you are right. Dsd and 192 will kick a CDs but. I totally agree. 

The point is everyone you compress more it loses quality. Period. You lose musicality and quality and especially range which effects what everyone hears the throughout the entire spectrum.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

I am sure you are aware, that's not even close to a scientific approach. Random MP3's? Poor quality to begin with? HQ CDs, I am sure. 

Even if the mp3's were well mastered from the same original as your CDs, the DAC used is a critical factor.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

sigma1914 said:


> Beats or Apple? Beats definitely isn't since breaking from Monster. AKG headphones are far superior ... heck, even Dre uses them.


While quality may not be with "professional" quality headphones, Beats did achieve selling these overpriced headphones to the masses, which is something that Apple may be interested in the future if the go in to the "wearables" industry. on top of this, they would be backed by Dr. Dre which is a good sponsor for things like the rumored iWatch. If Apple wants good sales on these "devices" they will need some "famous" folks to wear them. and why not use Dr. Dre and his "gang" (pun not intended)


----------



## 4HiMarks (Jan 21, 2004)

I think the issue in MP3 vs CD vs vinyl comes down to quality vs expense. If you have high end gear, analog is going to sound better. If you have cheap crap, the digital is going to sound "just as good". The graph of sound quality vs cost for digital reproduction starts out really, really steep, but then levels off, to the point where you would probably need laboratory test equipment to notice any difference at all between, say, a $100 CD player and a $1000 one (given the same amp, speakers, etc.). That is not true for turntables.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

4HiMarks said:


> I think the issue in MP3 vs CD vs vinyl comes down to quality vs expense. If you have high end gear, analog is going to sound better. If you have cheap crap, the digital is going to sound "just as good".


Cheap digital beats cheap analog any day, and high end digital beats high end analog. What you say was true for about the first ten years of CD engineering- or non-engineering as was the case mostly.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

4HiMarks said:


> The graph of sound quality vs cost for digital reproduction starts out really, really steep, but then levels off, to the point where you would probably need laboratory test equipment to notice any difference at all between, say, a $100 CD player and a $1000 one (given the same amp, speakers, etc.). That is not true for turntables.


While the tone arm is critical in analog, so is the DAC in digital. 
You bring up a good point in mentioning lab equipment/measurements, as I rule those out for either side: What you hear is what counts!


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

High end digital can never be better than high end analogue.


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

High end digital can never be better than high end analogue.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

You can repeat that as many times as the forum software will allow, but your statement will remain false. Unless you're talking only theoretical limitations, where analog->analog is perfect. (which it cannot be, and will_* approach*_ same only with equipment costings hundreds of thousands....)


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

The very aspect of dragging a tape along a head or sliding a stylus down a groove introduces noise. (To say nothing of the pops and clicks inherent in vinyl as soon as you take off the shrink wrap)


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

OK, then! I am now working on an analog HDD....


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

Latest rumor is the acquisition may fail. Why? Because Dr Dre was a bit high at a party and mouthed off about the deal before disclosure was allowed. Oops. Sorry. There goes $3.2 Billion.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Rather reminds me of a TV series "House of Lies" (Cheadle, Bell)


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Another rumor says that the price was lowered by .2 billion. Still way too much. iMore says that Dr. Dre owns 25% of Beats, so he would get closer to $750 million before taxes etc.

http://www.imore.com/rumored-applebeats-deal-now-rumored-less


----------



## jdskycaster (Sep 1, 2008)

Not sure if anyone on this thread has actually done a simple comparison of Beats to any other quality headphone on the market today. Both of my teenagers were interested in them but when comparing them side by side to other options even they decided there was something better to spend their money on and just having a brand name was not enough to justify the purchase. I get that promotion and big names being tied to a product carrys cache but why not also make them the best sounding products in their price band? 

At some point apple is going to have to deliver the best performing products on the market not just the most expensive.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I have not done a comparison, I never got that far. I'm fine with simple earbuds. Not the best fidelity, but I mainly use them to listen to podcasts.

Personally, I think Beats is slightly better than Monster Cable.


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

jdskycaster said:


> Not sure if anyone on this thread has actually done a simple comparison of Beats to any other quality headphone on the market today. Both of my teenagers were interested in them but when comparing them side by side to other options even they decided there was something better to spend their money on and just having a brand name was not enough to justify the purchase. I get that promotion and big names being tied to a product carrys cache but why not also make them the best sounding products in their price band?
> 
> At some point apple is going to have to deliver the best performing products on the market not just the most expensive.


Apple has been doing that for over a decade. Note: pls. omit ear buds from comparison to actual headphones!

Agreed, though, Beats headphones are expensive and middle quality. But I've read that there are other reasons for the acquisition, though this one has me puzzled.


----------



## dennisj00 (Sep 27, 2007)

Market share from the following.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

it looks like is a done deal for 3 Billion "pesos" 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## inkahauts (Nov 13, 2006)

jdskycaster said:


> Not sure if anyone on this thread has actually done a simple comparison of Beats to any other quality headphone on the market today. Both of my teenagers were interested in them but when comparing them side by side to other options even they decided there was something better to spend their money on and just having a brand name was not enough to justify the purchase. I get that promotion and big names being tied to a product carrys cache but why not also make them the best sounding products in their price band?
> 
> At some point apple is going to have to deliver the best performing products on the market not just the most expensive.


Just like Bose still sells like crazy even though there are plenty much much better alternatives for far less cost.


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

I tried the BEATS headphones at an ATT store. The problem I had was the bass was a bit much. The headphones were comfortable and are styled nicely. Seems as if the audio is set for a specific type of music. I have a pair of Audio-Technicas that I prefer and they wee half the price. They are rather clunky though.

I wanted to try the BEATS bluetooth headphones, but they didn't work.


----------



## dmspen (Dec 1, 2006)

So the truth comes out...Apple is likely to do away with the TRS jack, i.e. headphone jack. Imagine if you could only connect to your iPhone for music through the lightning port, and the only headphones were BEATS! Unless you want to shell out $30 for a clunky adapter, made by...Apple. Can anyone say, "Proprietary ONLY!"
http://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-edges-towards-lightning-headphone-connections
http://www.techi.com/2014/06/apple-has-revealed-a-new-lightning-module-for-headphones/


----------



## Laxguy (Dec 2, 2010)

Don't get from the articles that anyone can say for sure that the mini jack is doomed... The Lightening port will allow higher quality, but then you need to look to a hi quality DAC in the phones themselves..... Enter Beats with a $400 -800 pair of cans.

From the first article:


> It's claimed that headphones connecting to iOS devices through the Lightning port will be able to receive a lossless stereo 48kHz digital audio output and send a mono 48kHz digital input. This could pave the way for headphones with superior built-in DACs that bypass the digital-to-analogue converter in the iDevice itself.


----------



## peds48 (Jan 11, 2008)

dmspen said:


> So the truth comes out...Apple is likely to do away with the TRS jack, i.e. headphone jack. Imagine if you could only connect to your iPhone for music through the lightning port, and the only headphones were BEATS! Unless you want to shell out $30 for a clunky adapter, made by...Apple. Can anyone say, "Proprietary ONLY!"
> http://www.whathifi.com/news/apple-edges-towards-lightning-headphone-connections
> http://www.techi.com/2014/06/apple-has-revealed-a-new-lightning-module-for-headphones/


Dont believe everything that gets posted online.


----------

