[cb3723]

Totally - death of the author and all that jazz.

I just hate the tone of the debate which implies objective metrics, or an 'ideal' aesthetic. People can say that Hollywood directors overuse lens flare and they don't like it, and that's cool and lens flare does seem to be overused as a visual crutch at times. Same as bloom in video games, and didn't that trend die out quick? I get it, people don't like something. But it's one thing to say you don't like what the musician did, and it's another thing to say 'what you did is bad and here are the numbers that prove it, and every artist should be aiming for these numbers'.

I also think some parts of the argument are implicitly elitist. For instance in the above video the guy implies that Reznor is using distortion to imitate the sound of cheap speakers because this is what people are used to hearing, and this is a poor choice. That is garbage and has that whiff of "I know better" that I really can't stand in this debate. Distortion is used all the time in music because it can sound interesting. It's an aesthetic effect that relates to people's experience in the same way that sepia tones make us think something is nostalgic - even if we've never seen a real sepia tone film in our lives. Again we don't say "oh they added film grain to this video because that is what people are used to seeing, IGNORANT MASSES"

Please note that I myself am very frequently guilty of doing and saying exactly the same things I am arguing against. I'm human and like all humans have opinions and secretly think that people who don't have my opinion are dumb and stupid, even if I try very very hard to remain a nice empathetic member of a pluralistic society. But I just hate it when audiophiles sit around in a clique railing against 'the loudness wars' as if there was some active conspiracy where musicians were trying to hurt people with bad sounds.

A lot of your points made remind me of the beats by dre bandwagon of hate ie "audiophile" snobbery or people who wish to be perceived as knowing better than the rest, a lot of the time without having experienced beats cans at all, but this is maybe another debate in itself that plays out daily on this site and many others, so my apologies for going off topic - just thought I'd throw my bit in

But yeah - I definitely appreciated your post for sure, but then again - what do I know? I may just be one of the ignorant masses, but they say ignorance is bliss, so I guess it's better to be blissful

 

[Coq de Combat]

 

[tomscy2000]

Um. Okay.
 
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2638136/Teenage-gang-members-repeatedly-stabbed-schoolboy-stole-Beats-headphones-jailed-total-ten-years.html

 

[Coq de Combat]

I never really got the ages correctly. Was he 17 when stabbed, or 15 and the court date was two years afterwards? How many were they really? Two, six or nine?
 
Fully deserved jail sentences imo. Also, I like that the judge was so forthcoming with his view on their behaviour:
 
Judge Robert Trevor Jones said: 'The incident overall was very disturbing and shocking indeed.
 
'And, I hardly need to add, utterly terrifying for your victim.
 
'He was just 15, going about his business of visiting family, but was unfortunate enough to walk into an area where both of you - forming part of a gang - felt he had no business being.
 
'Nine of you against one 15-year-old lad.'

 

[DigitalFreak]

 

[a_recording]

That was a fun discussion! Honestly I'm hoping this acquisition leads to all kinds of unexpected products.

 

[tomscy2000]

I always assumed it was Jimmy Io-VEEN because that's how all the artists under the Interscope umbrella name-drop him on their records.

 

[a_recording]

  I always assumed it was Jimmy Io-VEEN because that's how all the artists under the Interscope umbrella name-drop him on their records.

 
I am guessing that they are more than likely correct.

 

[Coq de Combat]

That was a fun discussion! Honestly I'm hoping this acquisition leads to all kinds of unexpected products.

Something you guys completely forgot to mention is that the absolute majority of people are regular people, not the audiophile/headphone enthusiasts that we are. Those normal people are *not* going to spend hundreds of dollars *every* year to upgrade those headphones. They buy a premium headphone once, and hope it lasts a long time to come. What I'm saying is that while Beats is a money maker at the moment, they won't be for very long, due to the fact that most people aren't upgrading their Beats each time a new version comes out, it's not the same thing as with smartphones or computers. Some will, most won't. They're running out of prospective buyers soon. Here's the thing: Apple knows it. They're not paying 3 billion to buy a "fashion" company that has a short lifespan, and is most probably nearing the end of it. Apple has something else in mind than just headphones; want to invest a piece of cash on campany? Do so in the beginning when there's a market to exploit, not near the end when most of that market is being stigmatized and could possibly fade away in a few years.
 
I think Tyll had a nice theory, that it will incorporate Hearables, although I doubt that's Apples primary plan. Also, I think putting billions in the pockets of the cable companies would make things faster with their contracts, than aqcuihiring one person for billions, who could pack his bags and leave as soon as his contract is done.
 
It's not about headphones. It's not about Beats music. It's not about Iovine. This is for something else, and I don't know what, but logic suggests that they'd just be wasting money unless they had something in mind for the future that we don't know, and knowing it's Apple, we might just keep guessing until there's "One more thing..."
 
Just don't ask me what I think they'll make out of Beats, I just am sceptical that such a ecostrategically good company as Apple would spend billions on a company that just may be nothing more than a flash in the pan and seemingly lead them nowhere they could go by themselves for less money.

 

[tomscy2000]

  I am guessing that they are more than likely correct.

 
Straight from the horse's mouth:
 

 

 
Personally, I'm more intrigued by the acqui-hire of Ian Rogers, the guy who was running Beats Music, and how he'll plug into Apple's executive pyramid.

 

[a_recording]

 
It's not about headphones. It's not about Beats music. It's not about Iovine. This is for something else, and I don't know what, but logic suggests that they'd just be wasting money unless they had something in mind for the future that we don't know, and knowing it's Apple, we might just keep guessing until there's "One more thing..."
 
Just don't ask me what I think they'll make out of Beats, I just am sceptical that such a ecostrategically good company as Apple would spend billions on a company that just may be nothing more than a flash in the pan and seemingly lead them nowhere they could go by themselves for less money.

 
But the problem is, if it's not headphones, and it's not Beats music, and it's not Jimmy, why on earth do they need Beats at all? I don't believe that Beats has any cachet of expertise outside of these areas that Apple can really exploit...

 

[tomscy2000]

Well, contrary to the prevailing opinion of us 20 to 30-somethings, Apple has been running out of "cool" with the, er, 15-and-under crowd. Those kids are going to be dictating the consumer flow of things in the coming decade, and the prevailing opinion is that that Apple is the product of the rich bourgeoisie. The poster they have on their bedroom walls is one of Lebron James or [The Coiffed Canadian] in a pair of Beats. So this purchase partly might be Apple's bid to become more Plebian as its mass consumer appeal falters for the segment Cupertino rose to the top with ---- music. Apple likely has something up its sleeves regarding the future of music hardware, whether it be hearables, high-resolution, wireless, or all three and more. Purchasing the most recognizable headphone brand in the world enables them to dictate the direction of the whole of the headphone market (for better or for worse --- let's just say better for now, because, Apple). Apple is now the (in)visible hand for the way headphones are perceived and marketed. You could say Apple has already held that power for a while, but now it exerts even greater and more direct control over something it has historically never been able to do well. One of Apple's lesser sung (triumphs?) is their extremely tight control over what happens up- and downstream of their products and services. It was always Tim Cook who exercised this production line control and it looks like he's taking it a step further. Financially, you've got to believe that Apple has done its due diligence with regard to the Beats purchase benefitting their strategic future. It doesn't matter if they overpaid for the company, since all these people who made money off the deal are now all unquestionably Team Cupertino again. No rational investor not in for a quick buck has now bolted just because AAPL blew a minor hole in its cash stockpile (a lot of which is interestingly locked up overseas --- tax haven, anyone?).

 

[Achmedisdead]

  [The Coiffed Canadian]

 

 
That is a priceless way to refer to that who should not be named. 

 

[thievesarmy]

  Something you guys completely forgot to mention is that the absolute majority of people are regular people, not the audiophile/headphone enthusiasts that we are. Those normal people are *not* going to spend hundreds of dollars *every* year to upgrade those headphones. They buy a premium headphone once, and hope it lasts a long time to come. What I'm saying is that while Beats is a money maker at the moment, they won't be for very long, due to the fact that most people aren't upgrading their Beats each time a new version comes out, it's not the same thing as with smartphones or computers. Some will, most won't. They're running out of prospective buyers soon. Here's the thing: Apple knows it. They're not paying 3 billion to buy a "fashion" company that has a short lifespan, and is most probably nearing the end of it. Apple has something else in mind than just headphones; want to invest a piece of cash on campany? Do so in the beginning when there's a market to exploit, not near the end when most of that market is being stigmatized and could possibly fade away in a few years.
 
I think Tyll had a nice theory, that it will incorporate Hearables, although I doubt that's Apples primary plan. Also, I think putting billions in the pockets of the cable companies would make things faster with their contracts, than aqcuihiring one person for billions, who could pack his bags and leave as soon as his contract is done.
 
It's not about headphones. It's not about Beats music. It's not about Iovine. This is for something else, and I don't know what, but logic suggests that they'd just be wasting money unless they had something in mind for the future that we don't know, and knowing it's Apple, we might just keep guessing until there's "One more thing..."
 
Just don't ask me what I think they'll make out of Beats, I just am sceptical that such a ecostrategically good company as Apple would spend billions on a company that just may be nothing more than a flash in the pan and seemingly lead them nowhere they could go by themselves for less money.

 
It's about BUSINESS. You know, making money. That's what companies do. It's not rocket science.
 
Look at it from Apple's perspective - they get a profitable "headphones" business that also puts them into the wearables/hearables sector, where they have been rumored to be developing an 'iWatch' and I'm sure could imagine a million other scenarios w/ Beats current product line. And it sort of balances out the brand that Apple has (upscale) with what Beats has (urban), giving them access & relevancy to both demographics.
 
Then they get the #2 streaming music service, including all its technology, licensing deals, AND talent/personnel that, once integrated into the mac / itunes / iOS infrastructure could easily overtake Spotify to become the #1 service. I wouldn't be surprised to see them pull a Microsoft w/ IE and start giving it away for free as a loss-leader, killing off Spotify swiftly. 
 
Lastly they get "Jimmy and Dre", for whatever they're worth. Jimmy is no slouch and while I don't know what exactly his role will be, I think he is a legit asset to almost ANY company today. Dre, who the hell knows. I'm sure Jimmy was just looking out for his boy and said to Cupertino 'it's a package deal, you don't get me without Dre'. After all, it was Dre's name that used to be on the brand, and gave it all its initial street cred. Without dre as the original celeb endorser they probably wouldn't have gotten this far.

 

[DigitalFreak]

   

 
That is a priceless way to refer to that who should not be named. 

I hope it wasn't me

The coiffed Canadian????
 
Weird, watching that video Tom linked I'm surprised Iovine referred to himself an I-oh-veen. I've seen interviews where they've referred to him and he's referred to himself as I-oh-vine.
 
If Apple was to try and dictate the future of the headphone industry they won't do it with Beats. Substance will always outlive hype and the next flavor of the month.
My view is Iovine brings something Apple sorely needs, content and insider knowledge of the music and, generally speaking, the media industry. They need him to keep from becoming known as the blundering dinosaur that the next generations dad and mom used to rave about. I really don't think this move is going to work though. both sides are so alien to one another when you consider how different the companies cultures are.