Apple Shuts Down Beats Music

That is what big companies do: buy the competition, strip away all value, then discard what is left over. An easy tax write-off for Apple. They just sold 10 million iPhones. Beats by Dre will be a freebie product used to sell other things.
 
Desire Inspires said:
That is what big companies do: buy the competition, strip away all value, then discard what is left over. An easy tax write-off for Apple. They just sold 10 million iPhones. Beats by Dre will be a freebie product used to sell other things.
Click to expand...

This

You have to think of it as a protective move on Apples part (I think I posted this before).

Apple has been the only real game in town, and has a cult following when it comes to online music purchases because of the built in integration to their products. It isn't in any way shape or form the best service to use...in fact it is probably one of the worst, but they are the most convenient for the purchasers of Apple products which has been a majority (though falling off a bit now) for years.

Here comes Dre and company with a brand that is recognizable and has a built in following, he proved that with Beats headphones...in fact he could have packaged bacon wrapped turds and probably moved a couple million units. This is a viable threat to Apples dominance directly because they know that if this goes live Apple now has to offer competitive contracts with artists in order to get their music. This is not something Apple is willing to do because it would be millions a year in profits lost.

So in the long run it is far cheaper for them to purchase and cannibalize as much as they can, including conversion of contracts and technology followed by discarding the rest including but not limited to the dissolving of the Beats name altogether.

Apple stock jumps, products now come with a higher cool factor headset and Dre retires a happy and rich man...everyone is satisfied while Dre and company only had to show proof of concept to get there.
 
Nightshade said:
This

You have to think of it as a protective move on Apples part (I think I posted this before).

Apple has been the only real game in town, and has a cult following when it comes to online music purchases because of the built in integration to their products. It isn't in any way shape or form the best service to use...in fact it is probably one of the worst, but they are the most convenient for the purchasers of Apple products which has been a majority (though falling off a bit now) for years.

Here comes Dre and company with a brand that is recognizable and has a built in following, he proved that with Beats headphones...in fact he could have packaged bacon wrapped turds and probably moved a couple million units. This is a viable threat to Apples dominance directly because they know that if this goes live Apple now has to offer competitive contracts with artists in order to get their music. This is not something Apple is willing to do because it would be millions a year in profits lost.

So in the long run it is far cheaper for them to purchase and cannibalize as much as they can, including conversion of contracts and technology followed by discarding the rest including but not limited to the dissolving of the Beats name altogether.

Apple stock jumps, products now come with a higher cool factor headset and Dre retires a happy and rich man...everyone is satisfied while Dre and company only had to show proof of concept to get there.
Click to expand...


You guys are both wrong. Beats Music was an EPIC flop! They barely had 250,000 subscribers. Spotify has well over 10MILLION paying subscribers and 40 Millions subscribers overall. Jimmy thought that the Beats service was "innovative" when in fact it was the same bullshit that has been peddled by the music industry for decades. Program managers have been curating content, and taking bribes to do so for well over 50 years. That's not innovative in any sense. That's what Jimmy brought back with Beats Music.

Apple bought Beats because of the brand and headphones. The margins on those headphones are outrageously high. Apple is going to shut Beats down and integrate whatever it wants into iTunes. Doesn't make sense to have fragmented platforms within Apple. They don't do that.
 
boombapdame said:
Apple Plans to Shut Down Beats Music, But For Now, You Can Get Beats Music on Apple TV | Complex

This is why I didn't believe the hype about Dre's billionaire status.
Click to expand...

Believe it or not, this is how big Corporations eliminate the competition. Buy em out. Dre is still paid sipping margaritas in some villa right now. Apple lost the great visionary Steve jobs. They'll do whatever they have to to remain on top. They own the headphones and now they get to eliminate the threat to their streaming service.
 
Last edited:
It was worth that 3 or so billion dollar deal to take away competition. Built in Apple speakers already sound better than Pills. Lol(j/k?). I'm sure the headphones aren't going anywhere. Even if next time we see them there's an apple where the "B" used to be. And pills plug right into iphones, so there's marketing to be done in that area as well.
 
Last edited:
BIGMOZ said:
You guys are both wrong. Beats Music was an EPIC flop! They barely had 250,000 subscribers. Spotify has well over 10MILLION paying subscribers and 40 Millions subscribers overall. Jimmy thought that the Beats service was "innovative" when in fact it was the same bullshit that has been peddled by the music industry for decades. Program managers have been curating content, and taking bribes to do so for well over 50 years. That's not innovative in any sense. That's what Jimmy brought back with Beats Music.

Apple bought Beats because of the brand and headphones. The margins on those headphones are outrageously high. Apple is going to shut Beats down and integrate whatever it wants into iTunes. Doesn't make sense to have fragmented platforms within Apple. They don't do that.
Click to expand...

It was launched Jan 21, 2014 it was still in it's infancy.

What was Spotifys numbers 7 months after launch? What were Pandoras?
If you are going to call it a flop then I want to see what numbers theothers put out in the same timeframe from launch, otherwise it's is just another speculative argument.
 
Nightshade said:
It was launched Jan 21, 2014 it was still in it's infancy.

What was Spotifys numbers 7 months after launch? What were Pandoras?
If you are going to call it a flop then I want to see what numbers theothers put out in the same timeframe from launch, otherwise it's is just another speculative argument.
Click to expand...

Not in this game. First mover wins, when the product/service is a commodity. The same songs that are on Pandora are on Spotify are on Beats. No one is going to jump ship from Spotify to Beats when the selection is the exact same and the price is the exact same. Beats would have to be differentiated in some sense. That's where Jimmy came with the curation strategy. It's a gimmick. Like I said, content curation has been used for nearly 100 years in radio. It's nothing new. Program managers get paid by record execs to promote specific artists, then pitch the idea of expert A&R curator behind the scenes, selecting the best music. It's a spoof.

There's too many competitors in the marketplace. Rdio, Pandora, iHeartRadio, Sirius, countless others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top