Dr. Dre, Jimmy Iovine Would Both Join Apple in Beats Deal
online.wsj.com
online.wsj.com
The cultural values of these two companies couldn't be much more different. While both are extremely image-conscious and fashionable, Apple has nevertheless built its reputation by delivering innovation and quality to its customers. Beats on the other hand has a built a reputation by selling very expensive headphones of highly questionable quality whose value, I would argue, is primarily superficial.
I use a pair of Sennheisers as my go to headphones because I prefer the accuracy, but Beats are kind of great to listen to. They're inaccurate and hyped as all hell, but in a really pleasing way (so much bass) if you mostly listen to modern pop or dance music.
EDIT: And with respect to having a reputation of selling overpriced, inferior products on the basis of fashionability: isn't that what Android fans say about Apple and the iPhone? Seems to me the two companies have a lot in common. Both sell well designed products at high markups on the basis of fashion, and not necessarily on feature superiority. Plus, I wouldn't expect Apple to integrate the Beats brand into their own, as that'd destroy a lot of the value associated with the acquisition.
In response to your edit, the difference between the two companies is that Apple generally backs up the superficial appeal of its products with very good, if not market leading user experience, engineering and manufacturing. The iPhone is relatively expensive (part of the reason I own a Nexus device), but its quality is undeniable.
Is this the new Apple? Style and sales numbers over substance? Seems like the first signs of rot.
Sounds like a match made in heaven.
Watch it all the way through, it was Dre himself who spoke and did that "first hip-hop billionaire on the mother$$#8ker west coast" quote.
I am not an audiophile, and I'm usually happy with sub-$10 earbuds from Amazon.
But remember, the word "audiophile" simply means someone who loves sound, and in practise that means someone who cares about good sound and will expend money and effort to achieve it. I'd count myself in that category, and am annoyed at the misguided noisy minority who give us a bad reputation.
There's plenty of well informed, intelligent audiophiles who know their shit, aren't susceptible to marketing hype, and just want a faithful reproduction of their treasured music. Unfortunately, there's also a certain type of person who needs "something to believe in" in life and so gets on board with this kind of pseudo-religion with about as much credibility as the healing vibrations of crystals. You'll find them at the high-end stereo shop buying $500 ethernet cables (the network packets are so much more vibrant!) or signing up for the Pono kickstarter.
To simply put, if you are heavy Bass listener. And dont listen to any type of music other then Rock / Hip Hop. Then may be Beats is perfect.
You could argue most audiophile would embarrass themselves with blind test, but the traits in Beats are so different that any normal human being should easily distinguish it.
They are, however, pretty good looking (imho), sturdy and extremely comfortable. They have also become (amongst non-geeks) the go-to headphones if you want something good as they don't have time to research the differences between HD598 and HD650.
If you buy a good pair of headphones that are balanced (eg. Sennheiser HD598), you can use a equalizer on your computer to make them sound just like Beats.
Basically, you can make Sennheisers sound like Beats, but you can't make Beats sound like Senheisers.
I've used two pairs of Beats headphones and disliked both. I guess the best way to describe it is that they sounded non-neutral... they change the audio.
When I try stereo equipment I have a few pieces of music I always return to and I know well, my reference points. I, and most audiophiles, shoot for equipment that is as neutral as possible, that introduces nothing new into the recording whilst reproducing the recording as faithfully as possible.
If you're asking audiophiles what equates to good, the answer will be neutrality; not modifying the audio at all. Usually this means introducing no warmth where there was none, no harshness where there was none, emphasising nothing that wasn't originally emphasised in the recording and studio, etc. You shouldn't hear the equipment used for reproduction in the music that you're reproducing.
Beats headphones are a bit like a Mega-Bass switch on old Walkman systems. What they do to the audio isn't enjoyable if you tend to like things with acoustic sections, folk music, classical, jazz, and rock.
But... for House music, Hip Hop and other club beats the changes may actually be something you enjoy and seek as they reproduce an element of how you enjoy music (closer to the memory of the club, or a loud car stereo than a perfect recording).
They are crap, for want of a better word, because they change the music noticeably. But you've got to realise this is super-subjective stuff as some people want those changes.
They are also crap, probably the right word this time, because the material choice at this price point is pretty dire. But hey, they made plastic a luxury thing again, you could argue there's some brilliance there too. Most issues around durability come from the choice of materials.
As to whether they're crap full stop... well, no.
If you like the big beats of clubs, reverberating bass that dominates, and you rank the iconic fashion statement above durability (because fashion isn't designed to last anyway)... then Beats aren't a bad choice.
"Regular people buy sound systems to listen to their music. Audiophiles buy music to listen to their sound system."
Beck - Paper Tiger (on Sea Change) about 3 minutes 15 seconds in.
Because of the combination of rich and deep bass combined with delicate strings. Single speaker systems (headphones) struggle with reproducing bass at the the same as reproducing treble.
Charlatans - Page One (on Between 10th and 11th) the first minute
It's an example of massive over-production. It's left the sound stripped and clinical, and anything less than a faithful reproduction sounds terrible. This one track exposes compression artifacts really well, the top-end becomes washed out and blurred.
Belle and Sebastian - Me and the Major (on If You're Feeling Sinister) the end of the track
I've seen them live over 100 times, been in their studio and rehearsal space, worked with them. I know his voice, how it should sound, and I know that this record did not go through great post production (or much of an amateur post production either). The mouth organ bits at the end are not controlled very well and cause systems to clip the peaks, it can be uncomfortable to listen to, and is made worse by a less than great reproduction.
I tend to also throw in Nirvana, Led Zep, Beethoven, Chopin, and some dodgy pop music. But what I look for there is mostly whether the equipment isn't killing the thing I love.
However, the general sentiment from the audiophile community is that they are not terrible headphones, but you can get much much better for your money. Especially if you want transparency in your audio equipment(ie: doesn't cut/boost certain parts of the audio spectrum).
http://www.reddit.com/r/headphones/search?q=beats&restrict_s...
People buy them because of the brand not because of the qualitity of the headphones. And yes you can get way better headphones for half the price.
I have nothing against Beats and i'm happy for the team.But it's just not worth the price for a professional or someone that actually cares about high fidelity.
It would be like buying a low end Huawei phone at the price of a high end Samsung phone just because Dr Dre is endorsing it.
>Scientific claims to knowledge and the uses of technological artifacts are both inherently contestable, but both are not usually contested together. Consumers of ‘specialty’ audio equipment (known as the ‘high end’), however, connect both forms of resistance. These ‘audiophiles’ construct their own universe of meaning around their equipment; they cultivate a distinctive vocabulary and set of attitudes. In this they resemble other groups of users dedicated to supposedly antiquated technology. But they also engage in controversy to defend themselves against knowledge-claims that would delegitimize their universe of meaning. These debates concern recording formats or media (the relative merits of the compact disk [CD] and long-playing record [LP]), user ‘tweaks’ of purchased equipment, and the supposed audibility of differences between different brands of amplifiers, cables, or CD players. In all of these cases, audiophiles resist the claims of audio engineering by privileging their personal experiences, and they argue against scientific methodologies that seem to expose those experiences as illusory. Some of these patterns of epistemic contestation resemble those in non-musical domains (such as biomedicine). But audiophiles also make epistemic use of values crucial to their identity as music-lovers. They appeal to a common understanding of music as an exemplary locus of subjectivity, emotion, and self-surrender, in order to ward off the criticisms directed at them from a science they construe as objective, detached, and dispassionate
If it's leaking out of Beats, then they're already demonstrating how poor of a cultural fit for Apple they are. From... literally not day 1, but day -N.
That said, it's not Dre's first entry into Apple's orbit. He has two entries in Isaacson's /Steve Jobs/.
EDIT: Actually, I might lean toward thinking the contracts are transferrable, given Beats built its streaming service by purchasing MOG.
Beats' streaming service has a recommendation engine that is a combination of automated and manual curation. And iTunes Radio has shown that is Apple may be fine on the first but clearly fails at the second. What Levine mentions during the interview is how they know which producers and DJs are coming/going etc. So clearly they have extensive insider connections within the music industry. That is definitely worth spending money for.
Not only does Apple get a well-aligned brand poised for growth, but they also eliminate a potential threat in the weak-aspirational electronics space.
Apple and Beats are also unique: they're the only two weakly aspirational brands I can think of that present organically in haute/celebrity culture. Both brands have managed, somehow, to punch up and mingle with strong-aspirational / luxury products while still being accessible to a large audience. You're more likely to see a movie star, rapper, or trust-funder get out of their Ferrari wearing an Audemars carrying an iPhone than a Vertu, and Beats headphones rather than Sennheisers.
That's a powerful, rare achievement in brand position and it makes sense for one company which has truly mastered the art to snap up an upstart that seems to be on track to accomplish the same thing.
All these are great. His sales pitch was Apple ish too. There will likely be people on the net falls for it.
But may be, just may be he loves Rocks and Dre is Hip Hop, their Beats Headphone are essentially only suited for these two type of music. And may be that is what is was talking about how the music should feel.
And may be, just may be, Amercians love the way it sounds, as in Audiophile world there are people who could distinguish those Stereo equipments from different region.
I am definitely on the UK and Japan camp, B&W being my favourite. Not that they are the best, but most of the time it is best suited to me, and it depends on price range and other factors.
Beats? If it wasn't for the design and looks, i would put it at the bottom of all branded Headphones. And that is not a problem because there will always be a loser. But for a Brand that consistently put out crap at its price range, and talk about it so passionately as if they were the best? I just feel sick. The worst thing about Beats headphone is the audio coming out has no soul in it. I dont feel any attention to details were ever put into it.
Heck that is why there are so many cheap knock off, and some even claim those fake version sounded better.
Now back to Apple, assuming the Headset business worth nothing. Why would you spend 3.2B on a streaming services? Do knowing what songs next really worth 3.2B?
Beats has a 67% market share in particular amongst younger audiences who are the most valuable demographic in the music industry. Clearly Apple must be seeing that al a carte sales are stable in the higher ages ranges but they are losing to Spotify, Soundcloud etc at the younger ages. So from a hardware perspective creating some lock in between the headphones and iPod/iPhone could be very lucrative. The type of lock in that Apple is rumoured to be developing right now i.e. in ear health measuring functionality.
On the software side it's not the technology but their manual curation abilities, inside connections within the industry at all levels and understanding of younger markets. Apple failed miserably with iTunes Radio and are desperate.
So yes. Given that iTunes is the key to iPod/iPhone sales which in turn is the key to Mac sales I would say it is easily worth a tiny $3.2B.
If you consider spending anything more then $40 - 50 on earphone as audiophile then we have a different of opinion. Because in my view those are people who spend $100s to $1000s in audio equipment.
Therefore i dont consider myself an Audiophile. I just wanted a better audio equipment for my money then what most technology company do which is throw a piece of crap speaker at me.
I dont agree on iTunes being Key to iPhone Sales. I would actually say requiring iTunes is the problem to iPhone sales. Whether the curation and Human connection, executive etc are worth 3.2B is up for debate.
That's even assuming a word of this nonsense is true. I just can't see how Beats would have one single thing that Apple would want.
Do people actually think Apples earbuds (the current as well as the previous version) sound good?
I never liked the first generation ones because they didn't fit in my ear very well. I saw the presentation about the current earpods, and when I got my new iPhone I tried them out. They are a joke.
Don't get me wrong - they are about what I was expecting for pack-in headphones. Apple was known for their earbuds, with the white cord and white bodies. They are iconic.
But a few years ago, I went headphone crazy since I started working at a place with an open environment and ended up wearing them most of the day. I didn't buy anything crazy, the single most expensive pair I bought was $140 and I even bought a few pair used. But $50/$70 earbuds are just on another level compared to the Apple earpods and are really worth it if you use them a lot.
But if i compare to any other earphones that came with other phone or equipment. i.e those given to you for free or part of the package? Then i guess joke is on them.
And i wouldn't blame Apple. Why? Because Apple isn't a earphone , audio equipment company. So it would be like comparing Apple's Macbook to Yamaha or Onkyo's Laptop.