“By now, hopefully every tech investor has gotten wind of the rumor that tech giant Apple has entered advanced negotiations to purchase the uber-cool headphone and streaming music company Beats Audio for a whopping $3.2 billion,” Andrew Tonner writes for The Motley Fool.
“This deal has gotten plenty of deserved notoriety as it contains a number of juicy storylines at both Beats and Apple. However, in circling this deal, which appears to have yet to close as of today, it’s difficult to determine whether this is a good deal for Apple and its investors,” Tonner writes. “So, as this storyline evolves, let look at two possible arguments that Apple should scrap its deal for Beats altogether.”
“1. Apple could be overpaying… Apple is really interested in Beats’ streaming music service. And although Beats Music product is apparently a membership conversion monster, its user base remains a drop in the bucket, at just north of 110,000 paying subscribers, especially compared to the likes of Pandora’s 76 million subscribers. So, all told, between an attractive, but hardly necessary, line of headphones and a start-up music service, it’s fair to question whether Apple is making the right decision in shelling out $3.2 billion for Beats rather than developing a comparable service internally,” Tonner writes. “2. Apple and Beats: Brand competition… Apple is consistently ranked as the most valuable brand in the world. And while Apple has shrewdly borrowed cool points from other brands in the past (partnering with Bono and U2 for instance), it’s hard to see how a marriage between the Apple and Beats brands would work from in a practical sense.”
Read more in the full article here.
Related articles:
Ben Thompson on possible Beats buy: Is Apple losing what makes Apple, Apple? – May 13, 2014
Nolan Bushnell: Beats is a ‘good deal for Apple,’ but it says Apple is ‘not an innovative tech company’ – May 13, 2014
Curated music influencing Apple’s jump into streaming – May 13, 2014
Beats Music is actually so good that I’m worried about Apple ruining it – May 13, 2014
Apple could become most powerful record label in the world with Dr Dre, Jimmy Iovine onboard – May 13, 2014
Bob Lefsetz on Apple-Beats deal: Tim Cook is an operations guy, he’s clueless, and the company has no vision</a – May 13, 2014
Apple CEO Tim Cook makes break from managerial style of Steve Jobs – May 12, 2014
Analyst Sacconaghi on Apple buying Beats: ‘We struggle with the rationale for this deal’ – May 12, 2014
Cody Willard: Apple’s Beats buy is just stupid
– May 12, 2014
Apple may unveil Jimmy Iovine, Dr. Dre executive appointments at WWDC – May 12, 2014
Apple CEO Tim Cook’s pursuit of Beats seen presaging more takeovers – May 12, 2014
Former eMusic CEO explains why Apple wants to buy Beats – May 12, 2014
Apple’s deep ties with Jimmy Iovine key driver of Beats deal – May 12, 2014
Removal of Dr. Dre video about Apple-Beats deal likely means acquisition is real and imminent – May 10, 2014
Game changer: Apple buying Beats could radically transform the digital music business – May 9, 2014
If Beats deal happens, Apple is acquiring a fad, not quality, and that is troubling – May 9, 2014
If Apple’s really buying Beats, here’s hoping it’s brilliant in a way which isn’t immediately obvious – May 9, 2014
The reason for Apple’s $3.2 billion interest in Beats? Spotify – May 9, 2014
Apple buying Beats Electronics: Its best idea since the iPad? – May 9, 2014
Why would Apple want to blow $3.2 billion on Beats Electronics? – May 8, 2014
Apple in talks to buy Beats Electronics for $3.2 billion – May 8, 2014
If analysts say this is a bad deal, it must be the best opportunity this century.
I was ambivalent but now I’m thinking Apple are onto something.
that as dumb a reasoning as Apple buying Beats for 3 billion. Maybe dumber.
It’s what no one is saying. A huge tax write off. A way to gain something for less than 35% of $3.5 billion. If it’s a good deal, then not so much of a write off. I mean it’s boom years for all tech companies, Google, Apple, Microsoft, Facebook. They need to buy some junk so they don’t have to “over spend” their tax liability. It’s a CFO safe bet, where no matter the outcome, they look like the good guy.
You are right, Apple typically does not do stupid. So there’s something we are missing.
Shallow thinking from the brain trust at the Motley Fool, as per usual.
There’s brains at Motley Fool? Who knew?
MF and MDN on exactly the same track with exactly the same answers. Results: a step in the right direction of asking what the hell is Tim Cook thinking. If Steve had wanted what Beats had, he would have innovated it only it would have been much better, cost a tiny fraction of what Tim is paying, and completely taken over the market leaving Beats looking for a way to survive. MDN could then have used one of their favorite headlines – something about more blood on the device and the company that Apple had just destroyed. That was then. This is now. It’s the darkness of the the Tim Cook era.
Unless those people who would be spent developing the service are needed for redeveloping iWork, fcpx, updating aperture, and (of course) coming up with the next big thing.
You mean like apple took over the premium speaker market with that Apple hifi thing? Smirk.
The Tim Cook Era has been nothing but record profits, record shareholder returns, record charitable contributions, and monumental leaps forward.
Yes, because Steve Jobs never acquired companies for their technology or their talent. Right. (That’s sarcasm, Jay, since you’re probably unable to detect it on your own.)
Quit trolling.
That’s assuming that this is more than just a fantasy of the Financial Times.
You mean just like how Steve bought the software that was rebranded as iTunes?
Maybe there is something to this that no one knows about yet..??
But one of my main concerns at this moment is :
This is potentially the biggest acquisition apple has ever made..
The biggest associated with a mediocrity like Beats ! Not something with big wow factor , That blows the mind..
Its …Beats with mediocre headphones and app!
( i downloaded the app.. Its more of an eye-candy…rather than practical …with all those bubbles flying around for set up ..etc…etc)
Sometimes i hope this rumor is just a gameplay by Iovine.. To creat buzz for their app … Nothing more !
Time shall tell..
Right now it feels very uncomfortable !
I disagree with your assessment of Beats Music — I think the UI is great (MUCH better than iTunes Radio). And it seems to select music that I like much better than Pandora or iTunes Radio.
This deal is rumored to be instigated by audio legend Tomlinson Holman, formerly of Lucasfilm. Holman has been around Apple for a couple of years with nothing to show for it. Kudos for finally getting some runs on the board!
Really? Haven’t heard that one. What’s the source of your information?
what is your source? i know ppl very very close to T.H. and they don’t agree with your comment. Post a link? Source?
2 reasons this is FUD.
1. No facts
2. No one knows what Apple’s future holds except Tim Cook.
The streaming service is quite good, and the whole deal will send reverberations across the music industry to stop screwing over Apple with licensing. Some people blame Eddy Cue, but it has nothing to do with him. It’s the labels.
By the way, 110,000 subscribers (gained in only a few months) that are paying $14.99 per month is nothing to sneeze at. I would much rather have the premium segment of the market than rely on advertising for everything.
The TV cable companies promised that their subscription-based services would be ad-free too. But it didn’t take long for each and every one of them to renege on that promise.
Why is it that everything “innovative” in the software/tech world today is just a thinly veiled ploy to force everyone into subscriptions? It’s not a good value for the customer — just look at cable TV. Is that how you want your audio to work too? 250 channels of “curated” garbage, with ads, and with no option for you to pay for only what you consume?
Jobs hated the subscription model, and I do too.
Isn’t it possible that this could work on both levels? Perhaps you could even listen to curated channels that are 80% or more your own stuff. It would be iRadio, only, you know, good.
Steve Jobs also hated mice with more than one button and that weren’t shaped like hockey pucks. Steve was not always right.
Then why is it that millions of consumers are using multi touch trackpads?
Well, it comes out to $29,000 per subscriber for the purchase. There must be something else valuable, and it sure ain’t the headphones.
Any article/comment that says that Jobs would never have done this, would have innovated a better product, is one that I just tune out of.
Steve Jobs was great, but he was not perfect. Apple bought companies when he was around, Apple had failures as well. iPod Hi-Fi anyone?
Assuming they are buying Beats, assuming they are paying $3.2b, there is nothing to say Steve Jobs wouldn’t have done the same. Apple are a bigger company now, the market has changed, it stands to reason that Steve Jobs would have had to do new/different things as a result.
I don’t think the subscription model is going to be the all dominant, profit making phenomenon that analysts seem to think it already is, just like is hasn’t been for years, but it has reached a point where it can’t be ignored.
I’m not saying this is a good or bad move, or that the price would be right for the purchase as a whole, but don’t harp on about Steve Jobs all the bloody time.
Seems like they could also sell Beats headphones if they wanted. Like break off that portion of the company and sell the organization.
It never ceases to amaze me how many commenters on this board sound WAY too much like (former Palm CEO) Ed Colligan and his “PC guys aren’t going to just walk in” comment….which would indicate a total lack of understanding about the whole situation. Why not wait and see what the intricacies are before jumping into the “idiot comments” pool?
How DARE you be reasonable? You’ll burn for this, reasonable one.
The fun of this whole thing is reading the deranged rantings and ravings of tech pundits that glom onto a single issue of Beats and/or Apple and use it to advance their narrative on Apple.
Audiophiles don’t like Beats, therefore Tim Cook is not innovative.
Beats subscription service doesn’t have as many customers as Spotify, therefore Apple is doomed within the next 3 years…and Tim Cook is not innovative.
It’s really delicious.
just buy pandora if they want a streaming service.
You should start a tech blog.
Two reasons:
1) Beats headphones are good, not great and certainly not “the best”. They are clearly overpriced.
2) one “streaming” service is just another streaming service. You can accomplish the same thing by adjusting features and price.
Third reason: one if the two main people at Beats is an idiot. You had better realize what you are doing because a “divorce” could cost you 50 times the purchase price.
Some “investors” start rumors based on people seen somewhere (Apple Headquarters) which can be proven from multiple people seeing it.
They do this to ramp up the stock before cashing in their options or their sales.
At this point, we truly do not know as Apple is not talking.
Have people already forgotten that iTunes itself was an acquisition? Apple bought SoundJam MP back in 2000, brought their people on board, rejiggered it a little, and the rest is history. All this hand wringing over the possible Beats purchase is completely unnecessary.
Reasons NOT to buy:
1- The product sucks and is the flavor of the moment among a very fickle group- trend following youth and the wannabes.
2- The company is not worth the kind of money quoted.
3- The company is built upon stolen IP- like Google’s Android. Bad, bad Karma.
4- The company holds no technology Apple does not have or could not quickly acquire elsewhere.
I agree with “The Trichrodist.” I believe Apple is buying Beats simply because of the ridiculously low royalty fees that they have negotiated to pay songwriters.
http://thetrichordist.com/2014/05/10/q-when-does-0-000126-3-2-billion-a-when-apple-buys-beats-music/
Bono? really? this is the analysts idea of “borrowing cool points”?
Apple is doing a couple of things here:
1. Apple is showing it will be aggressive at entering the streaming market, even replacing its own product if necessary.
2. Apple can certainly use Beats alongside it’s other products:
A. Beats headphones are already sole in Apple Stores and perfectly compliment Apple’s devices;
B. Apple can keep Beats a separate, wholly-owned entity (much like FileMaker is) and keep the hot brand going with headphones and Beats Music, which would be pre-installed on iDevices.
Apple has long been criticized that it tries to have iTunes do too much, which is really counter to the iOS philosophy of small, quick apps to handle specific tasks. Beats Music would allow Apple to remove iTunes Radio from iTunes and start simplifying iTunes, perhaps even moving other functions of iTunes to separate apps.