[subego]

Maybe it's my ears, but I find AKGs to be the most comfy in general. I think that's why they have a big following with radio people.

I think Senns usually sound better (more linear) though.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Sennheiser HD650 or HD558 (for less $$). Both are very comfy.

Open cans for work? That doesn't seem very practical...?

I think open cans are completely stupid for listening to music, myself. If you can hear everybody and, possibly more importantly, everybody can hear you, then you might as well set up a speaker system, have a party, and not be tied to a cord and ridiculous ear muffs. The reason I'm wearing headphones is because I want to listen to my own shit and not hear or disturb everyone else.

[Spheric Harlot]

Not so fast.

"Not disturbing others" often enough means "listen at useful levels without anything audible beyond the closed door".

I'm on headphones all the time late at night when my daughter's asleep in the next room.

[Shaddim]

They aren't so loud that they'd annoy someone, unless the person is sitting right next to you, or you listen at levels that will destroy your hearing. For an office they're fine.

[Spheric Harlot]

My HD 540s are plenty loud enough to be annoying in a quiet office setting.

Of course, in an office I probably wouldn't be listening that loudly.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Not so fast.

"Not disturbing others" often enough means "listen at useful levels without anything audible beyond the closed door".

I'm on headphones all the time late at night when my daughter's asleep in the next room.

There you go, you're a clear exception. You have a $500+ pair of headphones for evening listening in your private room. I assume if you wanted to wear headphones on the go, you wouldn't take the 540s? I would imagine the vast majority of people (of which you aren't one, obviously) want a single do-it-all solution.

Of course, in an office I probably wouldn't be listening that loudly.

My HD600s at moderate (not loud) listening levels were clearly audible by my coworker in her office about 20 feet away when the office was pretty quiet on a weekend - I mean she probably couldn't pick out the song, just that someone, somewhere was playing music. My issue with open cans is that if it isn't quiet in your external environment, then it's doubly tough to listen at low levels because too much external noise filters in. If you're in a casual/open concept office, I would suspect that open cans are likely a non-starter for most people.

I looked at getting some closed cans - I think Denon might have had a nice model - but then was gifted some Beats Solo HDs, which I found pretty solid for being out and about. Then I got rid of headphones entirely and don't listen to anything outside the house other than earbuds on a plane.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

There you go, you're a clear exception. You have a $500+ pair of headphones for evening listening in your private room. I assume if you wanted to wear headphones on the go, you wouldn't take the 540s? I would imagine the vast majority of people (of which you aren't one, obviously) want a single do-it-all solution.

I use Apple's earbuds when out and about (almost never). When I'm on a job, I usually take the Sennheisers.

But I don't use them for leisure listening.

Obviously, my usage profile isn't normal.

[ort888]

I just hire the band I want to hear to come and play for me live.

[OAW]

^^^

Awesome!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by OAW 

As for "audiophile" criticism of Beats headphones, this is the same negligible percentage of the consumer market that is still having hissy fits over lossy audio files. When the reality is that most consumers couldn't care less. It's also very likely that so-called "audiophiles" aren't particularly into the genres of music that Beats headphones are tailored for (e.g. R&B, Hip Hop, Dub Step, etc.). Genres where the "beat" is predominant so heavy bass is appropriate. If you are listening to European Classical music or Jazz or Bob Dylan then a pair of Beats are probably not for you. It's also the case that the new Beats models have an improved audio profile that still delivers plenty of thump but also has better clarity in the highs and mids.

OAW

As I mentioned earlier the new Beats Studio headphones have a much improved sound profile. CNET just gave the Beats Studio Wireless a 4 out of 5 star rating. I've had my eyes on these for a while to replace the pair of Beats Wireless headphones I have. Mainly to go from an on-ear design to an over-the-ear design since that will make it more comfortable to listen all day at work. But it's good to know that the extra grip will also bring improved sound as well.

Beats Studio Wireless Headphones review - CNET

OAW

[turtle777]

LOL, CNET as an authority on audiophile matters.

-t

[OAW]

Never said it was an "audiophile" review. It's a mass market consumer product. We aren't talking Bang & Olufsen here.

OAW

[Shaddim]

I've tried lots of Beats but have yet to hear a good set. No treble, flabby bass, distorted mids. Even for bassheads there are better cans out there, for half the price.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Never said it was an "audiophile" review. It's a mass market consumer product. We aren't talking Bang & Olufsen here.

OAW

Bang & Olufsen is not mainstream, but in most cases, it certainly isn't "audiophile", either. It's nicely designed (sometimes cryptically and boneheadedly so) and expensive, but their home equipment isn't particularly high-end. Their headphones are pretty good.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Never said it was an "audiophile" review. It's a mass market consumer product. We aren't talking Bang & Olufsen here.

OAW

Which is why the $380 price tag is like, huh-wha?

[turtle777]

Booth B&O and Beats are for suckers that are willing to Spend a lot of money on brand, imagine and design. None of it has anything to do with good audio.

-t

[subego]

Sure thing.

Next you'll be telling me Monster Cable is a scam.

[mindwaves]

I'm ok with Apple buying Beats, but 3.2 billion seems excessive. But appointing Dr Dre to the board of directors may be a mistake.

Disclosure: I own AAPL shares.

[turtle777]

There is no way Dr. Dre is worth $3B.

Steve, maybe, but not some music dude.

-t

[Spheric Harlot]

Iovine is far more valuable.

[Shaddim]

Again, much worse purchases have been made lately, for much more money. At least Beats is profitable.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Iovine is far more valuable.

Yes. Not sure if $3B valuable, but definitely the real asset in a Beats.

-t

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Again, much worse purchases have been made lately, for much more money. At least Beats is profitable.

It's a bit scary that a company like Apple now feels they need to join that crazy party.

But then again, it's a great sign of a forming top. It's friggin 1999 all over again.

-t

[subego]

Party over. Oops, out of time.

[OAW]

Look like the deal is done ....

Apple, the company that turned digital music into a mainstream phenomenon, said on Wednesday that it was buying Beats Electronics, the rising music brand, for $3 billion, in a move that will help it play catch-up with rivals that offer subscription-based music services.

Apple and Beats executives on Wednesday said that the companies would work together to give consumers worldwide more options to listen to music. The Beats brand will remain separate from Apple’s, and Apple will offer both Beats’s streaming music service and premium headphones.

Apple said that iTunes, which sells individual songs and albums and offers a streaming radio service, would continue to be offered alongside the Beats music service.

The purchase of Beats brings Jimmy Iovine, a longtime music executive, and Dr. Dre, the rapper, to work under Eddy Cue, Apple’s executive in charge of Internet services. Dr. Dre and Mr. Iovine, who founded Beats,join a list of prominent executives that Apple has added to its roster, including Angela Ahrendts, the former chief of Burberry, and Paul Deneve, the former chief of Yves Saint Laurent.

In an interview here at Apple’s headquarters, Timothy D. Cook, Apple’s chief executive, repeatedly emphasized the talent that Dr. Dre and Mr. Iovine would bring to Apple. He also praised the Beats music service, which has people create playlists for people to listen to.

“These guys are really unique,” Mr. Cook said. “It’s like finding the precise grain of sand on the beach. They’re rare and very hard to find.”

Apple is paying for the deal with $2.6 billion in cash — hardly a dent in the company’s huge cash pile — and $400 million in stock. The company expects the deal to be approved later this year.

Mr. Cook called the deal a “no-brainer.” He said that Apple had bought 27 companies since last year, but that did not mean Apple had to buy those companies.

“Could Eddy’s team have built a subscription service? Of course,” he said. “We could’ve built those 27 other things ourselves, too. You don’t build everything yourself. It’s not one thing that excites us here. It’s the people. It’s the service.”

Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics | NYTimes.com

OAW

[ort888]

So they're keep the headphones around as just a side thing with no apple branding.

That's really the only thing that makes sense, but this really is a step in a whole new direction for them.

[Jawbone54]

If they can get some of the missing artists (who aren't on Spotify, Rdio, etc) to get on board, then I'll be happy.

[Demonhood]

The hardware and the streaming still don't make sense to me for this purchase. If they were really after Dre, why? I wonder if they're going to get into the "label" racket and start signing a bunch of smaller artists to their own label, luring them away from the established companies with better terms.

[Spheric Harlot]

They were after Iovine and the streaming business.

They paid 3 billion because Iovine wouldn't come unless they bought the hardware business too.

[Jawbone54]

This is amazing...

What Apple is really buying with Beats | The Verge

A $200 pair of Beats Audio headphones is said to cost $14 to make.

$14? No wonder they sound like crap.

[Shaddim]

Yep, even ultra high-end cans, with MSRPs in the $2000+ range, only cost $100-200 to manufacture. However, unlike Beats, there's a whole lot of R&D that goes into them before they hit the shelves. Here's a funny thing. I have a set of fake Beats Studios (Superman colors) that were $30 in Hong Kong, and they actually have better FR and THD measurements than the real thing.

[The Final Dakar]

Shoulda bought BOSE™

[Salty]

I don't really get this purchase. The only thing that I can think of is that the Beats headphones are making money hand over fist and they figure over X number of years they'll make most of the money back through those. The streaming business would have been super easy to emulate for less than 3 billion and I don't think there's anything proprietary about whole "we're curating stuff" thing, Apple could have hired a few respected music journalists with better taste for cheaper.

This just seems like a really weird thing to do. I also generally associate Beats products with the same sort of teenagers who buy Axe products and over apply. (Though I guess you can't really under apply with Axe the point is to produce a vomit inducing smell.)

The brand doesn't really jive with Apple which has conquered the high end market, as well as the "educated consumer with some extra cash" market, as well as the student market.

Things could be different in other cities mind you. I just hope they keep the Beats brand separate.

I'd have much sooner seen Apple blow a huge wad of cash on purchasing Adobe. I realize that they're barely in the pro software market anymore. But I'm sure they could get some really great engineers from Adobe, and just give them the mandate of, "Make cool stuff and try not to piss off the customer base" and they'd have a respectable and consistently profitable business.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Salty 

. The streaming business would have been super easy to emulate for less than 3 billion.

I don't think that is even CLOSE to true, especially not considering that it is run by a rather influential industry insider.

Beats isn't Silicon Valley striking a deal with LA; it's LA doing the work themselves.

That alone isn't worth 3 billion. But Jimmy Iovine comes with the deal. I'm sure Jimmy Iovine insisted they buy the headphone brand too. Apple has no business building and offering off-brand hardware. They don't care.

But if they keep the brand alive for three or five years (whatever's in the contract), it will have made its purchase price in profits, plus they get to keep the streaming service and possibly Iovine.

[Spheric Harlot]

Also, FCPX, MainStage and Logic would beg to differ on the "barely in the pro market" assessment.

Just because they're cheap does not mean we don't base jobs on them.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Salty 

I don't really get this purchase.

What's not to get about and established brand (the best known name in a segment) and $14-20 headphones for $200-400?

[Hawkeye_a]

I'm not terribly interested in Beats of this particular acquisition, but I just read on AppleInsider....

Apple purchased NexT for ~$400m (~$620m adjusted for inflation). That purchase was for the operating system which has been the foundation of Apple's comeback. (IMHO the 'heart' that fueled Apple's comeback).

And now, Tim Cook spends ~$3000m on a headphones and music subscription business, at a time when Apple is the dominant music retailer in the industry (with one of the biggest 'cloud' presence in the industry as well).

[Spheric Harlot]

Nope. At the risk of repeating myself (but now, with data!):

Apple paid about $500 million on a music subscription business and a vitally important music industry insider. This is the bit they care about.

They spent about $2500 million on a highly profitable hardware business that they had to purchase along with the part they needed.

http://forums.macnn.com/113/tech-new...eats-hardware/

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

Nope. At the risk of repeating myself (but now, with data!):

Apple paid about $500 million on a music subscription business and a vitally important music industry insider. This is the bit they care about.

They spent about $2500 million on a highly profitable hardware business that they had to purchase along with the part they needed.

http://forums.macnn.com/113/tech-new...eats-hardware/

Yup, i hear you and have seen that justification/argument made.

I acknowledge I do know much about said person ...... but my counter argument would be..... they spent $3000 million on essentially 'recruiting' a "vitally important music industry insider"? I'm not sure any company on earth would pay that much to effectively 'recruit' someone.

Also, this is Apple, it's not like the music industry is something so exotic or foreign to them that they need to pay so much for an 'insider'. IMHO, based on what we publicly know so far, i don't think the cost justifies the benefit. ( i concede that headphones, music subscription and an 'insider' are not necessarily all there is to this deal).

[Shaddim]

Still "beats" Whatsapp.

[OAW]

I posted this over at Ars on this very topic ....

Instead of all the "wringing of hands and gnashing of teeth" in the wake of this deal, I think it would be prudent to take a step back and look at the bigger picture. Why are some people insisting this is all about Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre? Beats Electronics is a highly profitable company for God's sake! Other major tech companies spend 3 billion on a company that's never made a dime and barely a peep. But Apple spends that on a company that's making money hand over fist and it's a sign of the Apocalypse to some people.

So what is Apple getting out of all this???

Beats' profit margins in the headphone market may be substantial. A pair of its high-end headphones retail for as much as $450, but production costs across the brand run only about $14 a pair, according to The New York Times. With $1.1 billion in revenue last year, Beats is already making money and will boost Apple's earnings once the new fiscal year begins in October, Apple said.

Beats also recently entered the streaming music business—placing it in head-to-head competition with much larger veteran rivals Pandora and Spotify.

Recently, some were speculating the music streaming business—around 100,000 subscribers to competitor Spotify's 10 million—actually knocked $200 million off Apple's initial offer.

The growing popularity of music streaming services has been reducing sales of songs and albums, a business that iTunes has dominated for the past decade. U.S. sales of downloaded songs slipped 1 percent last year to $2.8 billion while streaming music revenue surged 39 percent to $1.4 billion, according to the Recording Industry Association of America.

Apple Buying Dr. Dre's Beats for $3B to Compete in Music Streaming - NBC News

1. A highly profitable headphones and speaker business. Which already enjoys prominent product placement in Apple Stores. Products which are flying off the shelves everywhere.

2. An up and running music streaming business that combines the algorithm based radio model of Pandora ... the on demand model of Spotify ... along with a huge collection of professionally curated playlists to aid in music discovery. Beats doesn't currently offer a free plan outside of a 14 day initial trial. After that it's 10 bucks a month or so. But Apple could easily incorporate it's iAd platform into it to offer a free plan to drive up user and subscription numbers.

3. An established brand that is very popular with young people. A brand that single-handedly popularized full size headphones for "mobile" use outside the home. People can make their so-called "audiophile" criticisms all they want. I know that's all the rage in certain circles. But the bottom line is when you compare the number of Beats customers who like the way they look and sound with the number of people pontificating about tech specs and flat audio response ... well there really is no comparison. Because at the end of the day it's a business. And it's always a better bet to give consumers what they want instead of what techno-geeks think they should have.

4. A top notch music mogul in Jimmy Iovine and a preeminent music producer in Dr. Dre. Whose combined business, marketing, and cultural savvy is what put Beats Electronics on the map in the first place. If they didn't know what they were doing they wouldn't be about to cash a 3 billion check.

Just saying ...

OAW

[OAW]

Also posted this over at Ars ....

Totally anecdotal, but just an hour or so ago I was filling up my water bottle at the gym with my Beats Wireless headphones around my neck. This young guy approaches me and the encounter went down like this ....

Guy: Excuse me, but I was wondering if you liked those headphones? How do they sound?

Me: Yes, I really like them. And the sound is great ... especially for Bluetooth headphones. The sound quality is much improved since the days when Monster Cable manufactured Beats headphones. So you should be good with any model released in 2013 or later as far as that is concerned. My only complaint would be that they are "on-ear" headphones so my ears start to get sore after a few hours of wearing them at work. I'm probably going to upgrade to the Beats Studio Wireless since they are "over-the-ear" and I could probably wear those all day at work with no problems. As soon as I can convince myself to part company with $379!

Guy: Awesome! I was thinking about getting a pair for my dad for Father's Day. I hope you don't think it's weird of me asking, but do you want to sell the ones you have to offset the price of the new ones you want? I'll buy them.

Me: Not weird at all. But my 16 year old son is already begging me to give them to him if I get the new ones. So I'll probably go that route.

Guy: Ok I understand. Take it easy!

And THAT good people is the power of the mindshare that Beats currently enjoys. As well as the 60+% of the marketshare for premium headphones. Just saying ...

OAW

[ort888]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

Yup, i hear you and have seen that justification/argument made.

I acknowledge I do know much about said person ...... but my counter argument would be..... they spent $3000 million on essentially 'recruiting' a "vitally important music industry insider"? I'm not sure any company on earth would pay that much to effectively 'recruit' someone.

Also, this is Apple, it's not like the music industry is something so exotic or foreign to them that they need to pay so much for an 'insider'. IMHO, based on what we publicly know so far, i don't think the cost justifies the benefit. ( i concede that headphones, music subscription and an 'insider' are not necessarily all there is to this deal).

Google just paid 3 billion for Nest, a company that is completely unprofitable. It was probably mostly to just get Tony Fadell and the hardware team.

3 Billion sounds like a lot, but it really isn't to Apple. Google/Facebook make so many multiple billion dollar acquisitions these days that it's almost not even news when they do it. Compared to what those guys have paid for the things they have recently purchased, this deal looks like a total steal.

I still don't understand how it will really benefit Apple, but those guys are a lot smarter than I am.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Also posted this over at Ars ....

Totally anecdotal, but just an hour or so ago I was filling up my water bottle at the gym with my Beats Wireless headphones around my neck. This young guy approaches me and the encounter went down like this ....

Guy: Excuse me, but I was wondering if you liked those headphones? How do they sound?

Me: Yes, I really like them. And the sound is great ... especially for Bluetooth headphones. The sound quality is much improved since the days when Monster Cable manufactured Beats headphones. So you should be good with any model released in 2013 or later as far as that is concerned. My only complaint would be that they are "on-ear" headphones so my ears start to get sore after a few hours of wearing them at work. I'm probably going to upgrade to the Beats Studio Wireless since they are "over-the-ear" and I could probably wear those all day at work with no problems. As soon as I can convince myself to part company with $379!

Guy: Awesome! I was thinking about getting a pair for my dad for Father's Day. I hope you don't think it's weird of me asking, but do you want to sell the ones you have to offset the price of the new ones you want? I'll buy them.

Me: Not weird at all. But my 16 year old son is already begging me to give them to him if I get the new ones. So I'll probably go that route.

Guy: Ok I understand. Take it easy!

And THAT good people is the power of the mindshare that Beats currently enjoys. As well as the 60+% of the marketshare for premium headphones. Just saying ...

OAW

This is a weird anecdote that sounds like sneaky product placement

[Spheric Harlot]

OAW, what you're missing is that Apple probably couldn't care less about buying a profitable hardware manufacturer. There are tons of those, and none are as profitable as Apple themselves.

Additionally, maintaining a non-Apple brand is something they haven't done since the Claris days.

The fact that Beats hardware is profitable was prerequisite to Apple even *considering* the deal, but it almost certainly wasn't their objective. (Unless they're incorporating Beats stuff into their own machines, like in the old partnership with Harman Kardon fifteen years ago…)

[ort888]

I've been trying out the Beats Music app, and while it's doing a pretty dang good job of finding me music I like, it sure is cluttered and confusing to use.

[Hawkeye_a]

OAW, ort888....

Regarding the Beats acquisition... my main question is.....

Given Apple's talent in acoustics, it's current relationship with the music industry, their iTunes business, and Apple's brand....

If Apple were to try to develop headphones of that caliber and music subscription service on its own, and then hire those 'industry insider' executives, would it have cost them more than $3000 million?
If the estimates of such an undertaking would have been more than $3000m then they got a good deal, it not, it was a bad decision.

Regarding Google..... well Google also wasted money on Motorola and wrote it off. Nest could be a bad decision as well, i dont know what the strategy is there, so i cant comment.

I personally think, from what we know about this deal, $3000m (the largest in Apple's history) is way too much. And i dont think Tim Cook made the right decision with spending so much for that business. (I hope there's more to this deal than meets the eye, for Apple's sake)

[Hawkeye_a]

Another question comes to mind..... does this mean Apple is getting into the headphone business? Seems a bit risky given their track record with peripherals; remember Apple printers, cameras, speakers(that cuboid iPod speaker)?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This is a weird anecdote that sounds like sneaky product placement

I promise you. The guy approached me out of the blue at the water fountain like that. Seriously. I own neither Beats nor Apple stock directly (who knows if a 401K mutual fund has any shares?) ... and I am most definitely NOT a paid spokesperson!

OAW

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a 

OAW, ort888....

Regarding the Beats acquisition... my main question is.....

Given Apple's talent in acoustics, it's current relationship with the music industry, their iTunes business, and Apple's brand....

If Apple were to try to develop headphones of that caliber and music subscription service on its own, and then hire those 'industry insider' executives, would it have cost them more than $3000 million?
If the estimates of such an undertaking would have been more than $3000m then they got a good deal, it not, it was a bad decision.

Regarding Google..... well Google also wasted money on Motorola and wrote it off. Nest could be a bad decision as well, i dont know what the strategy is there, so i cant comment.

I personally think, from what we know about this deal, $3000m (the largest in Apple's history) is way too much. And i dont think Tim Cook made the right decision with spending so much for that business. (I hope there's more to this deal than meets the eye, for Apple's sake)

Sure Apple could have done this on their own. But as the executive team indicated, this gives them a "head start". Furthermore, in house Apple headphones would be the new kid on the block going up against the 800 LB gorilla that is Beats Electronics with 60+% market share. With this deal they are now the 800 LB gorilla in one fell swoop. As for the music subscription business, they could have also started from scratch ... but that could possibly cannibalize the iTunes download and radio business. With this deal they can grow a completely different business model separately to see how it develops without impacting the bread and butter operation. And regarding the price, given the profitability of Beats Electronics this deal will likely pay for itself in 4-5 years.

OAW