3 ms·
I hate to be that guy, but they've taken $820m in funding to make Bluetooth speakers (now a commoditised market) and fitness trackers. I know hardware is expens
by vosper 11y ago
I hate to be that guy, but they've taken $820m in funding to make Bluetooth speakers (now a commoditised market) and fitness trackers. I know hardware is expensive, and they've been pioneers, too, but that is SO MUCH money to only have some a handful of gizmos to show for it.
- dmix 11y agoApple paid $3.2B for Beats, so I'm guessing the VCs thought Jawbone might be 3-4x the value of Beats? That's a very risky bet indeed.
- n0us 11y agoI honestly find Jawbone products to be much higher quality products than Beats. Their design aesthetic seems to fit in with Apple more than Beats as well imo. I have a Big Jambox and while it isn't an audiophile's dream, the sound is pretty good and the battery life lasts forever. Its not bad as a speaker phone as well. Worth every dollar I paid for it. I'm surprised I don't see more advertisements for their products, that seems to be the way that beats got popular because it certainly isn't price or audio quality. Edit: forgot to add the point of this comment, I wonder if there were ever talks of a buyout by Apple or if not why they weren't considered/didn't go through.