4 ms·

Because it was an acquihire that had to integrate quickly into iTunes. I'd imagine that integration of Beats into iTunes didn't start in earnest before the Bea

Because it was an acquihire that had to integrate quickly into iTunes. I'd imagine that integration of Beats into iTunes didn't start in earnest before the Beats acquisition was final, which was sometime Q4 2014? That gave essentially 6 months for the integration? When you think about what's involved in that task, it's probably even more amazing that it even works as well as it does.

partiallypro 10y ago
From my understanding the rights from Beats Music did not carry over with the acquisition, and Apple Music doesn't use Beats Music in any form. The acquisition was for the headphones, which have insane margins and are a "status symbol" that doesn't relate to quality at all...much like Apple itself.
- alexophile 10y ago
  Nope they bought Beats Music too https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/05/28Apple-to-Acquire-Beats-Music-Beats-Electronics.html https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/05/28Apple-to-Acquire-...
  - partiallypro 10y ago
    I never said Beats Music was not included in the deal, I said the licensing was not. I said "rights" but I meant licensing agreements.
- serge2k 10y ago
  > which have insane margins and are a "status symbol" that doesn't relate to quality at all...much like Apple itself. Except Apple stuff is generally quality. My macbook pro is still the best laptop I have ever used 3 years later.
- matthewmacleod 10y ago
  It might be worth reading up a bit – Beats music was included too, and Apple's product quality is generally considered to be pretty good.
  - partiallypro 10y ago
    That's not what I said, I said the licensing didn't carry over. Of course Beats Music was included in the purchase, but the deals Beats had with the music industry (licensing agreements) were nullified during the acquisition, from my understanding. So building on top of the Beats infrastructure wouldn't make -that- much sense. I'm sure some code was recycled, but the apps are very very different from one another. You could argue that Beats was more ironed out. Not sure why I was downvoted, you can search online and see analysts questioning the streaming service deal because of the licensing being unlikely to carry over post-purchase. You can also see them chiming in on massive margins that Beats makes from their headphones and how it helps Apple seal more of the supply chain. The headphones were clearly the play, not Beats Music.
- jefhwite 10y ago
  In some areas of the app at least, it looks like a basic re-skinning: http://imgur.com/a/2SKMV http://imgur.com/a/2SKMV
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
- WalterSear 10y ago
  The acquisition was for the licenses foremost. The hardware and brand were secondary.

partiallypro 10y ago

From my understanding the rights from Beats Music did not carry over with the acquisition, and Apple Music doesn't use Beats Music in any form. The acquisition was for the headphones, which have insane margins and are a "status symbol" that doesn't relate to quality at all...much like Apple itself.

alexophile 10y ago
Nope they bought Beats Music too https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/05/28Apple-to-Acquire-Beats-Music-Beats-Electronics.html https://www.apple.com/pr/library/2014/05/28Apple-to-Acquire-...
- partiallypro 10y ago
  I never said Beats Music was not included in the deal, I said the licensing was not. I said "rights" but I meant licensing agreements.
serge2k 10y ago
> which have insane margins and are a "status symbol" that doesn't relate to quality at all...much like Apple itself. Except Apple stuff is generally quality. My macbook pro is still the best laptop I have ever used 3 years later.
matthewmacleod 10y ago
It might be worth reading up a bit – Beats music was included too, and Apple's product quality is generally considered to be pretty good.
- partiallypro 10y ago
  That's not what I said, I said the licensing didn't carry over. Of course Beats Music was included in the purchase, but the deals Beats had with the music industry (licensing agreements) were nullified during the acquisition, from my understanding. So building on top of the Beats infrastructure wouldn't make -that- much sense. I'm sure some code was recycled, but the apps are very very different from one another. You could argue that Beats was more ironed out. Not sure why I was downvoted, you can search online and see analysts questioning the streaming service deal because of the licensing being unlikely to carry over post-purchase. You can also see them chiming in on massive margins that Beats makes from their headphones and how it helps Apple seal more of the supply chain. The headphones were clearly the play, not Beats Music.
jefhwite 10y ago
In some areas of the app at least, it looks like a basic re-skinning: http://imgur.com/a/2SKMV http://imgur.com/a/2SKMV
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
WalterSear 10y ago
The acquisition was for the licenses foremost. The hardware and brand were secondary.