4 ms·
I really don't understand what they've done with the Beats brand. They've released a handful of headphones (that in my experience have suffered an array of tech
by SirHound 6y ago
I really don't understand what they've done with the Beats brand. They've released a handful of headphones (that in my experience have suffered an array of technical faults compared to reports from Airpods users) and Beats 1. Now they're killing off the latter.
It clearly fits into the Music product better but even after the corporate takeover there was something cool about "Beats" as a brand. It even sounded good in the stings. Oddly this is currently in Music as "Apple Music Beats 1" next to Hits and Country, which is even worse than one or the other.
The visual branding of all three stations is amateur too. Quite clearly so next to the Beats branding.
I wonder what the real success of the station has been - it seems to have all the right ingredients even if I'm not that interested after Julie left. It's always seemed a little discard by Apple, as it often is with these big tech companies and their side projects. If this was a business in its own right, as with Apple Music, I assume there'd be more publicity and a more competitive product.
- hehsjsbb 6y agoBeats One was supposed to be a differentiator for Beats before it was acquired (I worked on it). The point was that it would be unique content you couldn't get from a commodity streaming service, and the hosts would bring an existing fanbase. My impression is post-acquisiton Apple figured their brand would be sufficient to differentiate them, so they kind of stopped caring about the very high-touch work involved in curated radio. I think at this point it makes sense to view Apple Music as "commodity music streaming but it's apple, so it's preloaded, etc."