4 ms·

Your argument makes sense, but it kind of falls apart when you consider that Beats aren't actually good headphones, to the point where The Wirecutter actually d

by danudey 12y ago

Your argument makes sense, but it kind of falls apart when you consider that Beats aren't actually good headphones, to the point where The Wirecutter actually did an article[1] where they listed all the various Beats products and then provided examples of better deals (some of them with significantly better quality at half the price). I don't understand why Apple would buy a headphone company that makes pretty but lousy products whose price is only justified by the brand name; Apple gets that unjustified criticism already, they hardly need to reinforce it by acquiring a brand to which it actually applies. [1] http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/faq-what-are-some-alternatives-to-beats/ http://thewirecutter.com/reviews/faq-what-are-some-alternati...

JumpCrisscross 12y ago
> I don't understand why Apple would buy a headphone company that makes pretty but lousy products whose price is only justified by the brand name My wager: demographics. Apple's customer base is greying [1]. Beats likely has a younger centre of gravity. I'd also be willing to bet Apple has less penetration amongst black Americans than does Beats. [1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230179/Apple_s_biggest_fans_are_older_consumers http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230179/Apple_s_bigge...
- mcintyre1994 12y ago
  While I'm sure Beats' younger user base is enough to make this worthwhile for Apple, I wonder how much they've actually expanded in terms of buying power. I doubt many young teenagers are spending hundreds of their own dollars on these headphones, it's the parents who are already pretty much Apple's demographic.
k-mcgrady 12y ago
>> "company that makes pretty but lousy products whose price is only justified by the brand name" Isn't that something people accuse Apple of doing? Maybe lousy is pushing it a bit but Apple has always been accused of charging high end prices for pretty but mid-range/mediocre hardware. I don't agree with this characterisation but it's one that's always been around.
- gnaffle 12y ago
  The difference is that people in the know (for Apple, the kind of people on HN, for Beats, the kind of people on Head-Fi) would say that the characterization is wrong for Apple, and right for Beats.
apozem 12y ago
You have to remember the difference between your perception and the public's perception. The public has no idea what good audio sounds like. They've probably never heard of The Wirecutter. They are not audiophiles. Beats, _regardless of its actual quality_, is perceived as high quality. That's why people pay for the headphones. That's why they make so much money. That's why Apple bought them. They are considered fashionable and high-end. It's the perception that counts.
arfliw 12y ago
They have 40% of the headphone market. Obviously those 40% don't agree, don't know or don't care how horrible Beats headphones actually are. That 40% is all that matters - and it's what makes the company worth $3 Billion. You can make the best headphones in the World but if another company controls 40% of the market - they are the one that's going to get bought for billions of dollars, not you.

by danudey 12y ago

JumpCrisscross 12y ago

> I don't understand why Apple would buy a headphone company that makes pretty but lousy products whose price is only justified by the brand name My wager: demographics. Apple's customer base is greying [1]. Beats likely has a younger centre of gravity. I'd also be willing to bet Apple has less penetration amongst black Americans than does Beats. [1] http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230179/Apple_s_biggest_fans_are_older_consumers http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9230179/Apple_s_bigge...

mcintyre1994 12y ago
While I'm sure Beats' younger user base is enough to make this worthwhile for Apple, I wonder how much they've actually expanded in terms of buying power. I doubt many young teenagers are spending hundreds of their own dollars on these headphones, it's the parents who are already pretty much Apple's demographic.

k-mcgrady 12y ago

>> "company that makes pretty but lousy products whose price is only justified by the brand name" Isn't that something people accuse Apple of doing? Maybe lousy is pushing it a bit but Apple has always been accused of charging high end prices for pretty but mid-range/mediocre hardware. I don't agree with this characterisation but it's one that's always been around.

gnaffle 12y ago
The difference is that people in the know (for Apple, the kind of people on HN, for Beats, the kind of people on Head-Fi) would say that the characterization is wrong for Apple, and right for Beats.

apozem 12y ago

You have to remember the difference between your perception and the public's perception. The public has no idea what good audio sounds like. They've probably never heard of The Wirecutter. They are not audiophiles. Beats, _regardless of its actual quality_, is perceived as high quality. That's why people pay for the headphones. That's why they make so much money. That's why Apple bought them. They are considered fashionable and high-end. It's the perception that counts.

arfliw 12y ago

They have 40% of the headphone market. Obviously those 40% don't agree, don't know or don't care how horrible Beats headphones actually are. That 40% is all that matters - and it's what makes the company worth $3 Billion. You can make the best headphones in the World but if another company controls 40% of the market - they are the one that's going to get bought for billions of dollars, not you.