3 ms·
Wow. The iTunes for Android rumors weren't entirely wrong. Apple has decided they need to engage with Android. They just did it in a way no one expected: buying
by fpgeek 12y ago
Wow. The iTunes for Android rumors weren't entirely wrong. Apple has decided they need to engage with Android. They just did it in a way no one expected: buying a separate brand for "insulation".
From that perspective, the Beats acquisition could be considered cheap. Comparable brands for a streaming-music service would have been Pandora or Spotify. But either would have cost more than $4 billion and neither would have come with a profitable headphone business.
- leorocky 12y agoI don't think Pandora is a good comparison with Beats or Spotify. Pandora is more of a radio station. You can't make play lists, pick the song you're playing or do much other than pause and skip a limited number of times. I actually prefer that, because I couldn't make a decent playlist to save my life.
- bsdetector 12y agoI hate to be the one to ask WWJD... ...but if he wanted streaming deals he would have made it happen, even if he had to break the law a bit and extort/threaten music labels. He would never have bought a company for a name. This Beats purchase appears to me as a weakening of Apple post-Jobs. In this day Apple needs streaming more than it needs iTunes sales, but they weren't able to get rights because the labels didn't want to sacrifice iTunes sales; the labels are short-sighted and conservative like always. Apple was not able to convince the labels so they had to buy the streaming licenses instead.
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]