Apple said to be in talks to buy Beats Electronics for $3.2B
Apple is reportedly in talks to acquire Beats Electronics, the high-end-headphone maker co-founded by hip-hop artist Dr. Dre, in a deal worth $3.2 billion, according to the Financial Times. The deal could be announced as early as next week, the report says, but has yet to be finalized and could still fail to materialize pending discussions between the two companies. Beyond its line of bass-boosting ear pieces, Beats has also broken into the competitive market for subscription streaming-services, with a mobile offering that, unlike Apple's iTunes and iTunes Radio, offers ad-free, on-demand music listening for about $10 per month. If the deal goes through, Apple will acquire the subscription business alongside Beats' hardware division, with the Beats management team reporting to Apple CEO Tim Cook, the FT adds.Beats declined to comment for this story. CNET has also contacted Apple and will update this story when we hear back. While Apple has long had a favorable relationship with Beats -- the Dre-branded headphone line is featured prominently in both its physical Apple stores and the accessory section of its online store-- the crux of the deal may prove to be Beats Music. Beats' streaming service could become a central part of Apple's music strategy, following the launch of its online radio service, iTunes Radio, last year. Beats Music debuted with a powerful billing and marketing partnership with AT&T and it has reportedly been growing quickly. Though the company has yet to disclose hard and fast subscriber numbers, industry estimates peg the total at about 200,000. The talks come as trends in music purchasing are shifting to subscription services like Beats Music from the one-off digital purchases Apple's iTunes has long dominated. Data from the Recording Industry Association of America found that paid subscription services grew the fastest of all digital formats last year, rising 57 percent, while revenues from permanent digital downloads that are iTunes' specialty declined 1 percent.Beats, established in 2008 by Dre and longtime music industry executive Jimmy Iovine, is known for hyper-hyped headphones that critics dismiss as being all celebrity endorsement and little substance. But the splashy branding and big-name partnerships have resonated with mainstream consumers, with Beats holding the biggest share of the headphone market despite the high prices of its products, which start at around $99 for earbuds and go all the way up to $450 for pro-grade over-the-ear headphones.In Beats, Apple could have a brand partner that knows how to instill a refreshed cool factor into the Cupertino, Calif. company's product line and marketing. Despite its hardware lead, Beats has had a rocky relationship with investors. In August 2011, hardware manufacturer HTC pumped $309 million into the company to acquire a majority stake of 50.1 percent. But it sold back half of that stake in July 2012 and the rest in September 2013 to ensure that it did not incur its second ever quarterly loss. But around the time of Beats' buyback of HTC's remaining 25 percent stake, Beats received a $500 million investment from private equity firm Carlyle Group that valued the headphone maker at $1 billion. Apple has more than $150 billion in cash reserves, so overpaying for Beats to the tune of $2 billion is unlikely to raise alarms. Apple's biggest acquisition ever? A custom Beats design featuring an Apple logo.OneMoreBlog.comAn Apple-Beats marriage would mark a significant shift for the iPhone maker under Cook, who took over as CEO from Steve Jobs in August 2011. The company has long shied away from headline-making purchases in the realm of billions of dollars, and has often kept the details of its splashiest purchases, like iOS-software-staple Siri, under wraps.Still, at $3.2 billion, a Beats acquisition would be one of the highest -- if not the highest -- price tags Apple has ever considered."In terms of acquisitions, Apple has been very, very light in their activity," Richard Lane, an analyst at Moody's, told the Financial Times. "I don't think they've spent $1 billion in any of the last four years."Apple's largest public acquisition on record is the $400 million plus debt it paid in 1996 for computer manufacturer NeXT and its NeXTstep operating system, the company Jobs founded nearly a decade earlier after being ousted by Apple. Since taking over as CEO, Cook has slowly been molding Apple's narrative to one more open to bolder moves -- unlike Jobs who preferred holding on to the company's cash. In the last few months, Cook has talked openly about Apple's acquisition strategy."We're not in a race to pay the most. Not in a race to get the headline," Cook said at a shareholder meeting in February. That was likely a veiled reference to both Facebook's blockbuster acquisition of messaging service WhatsApp for about $19 billion and Google's buyoutof smart thermostat maker Nest for $3.2 billion. But he didn't rule out a splashy buy. "That doesn't mean we won't buy a big company tomorrow afternoon." Beats would join a growing list of purchases Apple has made since ramping up its portfolio-building under Cook."From an acquisition point of view, we have done 24 in 18 months," Cook said during a conference call last month to discuss the company's second-quarter earnings. "That shows that we're on the prowl, I suppose you could say."We're in a race to make the world's best products, that really enrich people's lives," Cook added. "So to the tune that acquisitions can help us do that -- and they've done that and continue to do that -- then we will acquire. And so you can bet that you will continue to see acquisitions and some of which we'll try to keep quiet and some of which seems to be impossible to keep quiet."It would appear that a $3.2 billion deal is one Apple can't keep confined to Cupertino, Calif. CNET's Joan E. Solsman contributed to this report.
Mastering engineer muses on sound of music
Mastering engineer muses on sound of music
Dave McNair has been playing, recording, mixing, producing, and mastering music for more than 30 years and has worked with a wide range of artists including Los Lobos, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Patti Smith, Miles Davis, Willie Nelson, Angelique Kidjo, and John Mayall. He now works for New York City's top mastering house, Sterling Sound.I interviewed McNair for Tone Audio magazine, this is just a small part of it.Q: How has the mastering engineer's work changed from the days when analog audio ruled the roost?When they were cutting records from analog masters, mastering engineers were caretakers of rather fragile analog signals. It wasn't an easy thing, trying to get it from Point A to Point B without losing the music. Back then the mastering engineer didn't compress or limit the signal all that much, you wanted the end user to hear all of the punch and leading edge dynamics. But now that things are so clean on the recording end mastering is a bridge from mixing to the duplication process. You might be adding the color that might have once been added by analog processors or mixing consoles. Q: 'Color,' is that the same thing as sweetening?Right, I'm chasing this idea, I want to make CDs sound like LPs. Q: By adding complementary distortions?Not always, but sometimes. I want to get more of the effortless sound of vinyl on CDs. Q: It's pretty complex, but I agree, analog distortions can sound more musical than digital, even high-resolution digital. Right, they add flavor, texture, and harmonics, but I'm not speaking for all mastering engineers; many still use a very simple path and stay away from enhancements.Q: Like compression, you guys love compression. But the music was already compressed during tracking and mixing, why compress it again? Not always, maybe 20 percent of the time I get stuff that's not compressed enough. That's only because there's so many more new-to-the-game, semiamateur engineers making records these days. They're recording some really great, artistically valid bands, but it winds up sounding like a documentary style of recording. They leave it to the mastering guy to make it work, so I need to make the sound more dense, gluing the elements together. Q: I'm guessing that 99 percent of the stuff you master is going to be listened to as iTunes or MP3s via $20 computer speakers, freebie earbuds, or car audio systems. You have to make music sound good for the real world.I have never consciously made an audio decision thinking this would sound better on MP3, or a small speaker. Somebody figured it out a long time ago that if you judge the overall EQ, dynamics, and the things you can alter in mastering over a really full-range, low coloration system it will naturally sound better in a wide variety of systems. I occasionally monitor over headphones, just to hear the music from another perspective. And I also listen to things I'm working on in my car, to see how the bass sounds, but I don't ever really tweak it that much based on what I hear in the car.
Dave McNair has been playing, recording, mixing, producing, and mastering music for more than 30 years and has worked with a wide range of artists including Los Lobos, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Patti Smith, Miles Davis, Willie Nelson, Angelique Kidjo, and John Mayall. He now works for New York City's top mastering house, Sterling Sound.I interviewed McNair for Tone Audio magazine, this is just a small part of it.Q: How has the mastering engineer's work changed from the days when analog audio ruled the roost?When they were cutting records from analog masters, mastering engineers were caretakers of rather fragile analog signals. It wasn't an easy thing, trying to get it from Point A to Point B without losing the music. Back then the mastering engineer didn't compress or limit the signal all that much, you wanted the end user to hear all of the punch and leading edge dynamics. But now that things are so clean on the recording end mastering is a bridge from mixing to the duplication process. You might be adding the color that might have once been added by analog processors or mixing consoles. Q: 'Color,' is that the same thing as sweetening?Right, I'm chasing this idea, I want to make CDs sound like LPs. Q: By adding complementary distortions?Not always, but sometimes. I want to get more of the effortless sound of vinyl on CDs. Q: It's pretty complex, but I agree, analog distortions can sound more musical than digital, even high-resolution digital. Right, they add flavor, texture, and harmonics, but I'm not speaking for all mastering engineers; many still use a very simple path and stay away from enhancements.Q: Like compression, you guys love compression. But the music was already compressed during tracking and mixing, why compress it again? Not always, maybe 20 percent of the time I get stuff that's not compressed enough. That's only because there's so many more new-to-the-game, semiamateur engineers making records these days. They're recording some really great, artistically valid bands, but it winds up sounding like a documentary style of recording. They leave it to the mastering guy to make it work, so I need to make the sound more dense, gluing the elements together. Q: I'm guessing that 99 percent of the stuff you master is going to be listened to as iTunes or MP3s via $20 computer speakers, freebie earbuds, or car audio systems. You have to make music sound good for the real world.I have never consciously made an audio decision thinking this would sound better on MP3, or a small speaker. Somebody figured it out a long time ago that if you judge the overall EQ, dynamics, and the things you can alter in mastering over a really full-range, low coloration system it will naturally sound better in a wide variety of systems. I occasionally monitor over headphones, just to hear the music from another perspective. And I also listen to things I'm working on in my car, to see how the bass sounds, but I don't ever really tweak it that much based on what I hear in the car.
Apple's iWork, iLife updates draw ire from some power users
Apple's iWork, iLife updates draw ire from some power users
At Apple's live event earlier this week, iWork and iLife users were given a treat: free upgrades to major new versions of the company's productivity and lifestyle apps.The move, which follows one the company made last month on its mobile platform iOS, is part of a broader effort to offer many of its paid software apps for free.But, according to some longtime users, the new versions of the apps are a step backwards in functionality. Many have taken to Apple's official support forum to air their grievances.Among the features users say are missing from the revamped Pages, Apple's word processing app: the customizable toolbar, endnotes, and many templates. Apple also has taken down a chart from its Web site that lists feature compatibility between iWork apps and Microsoft Office apps, like Microsoft Word to Pages and Power Point to Keynote -- something it once touted to lure over switchers.Apple declined to comment on whether those features would return in future updates.The reason for the change seems clear. Whenever Apple does a big software revamp like this, it's in the name of simplification. The new versions of the iWork and iLife apps are designed to be more in tune with their counterparts on iOS. This makes sense given the new sharing capabilities Apple just added, allowing users to start work on one device, like an iPad, and pick it up on, say, a Macbook. But in the pursuit of unity between all of its devices, some features have gotten lost in the shuffle.When Apple announced its bevy of free software updates earlier this week, some thought the thinking behind the move was to use software to sell hardware. But, in giving iWork away for free to new Mac users, part of it was a low-risk play against Microsoft -- and its venerable Microsoft Office paid software suite -- to lure users to Apple services. "I'm sure there are some Microsoft product people laughing and thinking, 'I told you so,' but I don't think they are taking it too seriously," said IDC analyst Melissa Webster, who covers productivity software for the research firm. "iWork was never meant to be a Microsoft Office killer. I don't even think Apple thinks of it that way."The good news is that customers can still use older versions of the apps, if they have them.This isn't the first time an Apple software overhaul has upset longtime users.When the company released Final Cut Pro X in 2011, it was a complete rethink of its predecessor. It had a new user interface, and key features aimed at pro users (like multi-camera editing) were missing. Apple eventually brought back some of those features, including multi-cam editing, though the jump was jarring enough to scare away some, and competitors like Adobe Systems and Avid capitalized on it with steep discounts for Apple users.A similar thing happened with Apple's consumer video software years before. When it revamped iMovie for its 2008 version, many features were removed as well, and users complained. Again, Apple restored many of the features in the following years. There was also last year's iTunes 11, which got rid of more than half a dozen features in its initial version, but that's been adding some back in (along with new ones) over time. A "faux pas can give Apple a black eye," Webster said. "But I think we can bet on Apple remedying the problem when customers howl loudly enough."[Via 9to5Mac]
At Apple's live event earlier this week, iWork and iLife users were given a treat: free upgrades to major new versions of the company's productivity and lifestyle apps.The move, which follows one the company made last month on its mobile platform iOS, is part of a broader effort to offer many of its paid software apps for free.But, according to some longtime users, the new versions of the apps are a step backwards in functionality. Many have taken to Apple's official support forum to air their grievances.Among the features users say are missing from the revamped Pages, Apple's word processing app: the customizable toolbar, endnotes, and many templates. Apple also has taken down a chart from its Web site that lists feature compatibility between iWork apps and Microsoft Office apps, like Microsoft Word to Pages and Power Point to Keynote -- something it once touted to lure over switchers.Apple declined to comment on whether those features would return in future updates.The reason for the change seems clear. Whenever Apple does a big software revamp like this, it's in the name of simplification. The new versions of the iWork and iLife apps are designed to be more in tune with their counterparts on iOS. This makes sense given the new sharing capabilities Apple just added, allowing users to start work on one device, like an iPad, and pick it up on, say, a Macbook. But in the pursuit of unity between all of its devices, some features have gotten lost in the shuffle.When Apple announced its bevy of free software updates earlier this week, some thought the thinking behind the move was to use software to sell hardware. But, in giving iWork away for free to new Mac users, part of it was a low-risk play against Microsoft -- and its venerable Microsoft Office paid software suite -- to lure users to Apple services. "I'm sure there are some Microsoft product people laughing and thinking, 'I told you so,' but I don't think they are taking it too seriously," said IDC analyst Melissa Webster, who covers productivity software for the research firm. "iWork was never meant to be a Microsoft Office killer. I don't even think Apple thinks of it that way."The good news is that customers can still use older versions of the apps, if they have them.This isn't the first time an Apple software overhaul has upset longtime users.When the company released Final Cut Pro X in 2011, it was a complete rethink of its predecessor. It had a new user interface, and key features aimed at pro users (like multi-camera editing) were missing. Apple eventually brought back some of those features, including multi-cam editing, though the jump was jarring enough to scare away some, and competitors like Adobe Systems and Avid capitalized on it with steep discounts for Apple users.A similar thing happened with Apple's consumer video software years before. When it revamped iMovie for its 2008 version, many features were removed as well, and users complained. Again, Apple restored many of the features in the following years. There was also last year's iTunes 11, which got rid of more than half a dozen features in its initial version, but that's been adding some back in (along with new ones) over time. A "faux pas can give Apple a black eye," Webster said. "But I think we can bet on Apple remedying the problem when customers howl loudly enough."[Via 9to5Mac]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)