Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

SDAVE

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 16, 2007
3,578
601
Nowhere
I actually like having my local library and streaming library to be separate. I guess I'm in the minority of being a very picky music listener. I have my own album artwork for my local library on my iPhone and iTunes on my Mac.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MaximizedAction

petvas

macrumors 603
Jul 20, 2006
5,479
1,808
Munich, Germany
I don't think Apple wanted to buy Spotify. They preferred Beats, because it has a relative high mark recognition, and it fits better in the Apple world.
Beats has a strong marketing presence and when people think of Beats, they think of something highly valuable and great (even if there are much better choices out there).
 

Rigby

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2008
6,257
10,215
San Jose, CA
I don't think Apple wanted to buy Spotify. They preferred Beats, because it has a relative high mark recognition, and it fits better in the Apple world.
Beats has a strong marketing presence and when people think of Beats, they think of something highly valuable and great (even if there are much better choices out there).
Hm. When I think of Beats, I think of plastic headphones with a boomy bass and hip-hop (a genre that doesn't do anything for me). Personally, I don't see what could possibly have been worth $3 billion for Apple. Perhaps the industry connections?
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira

petvas

macrumors 603
Jul 20, 2006
5,479
1,808
Munich, Germany
You might think that, and this might also be true, but for most people that do not have an affinity to technology, Beats has a strong image. Look at all these ads with many celebrities using Beats headphones. Beats has become more of a status symbol, and Apple just bought that, because it fits Apple's philosophy perfectly. Functionality is less important...
 

SDAVE

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 16, 2007
3,578
601
Nowhere
You might think that, and this might also be true, but for most people that do not have an affinity to technology, Beats has a strong image. Look at all these ads with many celebrities using Beats headphones. Beats has become more of a status symbol, and Apple just bought that, because it fits Apple's philosophy perfectly. Functionality is less important...

Exactly. I'm an audiophile and would never buy beats for the fact that my music collection is not rap. Even rap benefits from good headphones.

But the audiophile community is such a niche, maybe less than 1%, Apple is going for image and status. Beats was a direct access to that and totally worth it to them. Beats is the only headphone company out there that is fully endorsed by famous people. You don't see Sennheiser being endorsed by famous people.

I think Apple will kind of redeem themselves soon enough. Apple Music is very much usable. I may cancel my Spotify account (I'm still on their 3 month trial). I think 4 (Max 6) people for $15 is a steal and I see the Music app as a v1.0. I'm hoping Apple updates it soon. It's quite a mess really. TOO much crap going on.

Spotify is a much better app in terms of usability and speed of skipping tracks and making playlists especially on the desktop and then continuing on mobile.
 

Rigby

macrumors 603
Aug 5, 2008
6,257
10,215
San Jose, CA
But the audiophile community is such a niche, maybe less than 1%, Apple is going for image and status. Beats was a direct access to that and totally worth it to them. Beats is the only headphone company out there that is fully endorsed by famous people. You don't see Sennheiser being endorsed by famous people.
Although I don't connect Beats with a positive image myself (but maybe I'm just out of touch?), you may be right. They used the same "celebrity" marketing for the Apple Watch. Personally I think it's sad. They used to be able to achieve a premium image based purely on the merits and design of their products.
 
  • Like
Reactions: navaira

SDAVE

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Jun 16, 2007
3,578
601
Nowhere
Although I don't connect Beats with a positive image myself (but maybe I'm just out of touch?), you may be right. They used the same "celebrity" marketing for the Apple Watch. Personally I think it's sad. They used to be able to achieve a premium image based purely on the merits and design of their products.

I don't think that's necessarily true. Apple has always had a thing with celebrities. Their ads had celebrities in them. They would invite big name musicians and filmmakers to their events and product launches. Apple always had its foot in Hollywood or the music industry one way or another. Wasn't Jobs on board of directors for Disney and of course launched Pixar into stardom? Not to mention Apple products have been used for music and film production since the 80s/90s.

Beats just gives them a bigger edge in the "urban" and "social media" markets because its just pure profit for them now and knocks out one competitor. I have a feeling Apple Music will surpass Spotify soon, maybe in a year or two.

I may be out of touch too even though I am a millennial. Maybe our taste is a little broader than what Beats is. You could say the same for Apple heads - I'm sure Tim Cook doesn't listen Young Thug and he doesn't care - but needs access to that to keep Apple relevant.
 

Smokhles

macrumors newbie
Apr 28, 2021
1
0
It's quite funny to read this 6 years later knowing that Apple Music came to the level of Spotify in a fraction of the time. Now you could consider it cheating since they just basically used their already established network of Apple fans but it's still impressive. I've used both and clearly Spotify is superior in every way, the interface is in my opinion a lot easier to use and the music suggestions are top notch when Apple's are totally random. I really wish they bought it so that it would have a better intergration with the Apple ecosystem (Apple TV, AirPod, HomePod, etc.)
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.