As nerd-ragey as some people are about the Beats deal, they have some amazing fit and finish with regards to manufacturing. See for instance their paint: most painted plastics experience an undesirable amount of "orange peeling" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_peel_(effect)).
This is caused in part by not getting the temperature of the paint high enough to form a smooth finish. Metal can withstand significantly higher temperatures than plastic. This is usually why car paints look so much better than Krylon's.
By over-molding their plastic tops around a metal base, Beats was able to increase the tolerable temperature range. Next time you roll into a Best Buy, compare the 'shinyness' and 'smoothness' of the overmolded Beats to any other plastic product made by Samsung, HP, or Sony.
We learnt this through Chinese manufacturing forums where if anything, the idea of 'target demographic' does not apply - Beats simply figured out how to put a nicer finish on their product than the competition using innovative manufacturing techniques and increase margin.
That's really interesting, I love learning about these manufacturing hurdles that consumers never hear about.
Consumers don't buy Beats because they're shinier though. They buy them because of the image that comes with them, thanks to a successful marketing and endorsement campaign.
That's why knock-off beats are everywhere in Hong Kong. Manufacturers can add a "b" to any old pair of over-ear headphones and they become much more valuable. Consumers value the "b"
The more closely you look at Beats, the more they make sense as a serious asset to a consumer electronics company, and the less plausible the "Apple just needed to get a streaming service off the ground" story is.
Two more angles to consider:
* Owning Beats puts Apple hardware on the heads of a huge fraction of every mobile user, whether they use iOS or not. Having a Beats brand affinity for those users makes it easier to introduce new products to them.
* Owning Beats gives Apple access to Beats sales channels; whatever retail real estate Beats has is now controlled by Apple.
My theory on confusion over the Beats purchase is that Apple fanboys have a reluctance to admit that Apple is significantly a fashion company. Not the beacon of technical excellence(asterisk) they set it up to be in their mind.
The reality is that Beats is also primarily a fashion company. Also with a strong brand. Also with a product line that sells at a high markup. They go together like pancakes and maple syrup. If Apple puts Beats headphones in their stores they will sell just as much as they do now. Why wouldn't Apple want a slice of that profit?
And if they make a next generation Beats headphone that can only be used with Apple products? Well, that's even more money.
Edit: asterisk: which is not to say that Apple lacks technical excellence, but the reason why they are so successful is not their engineering credentials, it's because they are able to marry aesthetics and engineering.
> Owning Beats puts Apple hardware on the heads of a huge fraction of every mobile user
You might be on to something here. What if Apple's plan is to make the headphone itself a network enabled device with access to the app store?
While headphones are currently 'dumb', there's no reason it has to continue to be the case. Network enabled watches. Network enabled headphones. Network enabled glasses. If Apple get's the leading brand in all these categories, then making the leap just suddenly became a lot easier.
Maybe it's not watches, but headphones? Siri + speakers you're already wearing. Health-wise, it must be beneficial to be close to the head opposed to the wrist. Maybe.
There's this narrative that Apple's lack of design choice has helped them, by keeping things consistent. White headphones were, for a while, almost exclusively iPod earbuds. If you saw someone rocking a white headphone cable, you knew what was in their pocket. They've branched out a little, with colors for select devices, but for the most part their visual choices are very limited.
Beats seems like they've done an excellent job of offering a wide selection while still keeping brand consistency and recognizability. In this regard, I think the article's speculation makes sense.
I find it hard to believe that apple couldn't make additional colors if they wanted. I don't think it's a lack of technological know how. They could pick that up without acquiring a entire additional company.
Limited colors on the iphone or ipod make sense. For the most part, it's an item that stays in your pocket. I'm sure some people care about additional design choices, but most people solve this by buying a case (which they'd do anyway).
Beats, due to the fact that they are headphones, are worn as head gear. Yes, they could have stuck with a few simple colors, but it's easier to justify lots of options when people will actually see your user wearing the product. This gives your user an incentive to want a more unique design and be willing to pay for it.
I tend to agree. Apple played with a lot of different colors and patterns back on the old iMacs and iBooks. Then they moved to all white, silver, and black. I doubt Apple needs the help here, Tim Cook knows a few things about managing a supply chain, and if Apple had wanted to offer the iPhone 5C in 60 colors they could have. They chose not to.
I have to agree somewhat with this comment. In particular, is handling 60 SKU's really a huge problem with technology and management nowadays?
It's a pity there's so much focus on small details like that and the color selection, because that's really not the main point, which the article does touch on - the two companies understand and heavily influence the consumer market and fashion, so the partnership makes sense. It's that simple.
By the way, Apple was the one who made the single-look product cool, with the iPhone. It's so cool that its own colorful 5C isn't selling very well (by its standards, of course) [1]. Restricting its color choices was not only because of the difficulty in doing so, it was a deliberate design choice. [Edit, based on parent comment: And getting people to buy overpriced cases to customize instead? Genius!]
1. Google "iPhone 5C sales". Observe articles calling it, e.g., "Failure Flop" and "dismal."
I think you're right for the most part. Apple probably doesn't want tons of variation in their products, for brand recognition. How long does it take to recognize an Apple laptop? They come in only one style that is distinct from most other laptops.
But as the author said briefly, if they are really releasing an iWatch, it would be different. It isn't an item that stays in your pocket, and the style would be one of the primary reasons for wearing it for some people. And those people who buy for style wouldn't all want the exact same watch
It is so amazing to watch the attention that people give Apple's business decisions. Seriously, how much their actions get read into is unparalleled.
Any other company, we'd just say "yup, they bought a headphone company, and now they'll be selling some more/different headphones" and then we'd move on. But with Apple, it just must, must represent some form of tidal shift.
Because unlike most other big tech companies Apple doesn't make big purchases like this. They normally acquire small, unknown companies which are focussed on a specific technology Apple needs (mapping for example).
While I don't disagree with anything in the article, I think it, and most commentators, are thinking too small.
When thinking about wearable computing, one big challenge is to take a small, weird-shaped form factor, like sunglasses or watches, and cram enough computer hardware in there to support all the features that people want.
Why not stick a computer in the headphones? Between the earmuffs and the headband, there's a lot more room to stick a computer into a set of Beats than there is in a wristwatch.
I can imagine being able to listen to the Beats music service using just the Beats headphones, and not even needing to connect them to a computer.
I started travelling a lot and I wanted a bluetooth pair of headphones that had active noise cancelling. Beats was the only option that ticked off all of my needs and didn't blow out the second I tried pumping even minor amounts of bass through them (I'm looking at you, Bose). I was able to even get them in matte black so they are less gaudy.
They aren't for everyone...but most of us age 70 and under would dig the sound quality on them.
This article has a good point, which I never had thought.
Headphones are also a fashion accessory. They are very visible, the most visible piece of technology you are carrying.
Same thing goes with watches. For many people its about brand and fashion, not so much about the features.
Maybe Apple wants to be in the fashion business. If you have watches and headphones, you pretty much cover all the technology people are currently wearing. And it makes very much sense to have both products inside the same company so that you can provide matching pairs.
If the pricing is reasonable, you could even imagine selling multiple sets of products for same customers. This headphone/watch pair for jogging, another one for your business look.
Also the Apple Store chain would fit in the picture quite nicely. One problem could be that Apple is getting lots of people to the stores, but they currently have a limited range of products to sell for them. You don't need that many iPhones or Macs, iPads are a little bit expensive for impulse purchase.
In the end, who knows why they bought them. I do wonder if Beats had design and technological patents a company like Apple would rather buy than fight over in court. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple just bought them so they could sell a premium non-earbud headset with zero legal woes or fears of being called a copycat. I mean Beats look like an Apple product from a bizaro world where Steve Jobs wasn't there to say no to everything that wasn't ultra-minimalistic. Everything else, like their design team, streaming customers, and brand is just gravy.
Apple tries hard not to be a victim of the patent war they're always reigniting. I find it hard to believe IP isn't involved in a very, very significant way here.
Apple already has this figured out. Perhaps it's too easy to forget the iPod, but the iPod, especially the mini, nano, and shuffle all have color as a key part of the value proposition. Apple finally did that with the iPhone 5c.
The most clever thing Apple did was the 5c colors with the different colored covers. Those haven't really taken off in a huge way, but I think that is in part due to the buying cycle of phones.
Apple gets mass personalization in a big way. You can still get your devices engraved by Apple I believe.
The only company that I've seen take a real swing at something similar is Motorola with Moto X. Too bad Google sold them.
I'm not clear why Beats are so popular actually. I find socially it sends the wrong message for me, functionally not as great as Bose or BW, and a bit too big + plastic for my taste.
Might be wrong for you or I, but it's a social signal for many other people. Similar to how people wear t-shirts around with giant logos on them. It says (partly) "I can afford to pay $60 for this t-shirt." Or "I am like you."
When Ralph Lauren introduced those Polo shirts with the 3-4" polo logo on them rather than the usual 1" logo, I thought it was some kind of experiment.
One thing about Beats is that they really are ridiculously popular. They are consumer electronics items which are also fashion accessories. I don't think there's really any other brand like that in the industry, at least not that I can think of. Even Apple's products while stylish I'd hesitate to call them fashion accessories.
Maybe they were worried primarily that Google would buy Beats and suddenly hold more 'cool' appeal than Apple (particularly with youngsters).
I have experience in getting high-end plastic boxes manufactured (some in US, and increasingly in China because of price dynamics). Believe me, it is not a big deal. The variations are all commodity - you may have to get different molds made and finish made, but they will work will all different types of plastics. The plastics are already colored when in the pellet form (i.e., you dont paint on them) so colors variations are trivial to achieve.
I think the author is missing something important: There is greater inventory flexibility with headphone internals than iPhone internals.
Many different and very advanced technologies go into an iPhone. Most recently, the new fingerprint scanner was holding back the 5s. Every wrong assumption about color demand meant that an iPhone sale was delayed. (Assuming that it was even the correct storage size.) It's a world apart from speakers.
I wonder if it's really about penetration into music videos. I remember iPods being all over music videos for a few years back in the day (made my recently purchased iPod go from geeky to cool overnight!) - but then they disappeared - maybe because of Apple's battles with the music industry. Now it's Beats in every music related video, PA, media asset; something Apple needs to tap back in to, I guess.
Not necessarily related to this article, but does anyone know how much money the "Beats Audio" partnerships with things like HP laptops and HTC phones bring in for the Beats brand? Seems like a good hedge in the laptop and smartphone markets where Apple wins regardless of whether consumers buy iPhones or competing devices that are "Powered by Beats" or whatever they call it.
Beats has a track record of producing consumer electronics that are accepted as fashionable. The iPhone already blurs the line between tool and accessory and it spends most of its time in a pocket or purse. A smart watch or head mounted display is more visible and needs to overcome a nerdy bias to appeal to the mass market.
Maybe Tim Cook can just start buying companies and wait for other people to figure out what to do with them. It's certainly interesting to see how many people think that Apple is infallible. They make mistakes just like any other company.
[+] [-] paulgerhardt|11 years ago|reply
This is caused in part by not getting the temperature of the paint high enough to form a smooth finish. Metal can withstand significantly higher temperatures than plastic. This is usually why car paints look so much better than Krylon's.
By over-molding their plastic tops around a metal base, Beats was able to increase the tolerable temperature range. Next time you roll into a Best Buy, compare the 'shinyness' and 'smoothness' of the overmolded Beats to any other plastic product made by Samsung, HP, or Sony.
We learnt this through Chinese manufacturing forums where if anything, the idea of 'target demographic' does not apply - Beats simply figured out how to put a nicer finish on their product than the competition using innovative manufacturing techniques and increase margin.
[+] [-] andrenotgiant|11 years ago|reply
Consumers don't buy Beats because they're shinier though. They buy them because of the image that comes with them, thanks to a successful marketing and endorsement campaign.
That's why knock-off beats are everywhere in Hong Kong. Manufacturers can add a "b" to any old pair of over-ear headphones and they become much more valuable. Consumers value the "b"
[+] [-] moheeb|11 years ago|reply
Yeah...just don't compare the sound.
[+] [-] bravo22|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tptacek|11 years ago|reply
Two more angles to consider:
* Owning Beats puts Apple hardware on the heads of a huge fraction of every mobile user, whether they use iOS or not. Having a Beats brand affinity for those users makes it easier to introduce new products to them.
* Owning Beats gives Apple access to Beats sales channels; whatever retail real estate Beats has is now controlled by Apple.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|11 years ago|reply
The reality is that Beats is also primarily a fashion company. Also with a strong brand. Also with a product line that sells at a high markup. They go together like pancakes and maple syrup. If Apple puts Beats headphones in their stores they will sell just as much as they do now. Why wouldn't Apple want a slice of that profit?
And if they make a next generation Beats headphone that can only be used with Apple products? Well, that's even more money.
Edit: asterisk: which is not to say that Apple lacks technical excellence, but the reason why they are so successful is not their engineering credentials, it's because they are able to marry aesthetics and engineering.
[+] [-] bsenftner|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DevX101|11 years ago|reply
You might be on to something here. What if Apple's plan is to make the headphone itself a network enabled device with access to the app store?
While headphones are currently 'dumb', there's no reason it has to continue to be the case. Network enabled watches. Network enabled headphones. Network enabled glasses. If Apple get's the leading brand in all these categories, then making the leap just suddenly became a lot easier.
[+] [-] 8ig8|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clay_to_n|11 years ago|reply
Beats seems like they've done an excellent job of offering a wide selection while still keeping brand consistency and recognizability. In this regard, I think the article's speculation makes sense.
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] irremediable|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jaynos|11 years ago|reply
Limited colors on the iphone or ipod make sense. For the most part, it's an item that stays in your pocket. I'm sure some people care about additional design choices, but most people solve this by buying a case (which they'd do anyway).
Beats, due to the fact that they are headphones, are worn as head gear. Yes, they could have stuck with a few simple colors, but it's easier to justify lots of options when people will actually see your user wearing the product. This gives your user an incentive to want a more unique design and be willing to pay for it.
[+] [-] wlesieutre|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bwy|11 years ago|reply
It's a pity there's so much focus on small details like that and the color selection, because that's really not the main point, which the article does touch on - the two companies understand and heavily influence the consumer market and fashion, so the partnership makes sense. It's that simple.
By the way, Apple was the one who made the single-look product cool, with the iPhone. It's so cool that its own colorful 5C isn't selling very well (by its standards, of course) [1]. Restricting its color choices was not only because of the difficulty in doing so, it was a deliberate design choice. [Edit, based on parent comment: And getting people to buy overpriced cases to customize instead? Genius!]
1. Google "iPhone 5C sales". Observe articles calling it, e.g., "Failure Flop" and "dismal."
[+] [-] vlunkr|11 years ago|reply
But as the author said briefly, if they are really releasing an iWatch, it would be different. It isn't an item that stays in your pocket, and the style would be one of the primary reasons for wearing it for some people. And those people who buy for style wouldn't all want the exact same watch
[+] [-] bravo22|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] moskie|11 years ago|reply
Any other company, we'd just say "yup, they bought a headphone company, and now they'll be selling some more/different headphones" and then we'd move on. But with Apple, it just must, must represent some form of tidal shift.
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bjt|11 years ago|reply
When thinking about wearable computing, one big challenge is to take a small, weird-shaped form factor, like sunglasses or watches, and cram enough computer hardware in there to support all the features that people want.
Why not stick a computer in the headphones? Between the earmuffs and the headband, there's a lot more room to stick a computer into a set of Beats than there is in a wristwatch.
I can imagine being able to listen to the Beats music service using just the Beats headphones, and not even needing to connect them to a computer.
[+] [-] ChikkaChiChi|11 years ago|reply
They aren't for everyone...but most of us age 70 and under would dig the sound quality on them.
[+] [-] jpalomaki|11 years ago|reply
Headphones are also a fashion accessory. They are very visible, the most visible piece of technology you are carrying.
Same thing goes with watches. For many people its about brand and fashion, not so much about the features.
Maybe Apple wants to be in the fashion business. If you have watches and headphones, you pretty much cover all the technology people are currently wearing. And it makes very much sense to have both products inside the same company so that you can provide matching pairs.
If the pricing is reasonable, you could even imagine selling multiple sets of products for same customers. This headphone/watch pair for jogging, another one for your business look.
Also the Apple Store chain would fit in the picture quite nicely. One problem could be that Apple is getting lots of people to the stores, but they currently have a limited range of products to sell for them. You don't need that many iPhones or Macs, iPads are a little bit expensive for impulse purchase.
[+] [-] drzaiusapelord|11 years ago|reply
Apple tries hard not to be a victim of the patent war they're always reigniting. I find it hard to believe IP isn't involved in a very, very significant way here.
[+] [-] programminggeek|11 years ago|reply
The most clever thing Apple did was the 5c colors with the different colored covers. Those haven't really taken off in a huge way, but I think that is in part due to the buying cycle of phones.
Apple gets mass personalization in a big way. You can still get your devices engraved by Apple I believe.
The only company that I've seen take a real swing at something similar is Motorola with Moto X. Too bad Google sold them.
[+] [-] taigeair|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] prawn|11 years ago|reply
When Ralph Lauren introduced those Polo shirts with the 3-4" polo logo on them rather than the usual 1" logo, I thought it was some kind of experiment.
[+] [-] Tycho|11 years ago|reply
Maybe they were worried primarily that Google would buy Beats and suddenly hold more 'cool' appeal than Apple (particularly with youngsters).
[+] [-] xxcode|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] durkie|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluthru|11 years ago|reply
Many different and very advanced technologies go into an iPhone. Most recently, the new fingerprint scanner was holding back the 5s. Every wrong assumption about color demand meant that an iPhone sale was delayed. (Assuming that it was even the correct storage size.) It's a world apart from speakers.
[+] [-] flarg|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dropbear|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davars|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|11 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] tnash|11 years ago|reply
[+] [-] acangiano|11 years ago|reply