When stories first appeared in the mainstream media that Apple was in deep negotiations to buy Beats, a company that builds fancy headphones and other accessories, and runs a music streaming service, for the princely sum of $3.2 billion, there was a media freakout of sorts. Apple’s stock price dropped as analysts wondered just what Apple was up to. Beats, you see, is perceived as a flashy company that sells overpriced and bass-heavy headphones, so what is Apple thinking?

In fairness, Apple’s stock precise increased Monday, perhaps as some rethought their initial negative reactions to the rumored pending deal.

Some suggest that Steve Jobs would never have considered such a move, but it’s also been reported that Jobs was tight with Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine, a long-time music industry mogul. Evidently Iovine worked with Jobs when Apple released the iPod and built the iTunes Music Store, for example. While it’s clear there have been no official comments, Iovine reportedly also urged Jobs to establish a music subscription service. It’s something Jobs resisted, but now we have iTunes Radio, which has received a so-so reception.

But as customers buy fewer digital music tracks, perhaps Apple is looking for a better music subscription scheme, and Beats Music has gotten high marks for providing a superior user experience. Sure, a membership roster estimated at 500,000 isn’t very much compared to the millions who use Pandora and Spotify, but putting Apple’s marketing heft behind such a venture, and integrating it with iTunes, would surely boost that number real fast.

But what about those allegedly overpriced headphones? Well, I’ve done a little checking of reviews. True, the first Beats Audio products were notorious for heavy bass and brittle highs, the better to exaggerate the impact of hip-hop and other pop music genres. It got lots of attention and high sales, particularly from younger people.

A couple of years back, for example, The Mac Observer’s Bryan Chaffin observed in his review of one of those early models, “Beats headphones reinvigorated the high-end headphone market, but it did so with headphones that can turn any music into a muddy romp through a swampy bottom land of mush.”

Since then, though, it appears the audio engineers at Beats have been revoicing some of those headphones to tame the excesses and provide a more realistic sonic signature. A recent review of the $379.95 Beats Studio Wireless was praised for “excellent sound” and received four stars from CNET. The downsides were, predictably, the price of admission and the fact that “if the integrated rechargeable battery dies, the music dies.” But that’s also true for a Bose “Quiet Comfort” headphone, which is also pricy.

Consumer Reports, a magazine that traditionally doesn’t really get consumer electronics, gave the Beats Executive a high 85 rating, putting it at the top of the heap among the tested noise canceling headphones. The magazine’s reviewers concluded that the Executive had “excellent overall sound with a neutral character, and very good active noise reduction. Bass has good impact and definition, but is very slightly soft. Midrange is even and smooth, and treble is extended. Overall sound is fairly open, with good dynamics.”

To CR, the Executive was the only model to deliver “excellent” audio quality, and was thus rated ahead of noise-cancelling headphones from such makers as SMS, Bose, PSB Speakers, AKG, Koss and Velodyne.

But as I said, the reaction to the Beats has been polarized, though I grant at least some models do produce the sonic excesses dedicated audiophiles would reject out of hand. However, Beats has the buzz, and, with the recent private capital funding along with high sales, has made it a billion dollar company. So a purchase price of $3.2 billion, if that’s truly accurate, may not be out of the question at all.

The published reports suggest, however, that the acquisition is more about Beats Music and getting Iovine and co-founder Dr. Dre on board at Apple. This may help in delivering the entertainment industry contracts Apple needs to move forward in expanding its music subscription offering. Apparently, existing contracts with Beats Music would have to be renegotiated, though nobody who has made this claim has actually seen those contracts and how they are impacted if the company is acquired.

Of course, that hasn’t stopped people from making educated guesses.

In any case, if this deal plays out as the media expects, both Iovine and Dr. Dre will be trotted out at the WWDC in June. Some suggest that Dr. Dre’s recent boast about being the first Hip-Hop billionaire may be more about the company’s current financial status than the result of a deal with Apple.

I would not, however, presume to make any guesses about how this process will play out, if it’s really happening. Some suggest that Steve Jobs would never have gotten involved in such a venture. But he also reportedly urged his successors not to ask what he would do when making a decision. It’s clear Tim Cook has gone his own way in many respects as Apple CEO, and if he and his team truly believe that a deal with Beats is $3.2 billion well spent, maybe they do know something we don’t.

Besides, even if the deal doesn’t quite deliver for Apple, consider how much Google squandered in bringing Motorola into the fold before it was sold off to Lenovo at a fire sale price. Consider the bad acquisitions Microsoft has made. Apple is entitled to a mistake from time to time, but that doesn’t mean a deal with Beats would be a bad thing. As I said, nothing is definite until it actually happens. Nothing at all.

The story has spread like wildfire. Apple is in talks with Beats Audio to acquire the company for $3.2 billion. Now that figure really is chump change for Apple, with over $150 billion dollars on hand, but it’s nonetheless far more than the company has previously spent on any single transaction of this sort. Apple, you see, rarely budgets more than a tenth of that amount in acquiring smaller companies for technology.

Indeed, Apple’s purchase of Steve Jobs’ NeXT for $429 million in 1996 was regarded as the biggest deal ever, particularly when viewed in 2014 dollars. Today, that transaction would be valued at over $651 million, so you see where I’m heading.

While other companies have spent a lot more money for mergers and acquisitions, this is Apple, and that number is extremely high for them. So the logical question, then, is why? Why would Apple want to acquire a company managed by a couple of record industry moguls? Where’s the logic in that?

Continue Reading…

It almost seems as if an Apple executive cannot sneeze without the media reporting that the company is therefore doomed. From the earliest days, Apple’s decision to go it alone has brought unending criticism from some quarters. I won’t dwell on the history at length, but I will cover the highlights.

So the Mac was originally just a pretty toy that was incapable of doing serious computing. Of course, the success of Windows with a derivative (or stolen) interface put the lie to that pronouncement.

The iPod? Well, an overpriced “toy” (the “t” word yet again) that couldn’t possibly catch on. But when Apple released iTunes for Windows, I suppose some changed their tune. Some. Even though dedicated digital media players are yesterday’s news if not part of a smartphone or a tablet, the iPod has remained at the head of the pack in a diminishing market.

You can’t of course, imagine how severely Apple was criticized for daring to release a smartphone with a large screen (for 2007) and no physical keyboard, but we all know how that turned out.

Yet despite what some believe, the iPhone was never, ever, the number one mobile handset on the planet. In introducing the iPhone in 2007, Steve Jobs famously said that Apple would be delighted to grab a one percent share by the end of 2008, but it obviously did a lot better.

But Apple’s critics want to cite Samsung’s success in becoming the world’s number one handset maker, supplanting such “pretenders” as Motorola and Nokia, both of whom occupied the top spot in years past.

Now Samsung has received lots of coverage for its flagship models, such as the Galaxy S3, Galaxy S4, and now the Galaxy S5. But each handset was seriously flawed in one way or another. The first two, boasting an AMOLED display, were near-invisible in sunlight. At least you could see something on the iPhone, though shaded surroundings were still best. The Galaxy S5’s display, also AMOLED, is said to be better, and I’ll accept that claim for the sake of argument without having given it extensive face time.

But even Samsung must have had qualms about the latest and greatest model, since it was only rolled out at a mobile trade show rather than a special presentation at a separate dedicated media event. Reviews have been tepid. By and large, it’s a decent product, thought the plastic case still says cheap in a way that the plastic iPhone 5c doesn’t.

The real problem with the Galaxy S5, though, is not the plastic case, but how well the most important features work in the real world. So there’s that notorious fingerprint sensor that defies the ability of some of the top tech reviewers on the planet to operate successfully. I understand why Samsung wanted to have one, the better to compete with Apple, but didn’t anyone at Samsung notice that the feature was almost fatally flawed? Anyone?

Well, it’s clear that Samsung might be listening to the critics after all, and not just because of the latest loss in an intellectual property trial against Apple. According to published reports, the head of the mobile design division, one Chang Dong-hoon, has been sacked. He’s been replaced with a deputy, Lee Min-hyouk.

Now Samsung tried to put this in the best light, claiming, “The realignment will enable Chang to focus more on his role as head of the Design Strategy Team, the company’s corporate design center which is responsible for long-term design strategy across all of Samsung’s businesses, including Mobile Communications.”

It sounds like he’s being pushed upstairs into a position that may keep him from direct involvement in smartphones, though the decision seems to convey an opposite message. Maybe Samsung believes Chang will stay out of trouble that way and not deliver feature duds such as the fingerprint sensor and Smart Scroll.

But nothing stops Samsung from trying to deceive. So ads for the Galaxy S5 are almost blatantly taking reviewer quotes out of context to make it seem as if the product received a better reception than it really did. This is little different from entertainment companies struggling to find a favorable quote in an otherwise unfavorable review of a new movie. Imagine, for example, saying that the cinematography was great, but ignoring the criticisms of bad acting, poor special effects, and inconsistent plotting.

Regardless, with flat sales and flat profits, it’s not as if Samsung has much to boast about. The larger share of sales is confined to low-end handsets, where profits are slim or nonexistent. Low prices may help move product in areas where Apple chooses not to compete, and it may put Samsungs in the hands of people who can’t afford something better, but it’s hardly anything worth shouting about.

Meantime, the iPhone 5s, eight months after release, is still surprisingly successful. According to Canaccord Genuity, a firm analyzing the mobile phone industry, this “aging” mobile handset remains the top seller at the four major U.S. carriers.

It may be surprising if you haven’t kept up to date with the history of smartphones, but the original iPhone, with the 3.5-inch display, was considered quite large. Maybe too large to some, but other smartphones of 2007 usually came with physical keyboards to take up the rest of the space. Although not the first, the BlackBerry set the standard, particularly for up-and-coming professionals and even a certain candidate for President from Illinois.

But one of the ways for the competition to respond to the success of the iPhone was to offer features that Apple’s smartphone lacked. One of those features was a larger display, and I suppose it has its advantages to some. But there’s also a compelling argument that four inches represents a sweet spot for convenient one-handed usability. Of course, if you have smaller fingers, maybe it still doesn’t matter, but Apple actually cares about such things.

Indeed, this was an argument Apple made in demonstrating the iPhone 5 back in 2012. Clearly Apple’s marketing people understood that there were dozens and dozens of smartphones with larger displays, and usability was an important issue.

More recently, Tim Cook has made it clear the company isn’t rejecting the idea of a larger iPhone, but that there were too many tradeoffs to existing models. One being battery life, the other being picture quality.

While I understand about corporate spin, it is true that Apple doesn’t just add a feature because there’s a demand for it. It has to work at least passably, so people could actually benefit from it. So you can say that Maps for iOS was released prematurely, and was riddled with serious bugs. But it did actually function in most respects and there has been ongoing improvement.

Today, when I use Maps, I don’t see the 3D image of the Hoover Dam or the Statue of Liberty melting. Compared to Google Maps, the accuracy of turn-by-turn directions seems comparable in the tests I’ve run (your experiences may vary). But I think you see my point.

Take the Touch ID fingerprint sensor. For most, it works most of the time. For some, hardly, or not at all. Right now, as a cut heals on my right thumb, I either have to use a different finger or avoid Touch ID for another week or so. But I never doubted its relative reliability. However, the fingerprint sensor on Samsung’s flagship smartphone, the Galaxy S5, barely works. Two reviewers for major publications couldn’t make it function. So I think you see Apple’s point.

So if there is going to be an iPhone 6 with 4.7-inch display, as widely rumored for the past few weeks, I expect Apple will offer it in a form factor that makes it as convenient as possible for daily use. A thinner case might even make it possible for some of you to use it with one hand, though that’s stretching the limits of the digits for most people.

I did have months of experience working with the 4.8-inch Samsung Galaxy S3, which is close enough to the projected size of the iPhone to give me a sense of what it will be like. Unfortunately, the Samsung’s AMOLED display washes out completely in sunlight; it’s supposedly better on the Galaxy S5, which has a 5.1-inch display.

Overall, I can see the benefits of the larger screen in reading text from documents or sites. There’s a lot to be said for being able to watch a video with a larger display as well, so I can see why many people consider the them so attractive. I’m sure if Apple moves in this direction, you’ll get a great product all around with battery life that matches or exceeds current iPhones.

After writing several articles on the subject, I’m still on the fence about the alleged iPhone Air or phablet, the supposed 5.5-inch model. The rumors suggest it may be late because of problems with display production and battery life. Or maybe it will be available in smaller quantities, and I wonder what price point Apple might set for such a beast. I would expect the iPhone 6 to be priced the same as current models, mostly because there’s where the competition remains. Leave it to Apple to be able to source parts at prices that will keep the cost of building them at reasonable levels, perhaps not much higher than the present iPhone 5s.

While I wouldn’t buy an even larger iPhone, it’s true there is a sizable audience out there, particularly in China, where 40% of smartphone sales involve phablets according to a recent survey. To many in developing countries, a phablet is the all-in-one personal computer that serves as both telephone and tablet. But I wonder just how much of a premium Apple would charge for such a gadget. With the standard iPhone retailing at $649 or thereabouts before subsidies, the presumed iPhone Air might be at least $100 more. Would that price it out of the market, or would carrier financing and subsidies make up most of the difference?

While Apple doesn’t produce gear merely because people want to buy them, the phablet form factor may be the runaway train that Apple needs to jump on before it gets away.