So, taking a sub-standard product[1], slathering it with a ton of hype and celebrity endorsements, then selling it off to an even more practiced entity in a similar method of business is now heralded as genius?
I've got a better idea for Dre & Iovine: Finish Detox. Then you can talk about...whatever else...
I do think this quote is rather telling though:
Says Iovine: “We want kids who can work at Beats or at Apple.”
Yeah, that's the kind of herd mentality I'd expect from a record industry professional. I'm serious. What's popular in music is dictated by the tastes of 14 year old girls. If you think Iovine is worth following, just keep this context in mind. You might get rich, but then again, is that your end goal?
[1] As a Monster product, a wide swath of musicians and professionals rightly dogged on their gimmicky marketing and high price versus their in-the-field performance. While there are many great headphones on the market (Sennheiser is my personal favorite), nobody will rate Beats anywhere near the top 5. Just because Skrillex likes them doesn't mean they're actually good.
"Just because Skrillex likes them doesn't mean they're actually good."
They have pointed out in the article that Beats really isn't as "high quality" as other superior headphone sets.
So, I don't understand the knock towards them. Its a product. A product that has done extremely well. There are many products out there that sell because of a celebrity endorsed it. In fact the article stated that Dr. Dre was thinking of marketing fashion before he spoke with Iovine on what he should do. Dre would have had sold some product one way or another to make money. Why not Beats?
All in all, it all just worked out for Dre. Beats is a good headset made cheap and sold high. It found its star in Dr. Dre to be the face.
Beats is the George Forman Grill on headphones!
No reason to knock it. There are many products out there that isn't the greatest, but it works fine for most of us. Look at Windows.
Now, should getting rich be the end goal of every business venture? No, but well you'd definitely want it to do fairly well.
--
I think its a cool idea that they are trying to disrupt college. Especially in the fields of the Arts, why not try? More choices means more people (especially young people) get to see what's out out there, what's possible.
How many articles do we need to post on Hacker News about the "youth not able to find a job even with a bachelors degree at Stanford" before some change to how we "educate" them occurs?
All in all, I cannot criticize someone's business practices who's able generate $3 billion for a company let alone $1. Someone was going to do that, why not him?
Personally it bodes poorly for the future of consumer products, if such a marketing achievement can be labeled a success when a small amount of critical thinking would deflate the premise of the purchase.
They're not headphones, they're status symbols. That's plenty of reason to knock it. I'd like to see actual innovation in the sense of what Dolby is doing. They're successful too, and I'm not knocking them. Would I go to the Dolby classes on innovation? Sure. Iovine? No.
If you think 'disruption' in the arts is going to happen by way of long-time industry insiders, then I don't know what to tell you...other than you're wrong I guess.
Ignorance towards 14 year old girls's interests is still ignorance. Like it or not, the next generation will take leadership while our generation ages. It is their values and tastes that constitute our future.
If a company is considering entering the wearables market, fashion and brand need to be intimately integrated with design alongside technology. The reason the headphone industry was stuck in the 1980's was because they ignored exactly this part. Nobody wants to wear the same shirts on their chests- why should they wear the same headphones on their HEADS? Now Beats has created a new market. With new markets come innovation. It is only a matter of time until top sound comes out of fashionable headphones. Maybe there will even be a paradigm shift in sound quality technology as a byproduct of the fresh infusion of capital. I listen on Kipsch.
The headphone industry most definitely was not "stuck in the 1980s" unless you only shopped at Best Buy for the past 15 years. Musician's Friend runs specials on AKG headphones that are superior to Beats and for - get this - about $40.
Conflating "innovation" with savvy marketing doesn't benefit anybody - especially the tech-minded readership of HN. Marketing is an element. With Beats, marketing IS the product, and if that sits well with you, fine.
Beats headphones are Instagram for music. They are not built to deliver high quality or fidelity, they are built to make music sound more cool.
Filters on Instagram are universally derided by serious photographers, but that hasn't hurt Instagram...in fact it's their competitive advantage. Just like the unique (but not accurate) sound of Beats is theirs.
Yes, this counts as innovation, at least in a consumer product sense. Serious professionals care so much about their own metrics of quality that they usually cannot see a different "worse is better" way of building consumer products. Instagram is the biggest photography product in the last 5 years at least, and it was not built by professional photographers.
That's a pretty good correlative. Instagram is favored by a young demographic. One that's highly dependent on their parents for fiscal means. This is the group that Beats targets with their marketing - people who make poor financial choices or lack critical thinking to make individual quality decisions. Jimmy Iovine is successful because he markets to the same kind of people who use Instagram. That's not innovation, it's effective target marketing. It's a hollow achievement, because real innovation will stand the test of time - like headphones as a design itself (or earbuds) - one stupid brand preying on ignorance? Give me a break.
I don't know about Beats headsets, but Dre and Iovine are innovators when it comes to music production. Dre for example is a perfectionist when it comes to music infact most artists that work with Dre on his Aftermath label never release an album, because its not perfect enough by Dre's standards. Sounds similar to Steve Jobs when it comes to product quality. At least as far as music production goes.
> Dre for example is a perfectionist when it comes to music infact most artists that work with Dre on his Aftermath label never release an album, because its not perfect enough by Dre's standards.
"Just because Skrillex got paid to like them" - and this is the genius of those two, they took something medicore, pimped the shit out of it and created a strong brand.
A little bit off topic, but whenever I see the name Jimmy Iovine I immediately think of the Macklemore song about his meeting with him. And I feel like the song does a good job representing what Jimmy Iovine stands for and how the music business works. To quote from the song, "rather be a starving artist than succeed at getting fucked." Overall this 'school for innovation' seems like a program developed for people that are wasting time at college, not rigorous students. There are plenty of entrepreneurial programs at universities and colleges and this just seems like a light-weight over-hyped version of those, sorta like the headphones.
Awesome Joseph. I'll send you an email later today. It does sound like an interesting concept. If you don't mind elaborating here, that would be great.
How exactly running a huge marketing campaign is revolution? There were always designer headphones. Their headphones also do not bring anything on the technicalities (40$ headphones, as mentioned before, "beats" them on every category).
Well, a pair of Beats also look and feel like plastic toys (I know because I owned 3 different pairs - I'm obsessed with headphones and won't talk about any pair of headphones until I test them personally). Sennheiser HD650 and HD600 are much better choices in terms of... well, everything. This is a very subjective thing though. Maybe you are impressed by the packaging? (Sennheiser puts their "audiophile-grade" headphones in what's basically a cardboard box so I'd understand)
The built-in amp has been available in all the headphones with noise-cancellation and the muddy, exaggerated bass isn't something these ears haven't heard before. I'm not exactly an audiophile so maybe there's something I'm missing.
What people who dog on beats are missing is that "muddy, exaggerated bass" is exactly what most people want. The beats are so successful because they gave people what they wanted--strong bass and good looks, and audiophiles and technophiles lose their shit over it.
There is a lesson to be learned from the beats phenomenon, and it isn't that "beats are crap".
> What people who dog on beats are missing is that "muddy, exaggerated bass" is exactly what most people want.
No. Most people who love beats usually ditch them when they hear a proper headphone. This is my anecdotal evidence, yes, but I hear about it from others all the time too. People love it because usually they are the first pair of cans they hear which are more expensive than 20 Dollars. Yes, they are way better than the crappy IEMs people used buy just because of their color. This doesn't mean that people love "muddy, exaggerated bass".
People love going to concerts too and muddy, exaggerated treble and bass is all you get there in terms of sound. People still go to concerts because of the experience. I love it too. If the same group was having a concert in a much more acoustic concert hall with also the same great experience for even less money, I would definitely prefer that instead. This situation is like, they go to a concert the first time in their life and love it. Does it mean the extremely distorted sound in a crappy concert hall is their preference? I don't think so. The crappy concert hall just invested more on marketing so everybody knows about it.
So, again, what's wrong with some people talking about the disadvantages and pointing that there are better alternatives? Even, in the end, if someone still happens to love the "muddy, exaggerated bass", at least now they now it's not the only option.
Coming back to my argument, I'm 100% confident the phrase "beats revolutionizing the headphones" has less to do with revolution and more to do with marketing (and nothing to do with the technicalities).
I am used to seeing HN crap on Beats headphones. Even though they're great for playing the target demographics favorite music hip hop and bass heavy pop, fine if you don't like the product then you don't like the product. But to see people in tech complain about something being successful because of marketing is pretty hilarious.
With the "Don't be evil", " we're going to make the world better", and hundreds of other grand pronouncements that we hear in tech it seems silly to knock Beats because of marketing. Yeah the tech product may be useful but it didn't end world hunger.
Jimmy Iovine is right when it comes to Silicon Valley and speaking to culture. Wearables are a good example. They have been god awful ugly so far. But to silicon valley the tech is more important so they were pushed to the public. These are smart fashion accessories but aren't fashionable at all. They are cool as hell as far as the tech. But look horrible.
28 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 86.6 ms ] threadI've got a better idea for Dre & Iovine: Finish Detox. Then you can talk about...whatever else...
I do think this quote is rather telling though:
Says Iovine: “We want kids who can work at Beats or at Apple.”
Yeah, that's the kind of herd mentality I'd expect from a record industry professional. I'm serious. What's popular in music is dictated by the tastes of 14 year old girls. If you think Iovine is worth following, just keep this context in mind. You might get rich, but then again, is that your end goal?
[1] As a Monster product, a wide swath of musicians and professionals rightly dogged on their gimmicky marketing and high price versus their in-the-field performance. While there are many great headphones on the market (Sennheiser is my personal favorite), nobody will rate Beats anywhere near the top 5. Just because Skrillex likes them doesn't mean they're actually good.
They have pointed out in the article that Beats really isn't as "high quality" as other superior headphone sets.
So, I don't understand the knock towards them. Its a product. A product that has done extremely well. There are many products out there that sell because of a celebrity endorsed it. In fact the article stated that Dr. Dre was thinking of marketing fashion before he spoke with Iovine on what he should do. Dre would have had sold some product one way or another to make money. Why not Beats?
All in all, it all just worked out for Dre. Beats is a good headset made cheap and sold high. It found its star in Dr. Dre to be the face.
Beats is the George Forman Grill on headphones!
No reason to knock it. There are many products out there that isn't the greatest, but it works fine for most of us. Look at Windows.
Now, should getting rich be the end goal of every business venture? No, but well you'd definitely want it to do fairly well.
-- I think its a cool idea that they are trying to disrupt college. Especially in the fields of the Arts, why not try? More choices means more people (especially young people) get to see what's out out there, what's possible.
How many articles do we need to post on Hacker News about the "youth not able to find a job even with a bachelors degree at Stanford" before some change to how we "educate" them occurs?
All in all, I cannot criticize someone's business practices who's able generate $3 billion for a company let alone $1. Someone was going to do that, why not him?
They're not headphones, they're status symbols. That's plenty of reason to knock it. I'd like to see actual innovation in the sense of what Dolby is doing. They're successful too, and I'm not knocking them. Would I go to the Dolby classes on innovation? Sure. Iovine? No.
If you think 'disruption' in the arts is going to happen by way of long-time industry insiders, then I don't know what to tell you...other than you're wrong I guess.
If a company is considering entering the wearables market, fashion and brand need to be intimately integrated with design alongside technology. The reason the headphone industry was stuck in the 1980's was because they ignored exactly this part. Nobody wants to wear the same shirts on their chests- why should they wear the same headphones on their HEADS? Now Beats has created a new market. With new markets come innovation. It is only a matter of time until top sound comes out of fashionable headphones. Maybe there will even be a paradigm shift in sound quality technology as a byproduct of the fresh infusion of capital. I listen on Kipsch.
Conflating "innovation" with savvy marketing doesn't benefit anybody - especially the tech-minded readership of HN. Marketing is an element. With Beats, marketing IS the product, and if that sits well with you, fine.
Filters on Instagram are universally derided by serious photographers, but that hasn't hurt Instagram...in fact it's their competitive advantage. Just like the unique (but not accurate) sound of Beats is theirs.
Yes, this counts as innovation, at least in a consumer product sense. Serious professionals care so much about their own metrics of quality that they usually cannot see a different "worse is better" way of building consumer products. Instagram is the biggest photography product in the last 5 years at least, and it was not built by professional photographers.
Sounds like a failure to me.
"Just because Skrillex got paid to like them" - and this is the genius of those two, they took something medicore, pimped the shit out of it and created a strong brand.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RwW6ERgpvo --the song.
[0] http://www.fuse.tv/videos/2012/11/macklemore-ellen-degeneres...
No thanks. ;-)
How exactly running a huge marketing campaign is revolution? There were always designer headphones. Their headphones also do not bring anything on the technicalities (40$ headphones, as mentioned before, "beats" them on every category).
Disclaimer: I'm known as a headphone geek.
And they all looked like shit. In fact, the "designer" headphones pre-beats competed on how ugly they could look. It was a badge of honor.
>Their headphones also do not bring anything on the technicalities
They have a built-in amp. That is technical innovation in headphones.
The built-in amp has been available in all the headphones with noise-cancellation and the muddy, exaggerated bass isn't something these ears haven't heard before. I'm not exactly an audiophile so maybe there's something I'm missing.
There is a lesson to be learned from the beats phenomenon, and it isn't that "beats are crap".
No. Most people who love beats usually ditch them when they hear a proper headphone. This is my anecdotal evidence, yes, but I hear about it from others all the time too. People love it because usually they are the first pair of cans they hear which are more expensive than 20 Dollars. Yes, they are way better than the crappy IEMs people used buy just because of their color. This doesn't mean that people love "muddy, exaggerated bass".
People love going to concerts too and muddy, exaggerated treble and bass is all you get there in terms of sound. People still go to concerts because of the experience. I love it too. If the same group was having a concert in a much more acoustic concert hall with also the same great experience for even less money, I would definitely prefer that instead. This situation is like, they go to a concert the first time in their life and love it. Does it mean the extremely distorted sound in a crappy concert hall is their preference? I don't think so. The crappy concert hall just invested more on marketing so everybody knows about it.
So, again, what's wrong with some people talking about the disadvantages and pointing that there are better alternatives? Even, in the end, if someone still happens to love the "muddy, exaggerated bass", at least now they now it's not the only option.
Coming back to my argument, I'm 100% confident the phrase "beats revolutionizing the headphones" has less to do with revolution and more to do with marketing (and nothing to do with the technicalities).
With the "Don't be evil", " we're going to make the world better", and hundreds of other grand pronouncements that we hear in tech it seems silly to knock Beats because of marketing. Yeah the tech product may be useful but it didn't end world hunger.
Jimmy Iovine is right when it comes to Silicon Valley and speaking to culture. Wearables are a good example. They have been god awful ugly so far. But to silicon valley the tech is more important so they were pushed to the public. These are smart fashion accessories but aren't fashionable at all. They are cool as hell as far as the tech. But look horrible.