http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... lectronics

I'm not really seeing the angle unless they've finally decided to provide half-decent earphones

There is also a streaming music service wrapped up in all of this.

The streaming music deals won't fall into Apple's hands if they take over Beats - at least, they won't be able to pinch them for iTunes, they'll have to stay with Beats. If they wanted to use the streaming rights as Apple, they'd have to renegotiate as Apple, which makes the deal pointless because they could do that anyway. In fact the deal IS utterly pointless and very likely not true. Apple have never bought 'brands', which is all Beats actually is. It's a marketing exercise for very mediocre headphones.

Apparently someone posted it as an April fool. I suspect someone read that, didn't check the date of the initial post and spread it across their website and now - because tech reporting on the internet now actually does very little other than eat it's own tail - all the other sites desperate for hits have run it as well, so it's gained creditability not be being actually true, but by simply being repeated lots and lots of times by people who actually know feck all.

It may happen, if Apple feel like chucking away several billion dollars at something that is actually utterly useless to them. I rather hope this is as concrete as all those stories about the Apple Televisions that were mere days from being launched about three years ago. Because I hate to see money wasted, especially on that scale.

Jon

It's funny, the general press always say high class headphones and yet every review I read say they are terrible, only do a half good job at bass and the rest of the spectrum is tinny and very poor quality...

Pretty much.

They really are god-awful

Have you used the headphones Apple ships with their iDevices? I expect a Beats set is far superior to theirs (I have never tried a set, so I can't tell if they are better/worse than others report here).

The new Apple ones that come in the plastic box are actually... OK. Nothing special but not awful. And, after all, they're either free or cost £20, so they're making no great claims. The cheapest set of Beats in ear headphones on Amazon are 60-ish quid. For three times the price, they bloody should sound a whole lot better.

Jon

Beats headphones are dire, far too bass heavy & no detail at all.
Remember they're made by the same people who made Monster cables that you used to get in Dixons (the £80 crap scart cables).

Beats was founded by Dr Dre, a hip hop artist. In this culture, the bass can be prominent and certainly something that Dr Dre would have made sure didn't suffer when listening to that specific genre of music.

I know true audiophiles who have a flat EQ and try to ensure accurate fidelity. Personally, I love bass and tend to have the lower end of the sound frequency boosted.

It's a really fake bass boost on Beats & it's cheap headphones with a big tag on them. They sound worse than even the free Samsung S5 headphones in my opinion.
However it's the other intellectual property they own is the interesting bit for Apple I think.

They also need black dude on this page. http://www.apple.com/pr/bios/

all this 'With Beats Audio' stuff has always seemed a bit pointless to me.

Beat By Dre: The Exclusive Inside Story of How Monster Lost the World

http://gizmodo.com/5981823/beat-by-dre- ... -the-world

SWMBO got in-ear Beats free with her phone (as a promo) amd really likes them - a lot better than the normal free one and just as importantly a lot more Comfortable

My £17 Sennheiser have lasted me nearly 4 years (so far!) and sound great still. Also got Bass boost.
amazon link
I went to try all the headphones in Selfridges a few months ago, and by far, the best sounding were
Bowers and Wilkins P3. Crystal clear sound. Same price range than Beats