Beats Studio Buds will launch on July 21, says leaker

I suspect those won’t stay in my weird ears. 

Rayz2016 said:

I suspect those won’t stay in my weird ears. 

Though I haven’t yet tried the AirPods Pro, the AirPods never did for me (strangely formed ears I must have), but what I wonder is what is the difference between these and AirPods? Why continue to keep the two lines/brands separate? Do they simply lack the extras like Siri integration, and perhaps other things like the new audio enhancements? What’s the point of keeping the Beats brand around?

Because people buy beats for the name and might not buy Apple.

to this day I am not sure Apple needed to buy Beats with $3b.  It could have done it all in house and Apple Music would not look like it still does. I guess someone did the modelling and felt this was a quicker path to glory.  Otherwise I would hate to think it was just so Apple execs could buy their way to hanging out with some cool people.

williamlondon said:

Rayz2016 said:

I suspect those won’t stay in my weird ears. 

Though I haven’t yet tried the AirPods Pro, the AirPods never did for me (strangely formed ears I must have), but what I wonder is what is the difference between these and AirPods? Why continue to keep the two lines/brands separate? Do they simply lack the extras like Siri integration, and perhaps other things like the new audio enhancements? What’s the point of keeping the Beats brand around?

They keep both brands because it's good business.  Before AirPods, Beats was the top brand in revenue, profit and volume.  Without sales numbers it can't be verified but Beats is still thought to be the second best selling brand in revenue, profit, and volume.  Companies tend to not dissolve successful products.  VW Group didn't make their of their Audi, Porsche, Lamborghini, Bentley, or Bugatti brands all Volkswagens because they understand their products appeal to different audiences.  Tons of companies with multiple brands realize it. Apple realizes that too.  

Short answer: Beats makes Apple money.  

entropys said:

Because people buy beats for the name and might not buy Apple.

to this day I am not sure Apple needed to buy Beats with $3b.  It could have done it all in house and Apple Music would not look like it still does. I guess someone did the modelling and felt this was a quicker path to glory.  Otherwise I would hate to think it was just so Apple execs could buy their way to hanging out with some cool people.

it was a GREAT idea and one of their best acquisitions. I don’t understand why people are against it. The Beats acquisition paid for itself within 3 years.

What I wish never happened was Jimmy and Dre leaving. I felt Apple Music drop from being the cool service and has stagnated since compared to the guy who’s running it now. Jimmy had huge plans for the service. I don’t know what happened there. Strangely Apple was involved with creating one of the biggest music videos one year(2015?) and strangely that video now links to Spotify. The irony.

Changing Beats 1 to Apple Music 1 also baffles me. Apple Music had the 2 biggest names in music under ONE service, now they just have 1 of the 2. Who’s naming Apple products/services now? They’re doing a terrible job. If Siri was released today it would be named “Apple Voice Recognition”.