Beats: or how marketing triumphs science and engineering

[Keith_W]

This video talks about the history of Beats headphones. How they came from nothing, did no research, optimized their product to deliver a bass heavy response (because that made music sound more exciting) and then invested a lot of money into marketing. Sales exploded and the company became so valuable that Apple paid $3 billion for them. Unlike Apple's other acquisitions (e.g. Siri and Q.ai), Beats had no proprietary technology, all they had was their brand name. Yet Apple still saw fit to pay billions of dollars for the company. For context, Samsung paid $8 billion for the Harman Group - a company that has a dozen smaller brands under its umbrella, wrote the textbook on speaker and headphone engineering, and it actually has patents!

As the video points out, most serious audiophiles regard Beats with the same disdain we reserve for Bose. We KNOW that it's cheaply made and inaccurate. We cling to our Sennheisers, Beyerdynamics, AKG's, and Dan Clarks. But look where those companies are: AKG belongs to Samsung as part of the Harman group, Sennheiser is up for sale, Beyerdynamic has been acquired by the Chinese (for USD$140 million!!), and DCA is an absolute minnow.

There is a difference between enthusiasts and audio companies. We are in it for the sound. Audio companies are in it for the money. As an enthusiast, it boggles my mind that Apple paid $3 billion for basically an empty shell created out of nothing through the power of marketing. But then, those Apple guys are much smarter than I am. Or maybe more cynical. I guess the consumer gets what they deserve.

So all you guys who care about compliance to the Harman target: you're all wrong. Sean Olive was wasting his time. If you want to make money, forget the Harman curve and forget science. Go find yourself a rapper, get a product designer to give you a cool logo and cool looking headphones, invest all your money in marketing, and make bank. History tells us that perception trumps reality, and it trumps it big. To the tune of $3 billion for Beats.

 

[Sokel]

One more time:
Nothing Beats a good story. The world evolves around them.

 

[Redacted]

The world mostly runs on fake claims, marketing, adverts etc to create value from nothing in all spheres - it's not a new story. For the time being, at least, we are free to make our own choices.

 

[Snarfie]

This video talks about the history of Beats headphones. How they came from nothing, did no research, optimized their product to deliver a bass heavy response (because that made music sound more exciting) and then invested a lot of money into marketing. Sales exploded and the company became so valuable that Apple paid $3 billion for them. Unlike Apple's other acquisitions (e.g. Siri and Q.ai), Beats had no proprietary technology, all they had was their brand name. Yet Apple still saw fit to pay billions of dollars for the company. For context, Samsung paid $8 billion for the Harman Group - a company that has a dozen smaller brands under its umbrella, wrote the textbook on speaker and headphone engineering, and it actually has patents!

As the video points out, most serious audiophiles regard Beats with the same disdain we reserve for Bose. We KNOW that it's cheaply made and inaccurate. We cling to our Sennheisers, Beyerdynamics, AKG's, and Dan Clarks. But look where those companies are: AKG belongs to Samsung as part of the Harman group, Sennheiser is up for sale, Beyerdynamic has been acquired by the Chinese (for USD$140 million!!), and DCA is an absolute minnow.

There is a difference between enthusiasts and audio companies. We are in it for the sound. Audio companies are in it for the money. As an enthusiast, it boggles my mind that Apple paid $3 billion for basically an empty shell created out of nothing through the power of marketing. But then, those Apple guys are much smarter than I am. Or maybe more cynical. I guess the consumer gets what they deserve.

So all you guys who care about compliance to the Harman target: you're all wrong. Sean Olive was wasting his time. If you want to make money, forget the Harman curve and forget science. Go find yourself a rapper, get a product designer to give you a cool logo and cool looking headphones, invest all your money in marketing, and make bank. History tells us that perception trumps reality, and it trumps it big. To the tune of $3 billion for Beats.

I've use a Sony WH-1000XM2 already for many years. With the Wavelet app I apply a Harman-target EQ profile, and in my opinion it clearly improves the sound considerable. However, I almost never leave it at 100% strength. Most of the time I run it around 60%, and sometimes even lower, because (probably regarding the mastering) that's what sounds best to me.

To me that says two things:

First, audio research such as the Harman work done by Sean Olive is valuable because it gives us a well researched starting point that many listeners prefer.

Second, individual taste still exists. Even when a headphone is moved closer to the Harman target, I still linear adjust the amount of EQ to suit my own preferences. Science can tell us what most people tend to like on average, but it can't tell every individual exactly what they will enjoy most.

By the way from the start, I found Beats looking hideous.

 

[Gregm]

History tells us that perception trumps reality, and it trumps it big. To the tune of $3 billion for Beats.

When it comes to marketing, perception *is* reality

 

[beeface]

Pre-Apple Beats might have pure marketing, but I’d have to imagine that Apple/Beats spend more on R&D for their audio products than (almost?) anyone

Apple prefers NDAs to published papers, so we will likely never know the science behind their current product line up, but the sound profile is surely well informed and deliberate, not haphazard

 

[Talisman]

Can I give a different opinion? Many people like booming, over-the-top, full-bodied bass, even if it's not at all precise. Beats isn't just marketing; they tapped into a segment of the market that was looking for something other than an audiophile response, and they satisfied it. They sold a ton of them, not just for marketing, but because many people, listening to them, liked that setup. Remember that not everyone is an audiophile, not everyone aspires to absolute fidelity in reproduction.
Try playing KEF Blades and JBL Partybox 710s to 100 random people. Do you think the Blades will win?

 

[Redacted]

I wouldn't care, buts Beats are quite expensive.

 

[Mnyb]

Hmm they partnered with monster cable , nope for me

 

[Redacted]

Hmm they partnered with monster cable , nope for me

But Monster gives you more bass!

 

[Ramon Cota]

the amount of bass in the recording is a subjective decision of some mastering " artist " and i often find myself not happy with it ( either too little or too much ) . I also have same albums but different editions that differ in bass by as much as 5-8 db . so which is accurate ? If someone likes large bass there is nothing wrong with having headphones that accentuates it as long as you are aware and accepting of it.

 

[TheWalkman]

This video talks about the history of Beats headphones. How they came from nothing, did no research, optimized their product to deliver a bass heavy response (because that made music sound more exciting) and then invested a lot of money into marketing. Sales exploded and the company became so valuable that Apple paid $3 billion for them. Unlike Apple's other acquisitions (e.g. Siri and Q.ai), Beats had no proprietary technology, all they had was their brand name. Yet Apple still saw fit to pay billions of dollars for the company. For context, Samsung paid $8 billion for the Harman Group - a company that has a dozen smaller brands under its umbrella, wrote the textbook on speaker and headphone engineering, and it actually has patents!

As the video points out, most serious audiophiles regard Beats with the same disdain we reserve for Bose. We KNOW that it's cheaply made and inaccurate. We cling to our Sennheisers, Beyerdynamics, AKG's, and Dan Clarks. But look where those companies are: AKG belongs to Samsung as part of the Harman group, Sennheiser is up for sale, Beyerdynamic has been acquired by the Chinese (for USD$140 million!!), and DCA is an absolute minnow.

There is a difference between enthusiasts and audio companies. We are in it for the sound. Audio companies are in it for the money. As an enthusiast, it boggles my mind that Apple paid $3 billion for basically an empty shell created out of nothing through the power of marketing. But then, those Apple guys are much smarter than I am. Or maybe more cynical. I guess the consumer gets what they deserve.

So all you guys who care about compliance to the Harman target: you're all wrong. Sean Olive was wasting his time. If you want to make money, forget the Harman curve and forget science. Go find yourself a rapper, get a product designer to give you a cool logo and cool looking headphones, invest all your money in marketing, and make bank. History tells us that perception trumps reality, and it trumps it big. To the tune of $3 billion for Beats.

Ever heard of Marlboro or the dozens of other tobacco brands that sells tens of billion$ of products each year? “Smoke my cigarette and it will make you one tall, tough cowboy.”

Talk about marketing deception. This makes Beats look fairly benign.

 

[Jiraya369]

i mean just look at bowers and wilkins, any "real" amplifier or other bull. It's just very easy to fool people with marketing, be it normies or "serious audiophiles". At least beats aren't grossly overpriced. Seeing the price of some iems or amps makes me sick.

 

[Moonhead]

Not to defend Beats in any Way, I Think they are quite hideous, but if I remember correctly Apple made Them less bassy and more Harman like.
At least with a few models tested at rtings!

 

[Power Pop 23]

Interesting history......

Today,

The 5 Best Beats Headphones And Earbuds of 2026: Reviews

The best Beats headphones we've tested are the Beats Studio Pro Wireless. They come in a variety of sleek and subdued colors.

www.rtings.com

 

[KSTR]

As the video points out, most serious audiophiles regard Beats with the same disdain we reserve for Bose.

Do we? Bose stuff is actually quite good sounding IMHO and more importantly, based on very solid science and engineering.

 

[OCA]

Some people prioritize physical impact and elevated bass over faithful reproduction. I tend to think of them as bass heads rather than audiophiles.

 

[NTK]

There is no doubt that the late Professor Amar Bose knew his stuff. Some of Bose's products may be some solid science behind them (e.g. their noise cancellation headphones), but Bose also "educates" consumers this will serve all their needs for a home theater, which defies physics.

 

[Redacted]

It "defies physics"?
I'm sure it sounds fine but I'm looking forward to a Bose Perpetual Motion machine

 

[HalSF]

I’m invested in a positive agenda elevating hi-fi excellence, audio science, accurate frequency response, low noise and distortion, and vivid, balanced, transparent presence in music playback.

I’m mostly completely disinterested in the paranoid strain of audio gear commentary whose themes are myth-busting, calling out ripoffs, denouncing “shills,” and saturnine everything’s-a-scam look-at-all-those-suckers resentment. Especially when packaged as YouTube linkbait. I don’t want to be put inside that vs. frame. Letting Beats people have their fun is not my problem.