According to a new report from Variety, Beats was developing a line of Sonos-like speakers before it was acquired by Apple. When the Apple acquisition occurred, development of the connected speakers was stopped, according to the report. Some of the engineers that were working on the project were moved to other teams, while others have since left the company.
The line of speakers that Beats had planned was originally slated to launch before the 2014 holiday season. While the company already offers several Bluetooth-based speakers, the company wanted to develop a new line that combined Bluetooth, WiFi, and NFC technologies to allow for more seamless playback. Beats was planning a large, living room speaker that was reportedly going to be priced at around $750, as well as several smaller, more affordable options.
Seeing that the speakers were going to feature WiFi, Bluetooth, and NFC, users would have been able to play the same music synchronously throughout the house, while also being directly connected to streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music. Sonos offers a line of speakers like this, but Beats had no interest in partnering with any existing company and wanted to develop the technology from the ground up. This wish, however, reportedly led to a variety of issues for Beats in the developmental process, switching parts and delaying dates on numerous occasions.
Because of the developmental issues, Apple made the call to kill the project, according to some sources. Variety notes, however, that some believe that the project was simply put on hiatus and could reenter development at some point.
The report goes on to note that Apple isn’t totally sold on Beats’ hardware business at this point. One source speaking with Variety estimates that 50 percent of Beats employees have left or been fired since Apple acquired the company. Perhaps most notably, however, Beats’ chief product officer and its head of loudspeaker engineering have both left the company over the last few months.
Earlier this month, Apple announced a recall of the Beats Pill XL speakers, citing overheating and fire concerns. Further highlighting Apple’s lack of interest in Beats hardware, the company didn’t offer to replace or service the speakers, only reimburse customers. Since acquiring Beats, Apple has introduced several new colors of the company’s headphones to match its own products, but nothing else.
With Apple Music launching later this month, it makes sense for Apple to have paused development on new Beats hardware in an effort to focus on the streaming service’s development. Given the brand recognition Beats carries, however, it doesn’t make a lot of sense for Apple to shelve its hardware completely.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I wonder if those speakers would have been as “bottom heavy” and inaccurate as the headphones that Beats sells.
Definitely would not be on my list of speakers to buy. I Fear too much bass and too many $$$$$ for what you’re getting – YMMV!
Beats Solo 2 are getting better reviews than the usual Beats stuff.
Yeah, but they’re still nowhere near reference. They’re just much better than they used to be.
You’re complaints of “bottom heavy” are a year out of date. They’ve since corrected that issue.
The point is, they did that AFTER apple, not BEFORE apple.
If they are going to make a real push into the living room via home kit and a revised Apple tV, a Sonos killer product would make a lot of sense and further differentiate the iOS v Android ecosystem.
“The report goes on to note that Apple isn’t totally sold on Beats’ hardware business at this point. ” — nor should they be. There are very little differentiators that Beats’ products have to offer compared to everyone else in the industry…the only thing that stands out to me is brand recognition…tech wise, Beats’ products are simply not that great…they’re not bad, but not great, and very overpriced. I do like the idea of a Sonos style Beats speaker though…maybe if they can continue R&D and add some differentiating tech, and possibly have a successful launch.
Judging by the penetration of Beats headphones, quality is not a major issue in the buying decision for many (most?) people. That observation is supported by the huge number of people using the standard Apple ear buds. What I have not figured out is whether they don’t know how much better the sound could be or if they just don’t care.
I’ll be surprised if Apple don’t eventually attempt to capitalise on the huge brand recognition enjoyed by Beats in hardware.
pecospeet: your point about the Apple ear buds is a good one.
I cannot comprehend how anyone spending the dollars they do on an iPhone could passively accept the generally lousy standards of Apple’s ear buds. Irvine may have been a catch for implementing Apple Music, but if he’s serious about the whole “music as art” thing, those ear buds should be facing some pretty tough criticism from him.
However, as one of the guys that brought us the sub-par standard of Beats . . . : /
Iovine, not Irvine (thanks auto correct–and thanks for no “edit” function).
To answer your question – I just don’t care. Apples new buds are good enough for me as I walk to work or sit at my desk. I only recently upgraded to some non-buds at the desk because I wanted BT wireless (which probably makes them even worse for sound)
If you think Apple isn’t working behind the scenes on new Beats hardware you’re crazy. I hope they eventually do a huge culling of the Beats range simplifying it, and have two over-head pairs in many colours, one in-ear in many colours, and then two sets of speakers: one bluetooth mobile unit and set of Sono’s killers.
“Sonos Killer” from a project that would not have seen the light of day even if Apple hadn’t acquired them. Beats were in no position to challenge Sonos, despite wishful thinking. I’m not a Sonos customer, still using a Slim-based platform, but I can see the value in their system.
Apple overpaid for Beats and it’s been apparent since day one. A company worth a few hundred million sold for 3 billion. That’s a hefty amount of grease for very few palms. From a technology standpoint, the new music platform could have been (and likely was) developed completely in-house.
They do a billion in gross annually, so your claim of what they’re worth is bogus.
I always thought your profile pic was master chief, until I looked close enough this time.
3 bil ain’t that bad, seeing as apple is definitely going to use beats tech going forward. (New MacBook speakers are best in class, and I don’t think that’s an accident) over time it will be more and more worth it. I think apple killed this “sonos killer” project because they want to develope it from scratch, after the aquisition. I bet they will still release a competing product in 2-3 years.
I have several Sonos units. The are high quality. Tech service is great and the user interfaces for both OS and iOS are terrific. Sonos is the Apple of the connected speakers business. My bet is that Apple will acquire Sonos with loose change from their almost $200 billion cash.
Nope
The streaming part of the system is perfect. Reliable, perfect multi room functionality, pairing speakers as a stereo system. The speakers itself are good value for the money but not high quality to my ears.
If most of one’s music is stored in the cloud via iTunes match, Sonos doesn’t work because you would have to download all the music to the iOS device. Apple does not grant access to one’s library outside of its own software. I don’t see Apple changing this with the new Apple Music service.
I don’t think you understand Sonos. It streams from your iTunes library, not from iTunes Match. If you have it in Match, you have it on your computer. No need to download to your iOS device. The iOS app is just a controller allowing you to access your iTunes library (and internet content provides, such as SiriusXM, Pandora, etc.). So, Sonos DOES work. I don’t think you really understand what Sonos does.
@Ian: Yes, I understand exactly how Sonos works. This is exactly my point: you have to download your iTunes music to the device to have access via the Sonos app. But: Spotify, Amazon Music, Deezer, TuneIn and many more are integrated into the app. You can stream Spotify or Amazon Music content to your Sonos without downloading anything. But Apple does not allow 3rd party apps access to your library in the cloud so far. And I guess they won’t allow it with Apple Music.
What’s the point about having all your music in the cloud when you have to download it every time? That is terribly inconvenient. And the reason why I stick with AirPlay right now, despite of Sonos being technically advanced and more reliable.
You don’t download anything! The Mac and Windows Sonos controller app sits on your computer where your music is (the same music you uploaded to the cloud). When you use the iOS or Android app on your phone to play Sonos, you do not “download” anything…you stream it from your computer. The fact that you may have the music in the iTunes Match cloud is not relevant or required!! And, yes, you can stream from internet services like Pandora, Spotify, etc. I don’t know why you insist that to play your own iTunes library on Sonos you must download it first. That is just wrong.
Not launching a new range of hardware that supports apples own AirPlay direct standard when they launched the streaming service is a missed opportunity for me!!!
I can’t see Apple into hifi hardware, computer yes but hifis, lol.
Another thing many say yes but no when they need to put money where their mouth is.
Short memory have we?
hifi?!?!? WTF?!?! Lol, what standard did Apple introduce and is supported throughout thier product line, including the Apple TV which doesn’t support Bluetooth audio??? What part of this ain’t u understanding Lol.
I’ve been looking for a portable speaker along the UE mega boom lines that supports AirPlay direct for months
Beats Suck….
Nothing really to see here, they were probably going to make it with inferior specs and materials, and it’s powers of differentiation were probably going to be zilch. Apple isn’t going to allow money to be spent on layman business tactics.
For now, just integrate Apple Music onto Sonos and I could be sold.
Until this happens, I’ll be staying with Spotify!
This doesn’t make sense to me. To be a Sonos “killer” they’d have to have a platform that supported all of the various services Sonos supports. Almost all of those services were direct competitors to Beats Music Service.
Otherwise, it wouldn’t have been a “killer”, it would have been overpriced bass heavy speakers that worked with a single music service that had few subscribers.
“Sonos offers a line of speakers like this, but Beats had no interest in partnering with any existing company”
So then why did they offer the Beats Music Service to Sonos, which is still available as a channel today?
“users would have been able to play the same music synchronously throughout the house, while also being directly connected to streaming services like Spotify and Apple Music.”
Again, why would Beats offer competitive services, and not only didn’t Apple Music exist at the time prior to acquisition, but iTunes Radio didn’t have an API for 3rd party support.
It sounds to me like Beats had plans to offer a wireless speaker system based on WiFi, Bluetooth and NFC. They may have had plans to support multiple protocols, including AirPlay, but plans were nixed for the whole project once Apple acquired them.
And that was probably a very wise decision.
$700 for a speaker because someone put bluetooth and wifi in it?
Yea no wonder Apple killed it?
Sonos products are not cheap, but it’s more than wifi. The ability to play different music from your library on different Sonos zones is much more than airplay. Before you judge, check it out. It’s a fantastic product.
How many “Sonos Killers” have there been? Logitech Squeeze box? Terrible. Bose? Terrible. Let’s face it, Sonos is fantastic and nobody has come close. For those who will bash the sound of the Sonos speakers, remember you can use your own.
As for Beats….mediocre headphones marketed brilliantly. They are not very good.
How can someone built a sonos killer that lacks quality? Sure, Beats knows a lot about marking and is pulling it of to offer overpriced products and actually sell them. I don’t want to bash Beats and I have bought a couple of their headphones but besides looking good what is really left? Medium products that should cost 50-75% of the retail price.
On the other hand we are talking about the first really great working multi room product. As a sonos fan I willingly admit that they are not #1 in style. The sub looks great and the playbar also looks nice below my TV but all together pretty mainstream. They let form follow function and weather you stream from your NAS, your Mac, your iDevice or something like Deezer the quality is always great and it is completely in sync. I built out my home step by step over the last years and even if I use all 12 speakers at once whom are set up in 8 rooms it just sound perfect without even disturbing my wifi.
I guess many people would habe bought the Beats “killer” system but I am positive that it would not really have the quality to be a “killer”.
Thinking about it, maybe Apple should buy sonos. After all what is better that using Apple TV with a 5.1 sonos system?
Reblogged this on rockstoff.net and commented:
Don’t really know what is playing at here. Beats has such a strong brand but could really benefit from some quality. Missed opportunity, or more to follow?