[derefr]

Apple didn't buy a headphone maker for expertise at making headphones that sound good. Apple Stores sell headphones from any number of brands—including B&O—so there's nothing to gain by making their own headphones more audiophile-friendly. They still make money off of other companies' audiophile-targeted headphones, without having to actually design and produce any.

Instead, Apple bought the headphone maker whose products make money through a combination of visually-distinct brand-recognition and a high level of "fit and finish"—the same way their own hardware does. Beats slots into Apple's product-design paradigm as naturally as if they had created the brand themselves.

[MBCook]

There's a pretty good argument they bought Beats for the music service (and it's people and relationships), which they turned into/merged with Apple music. They seem to have left the headphone business alone (other than giving one kind of Beats have the same chipset that the AirPods have).

[derefr]

> They seem to have left the headphone business alone

Well, why wouldn't they? Going by my argument, it was already being done "the way they would have done it."

It's like moving in with someone who already has the same cleaning habits that you do: you can just leave them alone and trust them to do the right thing, and then be happy with the results.

[MBCook]

Apple has never really bought something and left it alone before. While the Beats headphone brand was good, some people wondered if they would change it somehow. "Beats presented by Apple" or something like that. Start putting their logo on the product, etc.

I'm not saying it would be a smart idea. I think Apple did the right thing. But Apple couple years ago may well have made a change like that.