The Beats Acquisition Proves Apple has Lost its Tech Edge
Does the acquisition of Beats portend badly for the future of Apple? It may even be a desultory reminder that Apple, in effect, not only doesn't have a real plan to be as radical as Steve Jobs but no longer wants to be.
Apple’s R&D program has taken a hit in recent years. You look at the product lineup and one can only wonder whether there’s a barren, impotent, arid, intellectual wasteland that replaced the formerly brilliantly sales, creative, and industrial designer groups at Apple.
Some would point to using the same products that the March results and June guidance are better than expected. They were driven by stronger iPhone demand in the back half of the 5s/5c product cycle. iPhone shipments of nearly 44M were above consensus of 38M. However, any argument in this direction completely ignores what Apple is all about.
The acquisition program to buy Beats, as it seems, is now somewhat of a desperate ploy to play off the lack of prescient plans post-Jobs.
With the departure of so many key figures in a company to be replaced by so many who have the charisma of a damp-rag, like new CEO Tim Cook, you only wonder if we’ve come to the realization that figures like Sir Jonathan Ives (to name one of a dozen or so) might be entirely irreplaceable? And this adds another dilemma: does the Apple have such structural stagnation priced in; if not, what discount would we give pivoting out of the tech space? I don't know.
What Apple does have is its ecosystem of apps and other products. However, how does Beats fit into Apple's ecosystem?
It seems less likely that it can. The stronger argument seems to be that the Beats acquisition isn't a "weird one", as Quartz or the FT would have it, if you simply look at Apple’s future trajectory (especially it's product line like the iWatch).
Many do argue it's becoming an increasingly less tech-company (not to mention less tech savy) but what do the future product line ups tell us?
Like the iPhone, the iWatch should spawn tons of innovation that is totally spontaneous, entirely based upon creating a new category; essentially a new Apple ecosystem. That would be great. However, I doubt the iWatch will either replicate the success of the iPhone, at best, or even the luxury watch market that relies on Swiss watch market as a proxy — not to say the least bit about the future threat of Samsung watches in its third of fourth iterations.
It seems likely the iWatch will be a nice attention-seeking gamble and will be irrelevant past next year's fiscal year.
Given Apple products are pushed into existing categories way after the first movers, like the iPod (usually so Jobs could identify where a new category can be created in its place and to extract enough proof of concept, market), a 600 dollar price seems fair if this is what Apple will continue to do.
The advantage of a tech company like Apple is that is does a few products really well and keeps consumers waiting, speculating, wishing for more until comes out with its explosive new product. That factor is worth a lot in the price.
But that requires there being new tech. What new tech is in the iWatch? Apple TV? The new Apple computers? This business plan worked and would work again if Apple would shock us as a tech company. It's not though.
It would be fair to say the Beats acquisition reveals that Apple is losing its leading tech company status.
Not only is Beats is not a tech product, but the lack of a overweight bias institutional investors have on APPL stock, in contrast to the likes of AMZN, GOOG, HPQ, MSFT, and others, means Apple might be better off launching a bad tech product that’s innovative, like Steve Job’s Apple TV, just to prove it’s still there... it's still the leading edge of tech giant.
might be kind of a dumb question, but what are your thoughts on buying an iphone 6?
They have so much cash. Why not put more of that towards R&D? It worked for Samsung.
When a company becomes an acquisition junkie (see Yahoo, Facebook) it really worries me because it can make a company bloated and inefficient. It would be like a rich person buying McDonald's everyday because it's easier than putting in the effort to cook their own meal and they can afford paying a premium for that convenience.
Hopefully with this acquisition they can finally ship a good pair of headphones with the iPhone...
Beats - good headphones? Nonsense. In fact I dont like the fact of this acquisition become real not because Apple became even less 'tech', but because not it is marketing over quality. Every person who is at least fond of good quality sound knows that Beats are very bad and overprised. I don't see a reason Apple needs it.
There is only one way to understand it - as a ticket to media business. This may sound at least a bit logical.
BR, Mark
Beats aren't the best headphones, but they are decent. I've got a pair of the ear buds that wrap around your ear (don't know what they are called) and they are certainly better than cheaper headphones but without even trying out other ones, I know they won't be as good as a pair of Harmon's. The one thing that I don't know of, and don't feel like researching because I don't care is that Beats do come with a lifetime warranty on them. Like I said though, I don't know what that covers or what other higher brands offer.
And anything can be better than the headphones that ship with the iPhone. I haven't even been able to get either of them so far to stay in my ear. (I have little ears)
Also, isn't that pretty much what every one claims Apple to be? High on marketing, a high price, for not that great of stuff?
I'd like to see how they spin their recent heavy recruiting of bio.med. engineering hotshots and their product pipeline with their acquisition of Beats. If it all ends up in an iWatch with your full medical record, tailored fitness regime and getting you cheap insurance under Obamacare, I'll start shorting with both hands.
I think Apple has reached a plateau from an innovation standpoint and that's okay. You can only be an innovator for just so long. If you disagree show me a company that has been a leading innovator for over a decade that can compare to the cash cow the iPod, iPhone and iPad have been, especially when tied to the iTunes sales Apple has enjoyed... which is where this acquisition has come up. Apple failed to get into streaming music industry and is now playing catch-up. Fortunately Pandora and Spotfiy haven't been very good at getting paid subscriptions. Beats music seems to be fairly good considering how new it is,which is the only way this acquisiton makes sense and really makes this a high stakes grab that could go wrong very easily. The Beats headphone business IMHO looks to be a short term star, that will turn bust soon enough. These are middle rate headphones, that are selling for high end prices. The only thing good about Beats by Dre is they have become a status symbol along the lines of high-end basketball sneakers. It is possible that Beats could be the headphone version of Nike, but Nike's sneakers have some real R&D put into them whereas Beats seem like they are just trendy. Of course, "nobody ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public," so this trend might be here for the long term. What I see happening is thati Tunes Radio gets merged with Beats Music and that the headphones division gets spun-off and recoups most of the purchase price. As for Apple long term, the halcyon days of printing money are over. They will have to compete for sales in a way they are not used to and will have to be careful about throwing cash around to try to increase revenue.
Market: Do something...do anything with all that cash!
Apple: Okay...we are buying Beats.
Market: You fucking morons why are you spending your cash on Beats!?
Apple: {sigh}
ha, so true
Very true.
Also, while $3.2B is undoubtedly a lot of money, I think it's like 3-4 weeks free cash for Apple. Their cash will grow even after paying for Beats by the time the deal closes.
I think this is a horrible sign for the company going forward. I was reading that a major factor in the acquisition was the beats streaming service. Apple has tried to get their itunes radio service rolling against Pandora/Spotify and from personal experience it does not even come close to stacking up to what already exists. I think Apple is hoping beats streaming will improve this, but its a huge red flag that Apple is having to acquire companies that have better products than what they can produce in house.
However, I have no information on the beats streaming service so have no clue if it's truly a better product.
Apple hasn't been innovative for years. The smartphone industry is in a consolidation period BC new emerging technologies are few and far between.
It's time to put that huge mound of cash to use in more technologies. The acquisition will help in the accessory market, streaming market in mobile devices and automobiles.
Anyone have any financial statistics on beats? Everyone is shitting on the acquisition, but their margins are enormous and I'm certain they are cash flow positive. If apple can improve their hardware, I'm certain beats will continue to dominate the headphone market
Yes. Suffice it to say, AAPL is NOT paying a ridiculous price for this (on a revenue multiple or an EBITDA multiple basis)
They should be looking at Samsung Electronics, its trades at 2.5-3.0x EV/EBITDA Aside from foregin investment and monopoly laws, its Accretive everyday of the week...
I have to agree with @Doog37 about hitting the innovation plateau. Apple has developed amazing products that have revolutionized several business areas but lately well have sucked goats ass. However the acquisition of Beats was something that was long in the horizon since Beats was first born. It is a natural progression of the core LOB's they want to truly dominate i.e. music, computers, and cellphones. There will be a stop to the iPhones someday..iPhone 2050 where it looks like the one in Will Ferrell's SNL skit. If you carefully read the open source reporting on Apple you will see that they have a very lucrative area that they have not even tapped...wtf am I talking about?....800 million iTunes customers. In comparison Amazon has close to half of that. They are developing something that will really place a killer shot to Paypal (there goes the automatic flower orders!). IMHO Apple will probably begin to seek a new LOB in television..."Dude that's old crack!" . Yes it is but it is an area that they have been exploring and tweaking....Tell me no one doesn't watch Vikings on AppleTV with their sexy shield maiden bringing in the brew?! (not this guy but I wish) The BL is that Apple made a purchase based on its core business values and will continue to do so.We shouldn't expect them to change much just because we demand a "drop like it's hot" spending spree. This is a long term greed move ladies and gentlemen act accordingly.
Apple has been style over substance for a long time. Beats fits perfectly into that picture.
Buy back stock or increase your dividend.
I don't get where all the negativity is coming from.
I didn't actually see any part where you specifically spoke to why this acquisition is a bad idea. If you think this is all about the headphones then you're not paying attention to what's really going on here.
Apple wants to own the media game. They almost do now, but not quite. Streaming in particular is their weak point. iTunes Radio blows and everyone knows it. This is their ticket out. Want to compete with Spotify? Buy it pre-made. Fill in your media catalog, and there you have it. Not to mention, this is one less competitor when it comes to drawing up deals with the record label.
I think this is a great acquisition. We've been hearing about the demise of Apple for about 30 years now....still hasn't happened, and almost all the claims are based on subject, emotional options. And they're always wrong.
I'm not saying they're infallible...but I am saying they haven't really put a foot wrong yet. And they certainly have plenty of room to do so.
You must be younger than 25 BC Apple had been on the verge of bankruptcy for most of the 90s.
I am, however I'm also aware of their rough financial times in the 90s. They went through that period of time because they were the opposite of who they were now. The corporate leadership was just so out of touch with what made the company successful that they damn near drove it into the ground. Gil Amelio was the worst CEO that company ever had and he about killed it before Steve came back and put things right.
This deal has nothing to do with the Beats by Dre headphones. Apple sees something else, this is about using Jimmy Iovine to leverage mechanical royalties (ASCAP & BMI) and licensing fess with record labels. Just look at how many of the Billboard 100 artist are under Jimmy's label, even the music playing on commercials and television shows....
You hit the nail right on the head. The deal isn't to buy Beats, but to acquirstreaming Cone Jimmy Iovine.
@"FranchiseTag", Universal Music Group (of which owns Interscope Geffen A&M, the label that Iovine's Chairman of), has a stake in Beats, so that definitely delivers on the ability to leverage contacts and connections without Iovine. The Beats deal is a massive stream of money coming in and it can set the stage for a partnership with Apple for streaming music, which of course means more revenue generation for everyone. I think what your missing with Iovine is that he is coming on in an undefined creative role. You leverage the man who helped produce so many amazing Albums and created Interscope Records by allowing him to be creative and do what he does best. That's what Iovine is for Apple - he's a new creative force to help guide at least part of Apple's business.
Who knows... Iovine's guidance may end up being a godsend for Apple and help them improve on their entire means of digital distribution and tie their best innovations in streaming media to other products in the works or it could entirely screw Apple over. That's the beauty of Jimmy Iovine - he gives Apple a chance to reignite the creative spark it has slowly lost.
I don't see the negativity. Apple could easily use the Beats brand for: 1) the headphones they package with the iPhone; 2) to improve the speaker on any of their phone, tablet devices, or the iWatch/iTV; 3) Beats streaming service to add to their iTunes Radio.
Without knowing their intentions, that's easily worth such little cash for Apple. Not to mention that they can spin off the brand and recoup some of the costs if it truly is catastrophic.
Apple's not an innovator company- they take prior technology, streamline/simplify it, and put it in one good looking package. Seems to be the case here.
This pervasive idea that Apple has consistently been disrupting new industries 3-4 times a decade always shocks me-has anyone noted that they essentially had 1 product for their first 20 years (which, it should be noted, is when your business textbooks say they should have been the most disruptive)? Additionally, innovation doesn't necessarily require new product classes ex. there's some validity to the thought that they could enter the mobile payment space with the combination of their fingerprint scanner and ibeacon.
I don't like Apple products and I'm not long the stock, but trying to argue that Apple can't find a replacement for Steve Jobs (or anyone else) and that they'll never innovate again is premature.
I think everyone on this thread is fucking wrong. Does anyone even the read the fucking topic thread? Answer the god damn topic thread.
You guys act as if this is Wall Street Oasis or something. Read and respond to the god damn OP; I don't want to hear your actual opinions.
First off, settle down buddy. If you didn’t want people’s opinions, then you shouldn’t post.
Second... Except, has Apple lost its Tech Edge with this acquisition? I think it goes without saying that not every acquisition can be valued as simply as you are putting it when you are getting both products and people. Look, I know you think your analysis is spot on, and its definitely lost amongst your writing but that's a whole separate story, but like I said before (echoing @"FranchiseTag" on the point that this was a 3.2 Billion Dollar Acquisition Hire on Jimmy Iovine), they are using this as a springboard to bring a new creative genius on board.
Let me educate you about Jimmy Iovine. Iovine got his start in the music industry in 1972. Care to guess how many albums he was involved with the production of? Over 250. Between 1972 and today, Iovine worked with many famous artists including Bruce Springstein (including what is arguably Springstein's best work Darkness on the Edge of Town, B.B. King, Bob Seger, Joan Jett, John Lennon, New Kids on the Block, Patti Smith, Rod Stewart, Tom Petty and U. In 1989/1990, he cofounded Interscope Records. Interscope became a major player in the Gangsta Rap Genre and then blew up in the mid-90s, signing acts like Nine Inch Nails, No Doubt and Marilyn Manson. In 1996, Iovine would begin his rather lengthy partnership with Andre Young, who was founder and CEO of, what would ultimately become an Interscope Geffen A&M Imprint, Aftermath Entertainment. Also, in 1996, MCA, Inc - the company that would ultimately become Universal Music Group, acquired a 50% stake in Interscope. In 1999, Interscope merged with Geffen and A&M to form Interscope Geffen A&M, which would become UMG's preeminent label. In 2008, he and Young formed Beats Electronics, LLC. Over the past few years, between American Idol, Beats Electronics and UMG/Interscope Geffen A&M plus whatever other investments and plans he may have in the works, Jimmy Iovine has been busy being Jimmy Iovine.
This leads me to the big question - why didn't you discuss Jimmy Iovine? You are all high and mighty on innovation and the fact that Apple's big deal is doing something brand spanking new to result in innovation making it a leading edge tech company. If I recall, two of Apple’s biggest successes, the iPod (See: The Diamond Rio, Creative Nomad, Archos Jukebox) and the iPad (See: Nokia’s N800/N810 and the Samsung Q1 Ultra), were not trailblazing products but, as you said, improvements on existing products. One of Jobs’ strengths was reinventing the wheel – he took a product like a portable media player and turned it into the iPod and spawned a great degree of innovation from it. It required someone with a creative vision. One of the biggest factors of this deal has been that Iovine and Young would be brought on in advisory roles. All the rumor mill has said is that Iovine will be brought on in a creative role. We don't know what the strategy behind his role is, but while he is not necessarily a successor to Jobs, he is being brought on in a creative capacity. It's not out of the realm of possibility that this acquisition is the second coming of Apple, not that it is the loss of its tech edge. So here's my question to you, why do you make the blunt assertion that Apple has lost its edge when we don't know the truth about how this purchase will play out. It's one of the hardest things to consider, all said and done. I wouldn’t put the cart before the horse just yet. Let’s see what happens and if Iovine gets put in a position of creative power before saying that Apple has lost their edge as a Tech innovator.
Shit. Now that's a reply. I appreciate it.
Apple never had a "Tech Edge." Apple's strength is and has always been UI.
The quality -to-price ratio for Beats headphones is horrible. There are many better headphones at about half the price our better.
Apple to buy Beats for 3.2 Billion?! (Originally Posted: 05/17/2014)
Wow. Would be the biggest acquisition in their history. Thoughts?
From TechCrunch:
I believe the Apple stores have been carrying their headphones along with ipods for sometime now. So this acquisition does provide good synergy as Apple tries to establish a presence in the headphone market as well. Cant comment on the price as I don't know anything about Beat financials or the state of the headphone industry. I do wonder whether Apple will be acquiring and bringing in house other third party accessory makers as well, like the makers of ipod docks etc.
Well apparently Beats have about 70% of the luxury headphones market share, so the price will probably be easy to justify.
As for the headphones itself - every friend I know has broken them easily, the build quality really isn't that good, sound quality is probably above average, but haven't heard anyone calling it excellent.
Dr. Dre is getting paid. Now only if he would release Detox. Carlyle is getting paid too after their $500mm investment in Beats.
Hopefully, Apple improves the quality of these headphones.
First billionaire rapper... nice
//www.youtube.com/embed/ETGfcP9NAac
Damn. Dre came up.
Trash headphones smh.
Dre motha fuckazzz
Hah. Just heard about this. Apple would do such a thing. Beats by Dre has an excellent marketing machine, that's it.
Dr. Dre just took Monster Products and pimped out their headphones by making big names like Lady Gaga/David Guetta/Lil Wayne/Justin Bieber the faces of the brand and gave each their own limited edition lines to reach out to different subsets of the product's target market. And Dre has a bandwagon of other celebs (Kendrick Lamar, Snoop, Eminem) behind him that he's helped produce to drive the brand.
If you want headphones w top-notch sound quality/louder bass/don't leak any sound, buy Monster Products. I couldn't ever justify buying overpriced Beats. Don't care how hyped up the product gets by DJs/artists/kids. Monster's the king for sound quality and their comparable products are ~half the price.
With that said, Apple and Beats are perfect for eachother. I'm excited to see the mega-marketing machine they'll roll out together.
You are kidding right? Monster =/= high quality audio
Apparently you've never heard of things like Onkyo, B&W or PSB.. or even Sennhaiser and Audio Technica?
I've been trying to wrap my head around this, not really sure why they would do this. There's no technology that they could possibly want, Beats headphones are pretty basic and cheap inside but with tons of marketing slathered on top and a price tag about 50-200% too high depending on the model.
Are they hoping to revamp the brand and do something interesting with it? 3.2 billion is pocket change to them, they could light that much money on fire and it wouldn't matter. So I'm honestly, genuinely confused. I've been trying to think of a good reason since I first saw the story break but I still can't.
Apple is a marketing company that makes things.
If they buy Beats what will they do with it?
If they ditch the Beats brand it seems completely pointless as surely Apple could build a better headphone from scratch a hell of a lot cheaper.
You have to assume they will keep the brand (Apple Beats) but I just don’t see that much value in the brand going forward for Apple. If anything the Beats story proves that people are fickle. I genuinely believe long term success is a result of innovation and top quality product and Beats is neither innovative nor top quality.
This is all about the brand. Beats has absolutely no unique capabilities. It does not do anything that Apple is not capable of.
I wonder could a big part of the motivation here be to take Beats out of the game so a new Apple headset could gain traction a little bit down the road?
No doubt about it wearable’s are the thing of the moment. You have watches, glasses, monitors that strap to various parts of the body but one thing we have not heard much about is a truly innovative next gen headphone. Headphones have always been just headphones, some are better quality than others but on the whole you plug them in and listen. Could Apple have an eye on developing something and they worried that Beats dominance in the space could stymy the idea before it got out of the gates?
Possibly a stretch but this just seems like a strange’un.
Of course it is also possible that Apple is flat out of ideas, panicked and threw a pile of cash at the only thing they could think of.
shiiiiiiiiiiiet
Everyone's talking about the headphones, but don't forget about the Beats Music streaming service which competes directly with Spotify that they'll get in the deal.
Which has been doing awful.
competes directly? It's more like that cousin half your age who compares himself to you but you don't even remember his birthday.
I'm just glad Apple has SOME strategy besides wider screen
Interesting to see where Apple would take this. Historically, they've taken a lot of smaller relatively unknown technologies and built upon it. But this acquisition seems to be more for the branding which is quite odd. Not clear what the strategy is here
Bleh. Would have liked to see Apple design and produce their own in house headphones/audio products - or at least acquire an upper scale audio company like Harman Kardon.
Beats/Monster make shitty products that then market the hell out of them. $200 headphones probably cost $15 to make, and then $150 to market. It's a backwards business model from what Apple has historically done.
I really don't understand this acquisition.
One thing to consider is that the TC article talks about the Beats supply chain / manufacturing capabilities being topnotch, far ahead of other brands. Assuming that is true, there is some strategic rationale.
I think this makes sense. Both Apple and Beats make products that are largely driven by marketing and luxury branding. Any audiophile who knows anything about headphones will never buy a Beats product. If you head over to head-fi.org, you'll see guys talking about brands like Sennheiser, HiFiMan, Beyerdynamic, Grado, Ultrasone, etc, but never Beats, and if they do, it's only to deride the brand.
Same goes for Apple. iPhones are largely getting trounced by Android products now but are still priced in the top tier. You can get a PC laptop with higher specs and cheaper price than an equivalent Macbook, and it's the same story with iPads.
So I guess with Apple acquiring Beats, the 2 brands can combine their marketing experience to sell ever shittier products at ever higher prices.
The headphones here is only one part, I think that the bigger part of the deal is for Apple is the Beats Music streaming service. It's not as big as it could be right now and with a push the size of Apple it could get huge and with this sort of platforms the companies have a higher profit margin than if they just sell music.
I use to DJ as a kid. I use Technics, Pioneer, Denon, and Stanton headphones.. they quality and durability was insane... Incredible products.
then out of knowhere these Beats came out and I thought, oh waw they must be pretty cool to use.. yea not a chance, music quality is shit on Dre Beats and price is insane. 300 bucks for a rookie pair of headphones that are red?.. the same exam headphones but better are built by Pioneer DJ for 99 bucks and their durability was 1million times better.
This is clearly a marketing strategy play.. nothing more. The Dre products blow, all of them. nothing to crazy is going into the technology here and frankly speaking, Dre cheapass use the crap stuff.. stupid acquisition. I wonder how many other stupid rappers are gonna start releasing products because there is now a chance of an Apple buyout.
This conversation has turned into, " you know nothing about quality headphones, only I know quality headphones."
Dre's going to take the title of richest rapper from Master P for once. Crenshaw!
I'm convinced they are buying beats to distract people from the fact that they are quickly turning into a mature, less than pioneering tech company with shrinking margins and increased competition.
I would venture to bet Beats headphones have ridiculous margins. And in terms of competition in the space, it's not like the HTC M8 or the Samsung S5 are anything revolutionary - they were completely incremental upgrades this cycle so I'd say Apple has a good opportunity to distinguish themselves this year.
ATH-M50s fo lyfe
This was just the next logical move in the land grab for facial market share among large tech companies. Facebook took the eyes with Oculus, Apple have countered by taking the ears via Beats. Maybe Google Nose wasn't an April Fool's prank after all?
https://www.google.com/landing/nose/
The music streaming service is the main buy here, headphones are just a bonus.
Ahhh, WSO getting off track and into a head phone circle jerk. Most of the name brands we buy are shit compared to lesser known and cheaper products. Hence the value of branding. I would never buy beats because people are fucking douche bags with them on now.
I remember when the only head phones were those large, dumb looking things. Then ear buds came about. We've come full circle with thinking that having donuts on your head look cool.
Apple should pay a monster dividend or buy back shares. They are a cash cow and a mature company. Start acting like one.
Apple needs to get back its "hip" image, that's it. Apple being a stale/boring brand undermines most of the appeal.
Jay Z has excused himself to go kill himself now. If you want a headphone company, Beats is not the one
IMO, if Apple is going to start spending their $150+ billion in excess cash they should take a strong look at acquiring Pandora, I'd say $10-15 Billion valuation on Pandora.
If anyone's looking for a balanced pair of headphones in the $200-$300 range, I can't recommend the AKG k550's enough.
I was like you, until I tried the PSB M4U 1. Just try them and you'll see by yourself. If you have some extra money to spend you can add 100$ and get the M4U 2 with noise cancelling system if that's your thing, and if you're aren't a BSD with your own limo yet I think it's money wisely spent.
This just goes to show that branding > product. Beats headphones aren't great quality, but the branding is top-notch.
Google should retaliate by getting Justin Timberlake to start making headphones.
It's not a bad thing to fall in love...with headphones
Aut ut nihil nisi quod est possimus ut. Aut cupiditate labore laboriosam necessitatibus iste. Et repudiandae illum ea molestias.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...
Officiis et ex consectetur tenetur. Quisquam sit recusandae numquam non est. Ullam quis qui architecto distinctio expedita tempore nulla neque. Ipsum similique saepe hic voluptatum officiis. Quae quis non a ipsam.
Enim earum saepe reprehenderit excepturi veritatis libero. Rerum id voluptatem hic aut. Quis itaque sed et non tempora error.
Laboriosam qui possimus ipsam officiis odit quibusdam occaecati. Non quae impedit qui et voluptates harum vitae. Omnis praesentium ut et dolor dolores consequatur.
Sit id tempore quibusdam. Dignissimos reprehenderit corporis molestias recusandae eligendi tempora dicta. Soluta harum qui qui quibusdam accusamus reprehenderit voluptatem. Consequatur vel aut veniam deleniti laudantium saepe. Ea adipisci amet omnis neque facere libero. Nam laboriosam voluptatem repellat modi consequatur maiores. Minus nulla sed adipisci impedit est adipisci.
Enim quos esse praesentium impedit aut asperiores. Maiores facere mollitia doloremque labore numquam est molestiae beatae. Voluptas veniam quos distinctio rerum odio iste fugiat error. Impedit recusandae praesentium quod quia vel atque. Similique sint delectus qui aut. Excepturi nam ut nisi nisi iusto sunt.
Molestias consectetur non commodi dolorem. Et accusantium ipsum et quisquam sint. Unde accusantium quam cumque laboriosam. Reiciendis ipsam quidem culpa et sed voluptate. Neque officiis et dicta. Eligendi dolore beatae dolore libero. Ratione consequatur vel eum sapiente et consequatur quia.