The world’s most valuable technology company is apparently set to finally spend some of its not inconsiderable war-chest on making a major acquisition – the sort of thing that Facebook and Google do every other week. In its sights is headphone super-brand Beats, for a cool $3.2 billion (£1.9 billion).

Created by Jimmy Iovine and Dr Dre, who is doing his best to make sure no-one has ‘forgot about Dre’, the headphone brand has gone from strength to strength.

The proposed buy has been met with some fervent support and some stiff opposition, so here’s a brief rundown of what Apple stands to gain or lose:

Apple’s buying ‘cool’ – While there’s no doubt Apple’s star still shines brightly, it’s definitely lost a bit of its glow to the younger generation. This is partly down to a perceived lack-of-innovation and partly down to the fact an emotive challenger brand has become a stable, dominant industry leader.

Many have claimed Apple buying Beats equates to Apple to buying some ‘cool’ back. That sounds a bit desperate for an incomparably large tech-giant and it’s hard to know exactly how Apple would cash in on that ‘cool’. That’s ignoring it’s pretty uncool in itself to need to buy cool. Even so if Apple can come out of that relatively unscathed they’ll own one of the world’s most prominent audio brands at the moment, with the opportunity to incorporate the attractiveness of Beats into Apple’s own offering wherever they like. Free Beats headphones with iPhones for example could become something that Samsung and HTC find impossible to match.

Apple’s buying audio credibility (if not quality) – Beats certainly come with credibility, I’m sure it wouldn’t be too hard to argue Dr Dre knows a bit more about music than Tim Cook. But the critics aren’t actually all that fond of Beats either, with them being regarded as heavily over-priced for how good they really sound. Not to mention accusation on it being reliant on style over substance. Some commentators are claiming with Apple’s past reputation for striving for the best of everything in hardware that buying Beats doesn’t represent a quality-led acquisition. Nevertheless they’re much better than Apple’s current headphones which represent one of Apple’s most common sticking points in the consumer markets – but it’s a $3bn spend on a technology Apple already fundamentally has.

Apple’s getting a leading streaming service – Beats has a streaming service, Beats Music, it’s not the best or the biggest, but its successful and unlike many others it’s paid subscription only and so far people have been willing to pay $10 a month for the service. Apple on the other hand has seen its iTunes market greatly eroded by streaming services, something iTunes Radio (their one year old streaming offering) has been unable to compete with. Realistically though, if Apple were desperately after a streaming service then Spotify, Rdio or Pandora would be much better buys, so that suggests the Cupertino company are at least partly interested in Beats hardware and brand equity.

What Apple’s really getting – All of those things, but not without drawbacks.

All in all despite it being Apple and Beats, two brands known for their showstopping drama, it’s a bit of a safe buy. Just how wrong can it go? It’s a solid brand with a solid product with a bonus streaming service. There’s nothing there Apple doesn’t want, but nothing that’s going to fundamentally change the landscape of consumer tech. It's neither marketing victory, nor marketing disaster.

The can of worms that’s potentially being opened though is – are Beats headphones without an Apple logo cooler than those with an apple logo? Does it matter if they are.

With all the money in the world Apple is going out and buying something it largely has, with a not outstanding reputation of quality or innovation. From my perspective this acquisition is all very ‘new’ Apple, not ‘old’ Apple – safe, rational and loosely uninspiring – but with the potential to masquerade as the opposite. The fact that we're talking about Apple buying someone who just makes headphones, rather than Apple's latest jaw-dropping innovation says more than almost any acquisition could.

Online retail giant Amazon is reported to be making a massive departure from the normal stats-hike of smartphone development, as its debut phone, arriving in June, will feature a 3D-capable screen.

This is in sharp contrast to the slowing evolution of established brands in the mobile phone space. Apple, Samsung, HTC and the many others are opting for slight improvements to existing models while the hardware makers are pushing more pixels into the screen at a depth that comes close to imperceptible.

While it’s not an obvious move from the Jeff Bezos led company, it has a precedent, with the Kindle going from curious technological move to (at one point) the second best selling tablet on the planet. 3D is fast becoming the next great step in consumer tech and all the major movers are pushing higher stakes into the game; Facebook have acquired VR start up Oculus Rift, while Microsoft are considering a 3D scanner for inclusion on their next phone. Alongside the software potential, the 3D printing revolution’s continued surge has prompted Fox’s Business division to ask whether it’s set to re-invigorate Amercia’s manufacturing industry.

As a company serving the digital space, the potential disruption and development that 3D proposes is a fascinating situation for us to ponder. As recruitment specialists though we know where there’s development, there’s opportunity and where there’s opportunity there’s jobs. So the stats prove – 3D rendering soared by 43.9% to 2,784 jobs, 3D animation rose by 35.7% to 3,183 jobs and 3D modelling increased 34.5% to 3,230 jobs.

The momentous shift to mobile from desktop continues unabated, with mobile phone jobs increasing by 35.3% to 13,340 positions. That’s only more good news for Amazon who have the chance to effectively own the 3D retail space as they did the online retail space. With a marriage of software, hardware and service in an ecosystem that even lock-in specialists Apple could envy, Amazon could prove to be a very significant dark horse in the race for digital domination.

Within digital jobs though, it hints at a future where certain skill-sets are about to take on another dimension.

With Apple and Samsung returning to the courtrooms to fight the second round of the ongoing patent case an interesting bi-product has been the public release of several internal correspondences from major Apple staff.

The ‘Holy War’

First up is the Apple vs Google battle that is seemingly dominating everything with a microchip. Steve Jobs, Apple’s former CEO who tragically died in 2011 wasn't shy about his dislike for the internet giant, having famously promised ‘thermonuclear war’ on them. In Jobs’ biography he stated ‘“I’m going to destroy Android, because it’s a stolen product.” For the leaked e-mails Jobs settled for the equally dramatic ‘Holy War’ (scheduled for 2011). It’s an interesting thing to note with Apple frequently denying paying any attention to their competitor’s actions and with Google standing as an awkward but interested (and hugely related) 3^rd party in the latest court case. It was years removed from being the first time Jobs’ had threatened ‘war’ with Google, as in 2005 he’d let Sergey Brin of Google know that any poaching of staff between the companies would lead to that outcome. That behind-the-scenes agreement between major tech giants is currently the topic of another unrelated court case.

Samsung joined in for good measure, their own correspondence outlined their objective: “Beating Apple is #1 Priority (everything must be in context of beating Apple).”

The ‘Top 100’

That particular ‘Holy War’ was a prominent discussion point in a meeting of ‘The Top 100’, somewhere secret and far from the Cupertino company’s main campus. The Top 100, it is revealed, is a select bunch of Apple’s top employees that are invited to strategise the company’s plans for the years ahead.

The ‘Next Big Thing’

Apple’s competition and its relevance to the company at large comes into clearer focus in an exchange of e-mails with its ad agency, TBWA/The Media Arts Lab.  With Samsung debuting its Next Big Thing campaign, created by agency 72andSunny, to a hugely positive public response Apple’s marketing department faced an unusually imposing threat to its image. Apple’s SVP of Marketing Phil Schiller was prompted into a sharp response to the agency’s suggestion that Apple’s internal structure was blocking progress on “nailing a compelling brief for the iPhone”. 

The Here and now

However with Apple seeking a $2 billion dollar lawsuit and with the potential aftermath of massive blocks on developments integral to the Android OS this courtcase could leave a hugely different tech landscape. With Samsung making a handy Google stooge for Apple it seems that whether ‘Thermonuclear’, ‘Holy’ or just incredibly ‘Cold’ a true Apple vs Google clash may be on the horizon.

All that probably will end up meaning though is more and more court cases.

The next frontier for consumer electronics could well be the market of wearable technology. Giants such as Google, Sony and Samsung are relentlessly pursuing a future of interaction, where time-honoured accessories such as glasses and watches are upgraded into hyper-connected devices in the increasingly pervasive ‘internet of things'. Apple are shuffling their feet and smiling coyly, but their promises of big things to come are likely to involve the wearable market.

As smartphones reach an inevitable plateau in mature markets and the average consumer is reluctant to pay over £500 for a marginally better camera and shinier shiny bits, there is a clear need to create a new mass market of appeal within technology. Which means wearable technology as it seeks the love of the masses will find itself hearing the same question again and again:

… But does it look good?

Up until now the answer would have been uncertain, if you’re kind, and tinged with negativity, but now Google has grabbed the reins and brought in Ray-Ban and Oakley (owned by Italian brand Luxottica) to dramatically upgrade the look of its Glass units.

Google have also announced Android Wear, a stable platform, an API which the whole network of differently-branded products can be built upon, allowing potentially a variety of design flourishes and differing directions. Rather than buying into a technophile dream of a connected-world, through imperfect experimental devices (like early Glass explorers, perhaps), they’re buying the same thing they always have: a really nice looking watch.

The near future could present a much more augmented experience than just glasses and watches though, already Google has created internet-connected contact lenses that measure glucose levels for diabetics. In fact the mystery, importance and sheer sci-fi appeal, of where Google is going next is worth its CEO, Larry Page, giving a talk on the topic to TED. The impact of wearable technology is hard to estimate, but if it did reach widespread adoption all of the established structure of the World Wide Web, advertising and even personal health could need to be re-written.

More than ever the world will be at your fingertips or hovering a few centimeters from your eyeball. A whole world of new opportunities, tasks made easier and information increasingly personalised and delivered at exactly the right moment. It's an exciting prospect.

So it comes back to the shallow but fundamental question we may each find ourselves asking, not just as a boardroom consideration at Google, but the final thought before we put our own hands into our wallets and purses: but does it look good enough to wear?