WTF? The Apple-Beats scenario has been largely met with scorn, confusion and even disbelief from tech industry watchers, AppleInsider notes. Analyst Gene Munster of Piper Jaffray said he believes an Apple acquisition of Beats would be a "bad idea… We are struggling to see the rationale behind this move. Beats would of course bring a world class brand in music to Apple, but Apple already has a world-class brand and has never acquired a brand for a brand's sake (i.e., there are no non-Apple sub-brands under the company umbrella)." Munster went on to note that Apple typically acquires companies for their technology, but he's not aware of any intellectual property within Beats that would be of interest to Apple. "I can't see Apple keeping the 'Beats' brand around for headphones," Apple pundit John Gruber wrote. "If Apple wanted to sell expensive high-end headphones, they don't need to spend $3 billion." Reaction: Duh. These so-called analysts are missing the obvious.Isn’t it obvious that this whole thing really about Apple getting competitive in the streaming sector via Beats Music? Peter Kafka of Re/code asserts that the licenses owned by Beats won't transfer after a sale to Apple. As to whether music labels who have licensed deals with Beats would want to create new deals with Apple, Kafka said he's heard "split opinions." More in our building lead story. (5/9a)