I don't think there's an emoticon or emoji for how laughable this is. Steve Jobs until the day he died raved about people wanting to own their music. He may have changed his mind now with iTunes sales dwindling, but don't act like Steve Jobs was some guy ready to turn iTunes into a streaming service.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Backs Down on $7.99 Price Point for New Music Service After Meeting Resistance From Record Labels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think there's an emoticon or emoji for how laughable this is. Steve Jobs until the day he died raved about people wanting to own their music. He may have changed his mind now with iTunes sales dwindling, but don't act like Steve Jobs was some guy ready to turn iTunes into a streaming service.
Yeah, why doesn't Apple use their ridiculous cash reserve and just buy the music industry to do us all a favor!
With jobs gone. Who in Apple would even put up a fight in these meetings? Tim....please.
----------
You are correct. Though if jobs wanted to get a $7.99 deal, geez he would have put up an impressive fight, and those that crossed him, would have made his **** list
----------
You are correct. Though if jobs wanted to get a $7.99 deal, geez he would have put up an impressive fight, and those that crossed him, would have made his **** list
An ad supported model kind of stinks and isn't viable long haul. $9.99 a month seems like a very fair amount to pay.
I pay that already for Spotify, and i bet Beats/Apple service will be a quality option too. it will be interesting to see service comparison.
Beats is sure to up their game.
----------
if you want higher sound quality Try Tidal.
though they don't make it easy to sign up today.
http://tidalhifi.com/us/campaign/audio
I hope Apple doesn't screw this up too and comes with the "Apple themed Spotify"
They had the potential to reinvent the wearable watch and give importance to a lot of sensors, making sense of data, sleep tracking, heart monitoring and a bunch of other fitness/health things like rumoured but they just kind of mimicked Android Wear in an Apple way.
I just hope they don't go that way with the streaming service. Even if they're the same price I'd go with Apple's service because it would be native to my iPhone and Mac. User interface would be much more matching. I'd even pay extra if the entire iTunes catalogue was available.
They had the potential to reinvent the wearable watch and give importance to a lot of sensors, making sense of data, sleep tracking, heart monitoring and a bunch of other fitness/health things like rumoured but they just kind of mimicked Android Wear in an Apple way.
I just hope they don't go that way with the streaming service. Even if they're the same price I'd go with Apple's service because it would be native to my iPhone and Mac. User interface would be much more matching. I'd even pay extra if the entire iTunes catalogue was available.
I agree. The widely available MP3 converters that grab audio from YouTube videos always does the trick. You are right though, didn't they learn from trying to rip people off with overpriced CDs that people WILL get what they want somehow for free if you overcharge? It's so easy too.
How DUH are they? Idiots.
Very easy solution for Apple. Copy Amazon strategy of "LOSS LEADER" by selling it for $7.99. Pay the music labels 70% of $9.99 like Spotify is currently doing.
Price: $7.99
Royalties: $6.99
= $1.00 margin for Apple.
Likely will be a loss for Apple after overhead, server, staff are factor in but Apple can easily afford it. It's loose coins for Apple.
Maybe Apple is afraid shareholders will revolt over 10% margin when the standard is 30%.
When your service is selling for $7.99 and others like Spotify, Rdio, Google Music All Access, Youtube Key, Deezer etc...are selling it for $9.99, you GAIN MARKET SHARE.
Billboard article:
Apple would have to absorb the loss if it sets a price lower than the standard $9.99
It would be a REVERSE APPLE PREMIUM TAX in which Apple is giving back to the fans. Apple benefits by gaining market share in subscription music and fan loyalty.
Price: $7.99
Royalties: $6.99
= $1.00 margin for Apple.
Likely will be a loss for Apple after overhead, server, staff are factor in but Apple can easily afford it. It's loose coins for Apple.
Maybe Apple is afraid shareholders will revolt over 10% margin when the standard is 30%.
When your service is selling for $7.99 and others like Spotify, Rdio, Google Music All Access, Youtube Key, Deezer etc...are selling it for $9.99, you GAIN MARKET SHARE.
Billboard article:
Apple would have to absorb the loss if it sets a price lower than the standard $9.99
It would be a REVERSE APPLE PREMIUM TAX in which Apple is giving back to the fans. Apple benefits by gaining market share in subscription music and fan loyalty.
When Google Play All Access Music first came out, it was at $7.99 for a limited time. Maybe Apple can do something similar.
$7.99 for those who subscribe in the first six months. Apple will only get $1 margin from it but gain market share. Maybe get some Spotify users to defect. Win Win.
If Apple is feeling generous, this limited promo can be extended.
1 million subscribers at $1 instead of $3 margin would mean a loss of $2 each month. $24 a year per subscriber would mean $24 million loss if Apple can get 1 million to subscribe.
$24 million LOSS LEADER is chump change for Apple to kickstart Itunes Unlimited.
(YES, I'm pretty certain that will be the name).
$7.99 for those who subscribe in the first six months. Apple will only get $1 margin from it but gain market share. Maybe get some Spotify users to defect. Win Win.
If Apple is feeling generous, this limited promo can be extended.
1 million subscribers at $1 instead of $3 margin would mean a loss of $2 each month. $24 a year per subscriber would mean $24 million loss if Apple can get 1 million to subscribe.
$24 million LOSS LEADER is chump change for Apple to kickstart Itunes Unlimited.
(YES, I'm pretty certain that will be the name).
Same here. When I used the free 7-day trial of Beats last year, I was not impressed at all with their content compared to Spotify.
For now, I'll happily pay the $9.99 + tax for Spotify until Apple/Beats can somehow beat them on both pricing and content.
I think Spotify had such lead in the market that it's going to be hard to dislodge by outside companies like Apple. I mean when it first came to the US they borrowed a page from Apple's marketing book and made it invite only which boosted popularity for what at the time was a relatively unknown service here.
invite is a marketing strategy that has been existent long before Apple existed.
http://time.com/3759707/apple-beats-spotify/
Sources also told the Times that Apple, once considered the undisputed leader in music sales with iTunes, had recently failed to convince record labels to agree to a subscription cost of $8 per month, which would be $2 less than the price of Spotify’s paid tier.
Spotify pays about $7 in royalties and offer it for $10.
Apple can pay the same $7 in royalties and offer it for $8. LOSS LEADER if you will.
Apple win market share. For a new subscriber, it's a no-brainer.
Itunes Unlimited for $8 or Spotify for $10.
Unlike Spotify, Apple can afford the "loose change" losses.
Sources also told the Times that Apple, once considered the undisputed leader in music sales with iTunes, had recently failed to convince record labels to agree to a subscription cost of $8 per month, which would be $2 less than the price of Spotify’s paid tier.
Spotify pays about $7 in royalties and offer it for $10.
Apple can pay the same $7 in royalties and offer it for $8. LOSS LEADER if you will.
Apple win market share. For a new subscriber, it's a no-brainer.
Itunes Unlimited for $8 or Spotify for $10.
Unlike Spotify, Apple can afford the "loose change" losses.
That's a shame.
Tidal is about to relaunch. They just cut their $19.99 service for HD FLAC streaming to $9.99 so whatever Beats was going to do with their lossy files for the same price is now rendered moot.
It's 2015, lossless stream should be the normal. MP3 was the solution when the internet first started. Too bad Apple refuses to think different.
You were dead before you were alive Beats. RIP Spotify.
Tidal is about to relaunch. They just cut their $19.99 service for HD FLAC streaming to $9.99 so whatever Beats was going to do with their lossy files for the same price is now rendered moot.
It's 2015, lossless stream should be the normal. MP3 was the solution when the internet first started. Too bad Apple refuses to think different.
You were dead before you were alive Beats. RIP Spotify.
Then most important thing is that Taylor Swift gets her billions so whatever they have to do to ensure Miss Prissy gets her way.
Maybe Apple could price it at $8.99.
Pay $6.99 in royalties and sell for $8.99. Not the typical Apple profit margin but it could gain market share when Spotify is selling at $9.99.
Pay $6.99 in royalties and sell for $8.99. Not the typical Apple profit margin but it could gain market share when Spotify is selling at $9.99.