Apple's Discontinuation of Lala Streaming Music Service Not Likely Leading to Imminent Launch of Web-Focused iTunes

[MacRumors]

With today's news that Apple is planning a May 31st shutdown for Lala Media, the streaming music service it acquired last December, speculation has arisen that Apple may be on the verge of launching its own cloud-based version of iTunes. MediaMemo reports, however, that industry sources are indicating that such a move would have to occur a bit further down the road.

Sources tell me that in the past few weeks, Apple has started signaling to the labels that it's interested in a Web-based version of iTunes, its dominant music retail platform. But those conversations are preliminary at best.

The music industry has reportedly rejected Apple's earlier proposals for a cloud-based iTunes, claiming that offering users the ability to stream a single purchased track to multiple devices should require the labels to receive greater revenue than they do under the current system, a position Apple and its customers would generally not be likely to accept.

The report notes that Apple could try to argue that users have the legal right to stream their purchased content to their own devices as they see fit, but such a move would antagonize the record labels and also likely hamper Apple's efforts to expand its content deals in other media segments such as television networks.

Article Link: Apple's Discontinuation of Lala Streaming Music Service Not Likely Leading to Imminent Launch of Web-Focused iTunes

[elppa]

The music industry is quite happy to give favourable terms to services like Spotify (which, by the way, they make even less money from), but if Apple wants a cloud based iTunes they stick up barriers.

[the-oz-man]

Is it too much to ask that I own my music AND stream it however I want to? I can do something like that right now thanks to some creative home server products. Apple would just make it work more easily for me.

[PandaOnslaught]

I dont see how this is a good thing, from the sounds of it, nabster 5.0, you pay to stream content, and dont get to store it? or you can store it also, if its the ladder, yes its cool but if its stream only and you pay to be able to listen, then whats the point, you can just go on youtube or myspace to listen to it, i think this is a really lame decision.

[TheSlush]

If the music industry perceives any opportunity to sell the same product to the same customer multiple times, they will fight to protect it.

[Dagless]

Didn't Apple used to have a browser based do-hicky? I'm sure I remember course mates streaming music from one computer to another through Safari.

[ddrueckhammer]

If Apple limits the number of devices you can stream to, I don't see a problem. One can already stream iTunes music in the home via home sharing. What is the problem with being able to stream it to your devices over the internet? The labels apparently didn't have a problem with Microsoft allowing Zune users to stream to each other in a limited area.

If the RIAA and labels keep blocking Apple's plans, maybe they should start striking up some conversations with artists behind the scenes to directly distribute their content once their contracts are up. How many artists would like to keep more than the paltry 7% the labels give them, especially if Apple would help with tour costs and advertising. At first, Apple would lose a ton of iTMS business but another way to look at it is that they would gain exclusive access to some of the biggest artists.

[SirOmega]

The only way to fix this garbage heap of a situation with the labels and apple (and everyone else) is compulsory licensing. Thats the only way to take the labels and their heel-dragging, head-up-their-ass approach out of innovation.

[marc.cizravi]

Originally Posted by MacRumors

The music industry has reportedly rejected Apple's earlier proposals for a cloud-based iTunes, claiming that offering users the ability to stream a single purchased track to multiple devices should require the labels to receive greater revenue than they do under the current system, a position Apple and its customers would generally not be likely to accept.

Someone want to clarify the reasoning here?

I pay 99 cents to own the song, but have to pay more if I decide to stream it to my ipod, iphone, ipad, or foreign computer when I'm away from my home computer?

[Stetrain]

This seems like something that Apple would want to announce during its fall media event anyway.

[dashiel]

i really would have thought more than a decade on from napster the music companies would have shifted enough of their baby-boomer upper management drones out the door to prevent such short-sighted decisions. the only thing i can come up with is they know their industry is dead and those at the top are trying to squeeze the last few dimes out of the corpse before the industry decentralizes completely.

[sassenach74]

Originally Posted by RiceRacerDX

This is an example of how not to use commas.

So what? You've added zero to the thread.

I see the record labels are being greedy, no surprise there. I like the earlier suggestion of Apple having talks with the artists directly.

[alexhasfun28]

How about a regular iTunes September like launch like every other iTunes update every year. Not during a WWDC? If that's what some people are trying to say..

[Googlyhead]

Huh? They want me to pay more for what??

If I've already purchased a song, why on earth should I be forced to pay more simply to listen to it? Bleeding a stone dry!

[optophobia]

Originally Posted by sassenach74

So what? You've added zero to the thread.

I see the record labels are being greedy, no surprise there. I like the earlier suggestion of Apple having talks with the artists directly.

Unlike Apple who only takes 30% of music sales ....

[Icaras]

Originally Posted by RiceRacerDX

This is an example of how not to use commas.

I felt like I was in gridlock traffic reading that

[paul4339]

"... it's interested in a Web-based version of iTunes ..."

Yes, get rid of the current clunky iTunes client (or at least create an alternative web version).

(just make sure you don't create the iTunes web version in flash).

P.

[Llywen]

Originally Posted by sassenach74

So what? You've added zero to the thread.

But lots of goodwill from all us who have to read this user's posts in future threads!

[SubtltzSir]

Whew. I'm glad it's way off (if ever) after reading this.

I originally suspected that the anonymous send of my entire iTunes library to them via Genius was for some nefarious purpose - like estimating how much disk space they'd need at their new data centre under construction to store all of my music and then charge me access fees to have on any of my computers/devices, anytime, anywhere.

No, that would make no sense. Now, back to my 30 hour sync to fit my 11k songs onto my 60G ipod at 128AAC.

[ddrueckhammer]

Originally Posted by optophobia

Unlike Apple who only takes 30% of music sales ....

And incur all the costs and efforts required to sell it (bandwidth, storage, customer support, transaction costs etc.). What exactly do the labels do?

[crees!]

The report notes that Apple could try to argue that users have the legal right to stream their purchased content to their own devices as they see fit, but such a move would antagonize the record labels...

So I purchase a physical CD/single and I own a DVD player, home stereo and car stereo. The record companies then state I can only play it on one and only one of those devices, and if I want to play it on more then I have to pay more for that privilege? Let's put this in perspective here.

[Nebulance]

Originally Posted by marc.cizravi

Someone want to clarify the reasoning here?

I pay 99 cents to own the song, but have to pay more if I decide to stream it to my ipod, iphone, ipad, or foreign computer when I'm away from my home computer?

yeah, it's retarded.

Then, by the same logic, aren't the CDs we burn for our own backup purposes, or even storage on a backup hard drive considered stealing -- we're <duplicating> the music, right? But, apparently, it's OK to back things up, but not OK to access it in various places, despite our purchasing of the music in the first place, way back when.

[eme jota ce]

I'd like to see Apple offer something similar to the Rhapsody service, but with better 3G support.

[macffooky]

I'm sure this is not unrelated to the demise of Simplify which allowed you to stream your (and others') iTunes library from your PC/Mac to your iPhone.

[Becordial]

So a licence to listen to music in certain ways (because that is exactly what streaming will be treated as) will cost more then it does now?

They just don't get it.