Apple Asking Music Labels to Cut Prices on Music Streaming Subscriptions

[MacRumors]

Apple is asking music labels to cut prices on music streaming subscription services so that it can offer its new, revamped Beats Music service for less than $10 a month, reports Re/code. The Cupertino company is also looking to add new features to the service.

Sources say Apple is talking to the big music labels about a new set of rights and features it would like to include in a revamped version of the Beats Music service it bought earlier this year. Among the things Apple wants is a new pricing structure that would allow it to sell the service for less than the $10 level it's at now.

Apple isn't planning on overhauling Beats Music until next year, and discussions with music labels are in early stages. In late September, it was rumored that Apple was planning on introducing a revamped Beats Music in early February, presumably timed to debut alongside the Grammy Awards on February 8.

The company has tried to undercut competitors with music rates before, trying to pay half the royalty rate that Pandora paid while in negotiations for what would become iTunes Radio in early 2013.

Re/code notes that music executives were once worried about streaming services cannibalizing CD music sales but eventually agreed to deals with streaming services, which some music industry observers feel is priced too high as the market for consumers who want to pay $10 a month to stream music is limited. In August, a report from Midia Research suggested only 25 percent of consumers pay $10 for music every three months.

Article Link: Apple Asking Music Labels to Cut Prices on Music Streaming Subscriptions

 

[farewelwilliams]

"ok Apple, sure."

*goes to artists*

"hey umm..you guys will now get nothing. kthx"

 

[kwikdeth]

the race to the bottom accelerates. its a wonder anyone even tries to make a living on music anymore.

 

[GeneralChang]

Yeah, I’d like it to be cheaper, but at the same time I don’t want Apple to go to war with labels over pricing. Especially since that would most likely affect the artists the most financially, at least the one’s that can’t really tour, and then the quality of the music available would decrease. Kinda like what Amazon is doing with books. And I don’t support that.

 

[PS8409]

You all need to watch Artifcact about 30 Sec to Mars. Very eye opening and sorta depressing. After the movie I bought two of their songs lol if you like it buy it!

 

[jm001]

Asking the music labels to cut their subscription prices? Wow. And with a straight face! Apple has some cojones.

 

[ronwasserman]

It is getting worse although I still make a pretty substantial amount from iTunes worldwide. That being said, TV is my real bread and butter.

But things are slowly getting worse for bands-musicians-songwriters-producers-studios and so on.

 

[Glassed Silver]

It's zero or bust for me.

I'd only play music that's not in my library already to discover new music or trial listen to some.

If you find an international, maybe iTunes Match-covered model, I'll be on it and take advantage of this so hyped curation feature of Beats Music that Tim Cook has been so fond of. After all it will generate sales if I like the so relevant music?

Glassed Silver:mac

 

[gate5blues]

Streaming Model Screws Artists

Honestly, most streaming services are already only paying artists just more than 1 penny a play... That means you as a listener would have to listen to that song 70 times to give the artist even close to the 70 cents they make on 99 cent download today.

Take a look at your iTunes play count for the most popular song in your library and you'll get a good idea of why this is bad for the artists... and ultimately the Listener and Apple (if they aren't paying artists well).

I know many artists who are starting to shun the streaming model for services such as BandCamp and are ultimately making more money because of it...

Apple, please don't undercut artists. Pay them what they are worth and value the arts.

 

[subsonix]

I think there are opportunities in making a streaming service that pays more, not less. Wouldn't musicians be more inclined to sell their music on channels where they make more money, including releasing first, exclusives etc. I think so.

 

[powerstrokin]

and then the quality of the music available would decrease

Ha! Have you heard the crap that's out these days?

 

[Moonlight]

The idea of Music labels is so antiquated. Music creators shouldn't need labels anymore. They are worthless middlemen.

 

[subsonix]

The idea of Music labels is so antiquated. Music creators shouldn't need labels anymore. They are worthless middlemen.

You underestimate the work, skill and money needed to successfully record and launch an artist. You may be a great artist, but suck at the administrative part, having someone taking care of that for you enables you to concentrate on exactly what you are good at.

 

[macduke]

Honestly, most streaming services are already only paying artists just more than 1 penny a play... That means you as a listener would have to listen to that song 70 times to give the artist even close to the 70 cents they make on 99 cent download today.

Some people like me listen to music a lot more now that they've got a streaming subscription. I started out on Pandora in college, graduated up to Spotify and now I'm on Rdio. I'm not going to buy a song unless I plan on listening to it way more than 70 times—which means that I didn't buy a lot of songs. But repeating many of the same playlists while at work and in the car I'm sure I get close to that for many songs over a year. Over several years I'm sure that they make more. How much of a cut is the record label giving them of thst 70 cents? Also, I'm not sure if iTunes play counts include playback on iPhones, etc?

 

[sundog925]

Pandora one is 4.99$ a month.
Step it up apple. You have BILLIONS.

$2/month and I'll sign up.

 

[Moshe1010]

Spotify > anything Apple would ever try to make.

 

[macfoxpro]

Make it a dollar and I'm in. Otherwise I'll do free pandora with commercials.

 

[KernelG]

Honestly, most streaming services are already only paying artists just more than 1 penny a play...

Most pay out fractions of pennies, actually.

We wrote off streaming profits long ago. We have to think of it as promo, the way terrestrial radio promotes sales. (Though if can get good airplay on terrestrial, songwriters & publishers can make good money, but the income comparison there is also apples/oranges.)

 

[ijlakw]

pathetic.....

 

[KieranDotW]

It still boggles my mind when people justify illegal downloading because of how much money the label takes. Sure it's bad, but I'd rather have the artist get something than literally nothing.

 

[gadgetguy03]

It still boggles my mind when people justify illegal downloading because of how much money the label takes. Sure it's bad, but I'd rather have the artist get something than literally nothing.

I can't think of any music worth downloading illegally.

 

[mtneer]

You underestimate the work, skill and money needed to successfully record and launch an artist. You may be a great artist, but suck at the administrative part, having someone taking care of that for you enables you to concentrate on exactly what you are good at.

Lot of other founders hire administrative and financial support too . They just don't take over their client and throw them pennies to the dollar.

 

[captain kaos]

So the artists will get f***ked over even more, as the music + streaming companies rake it in. Brilliant.

 

[RockSpider]

I sometimes wonder why I really dislike Apple and then this.

 

[darkslide29]

Pandora one is 4.99$ a month.
Step it up apple. You have BILLIONS.

$2/month and I'll sign up.

COMPLETELY different models to compare. You should compare it to a similar service instead, such as Spotify.