Difficult Negotiations May Prevent 'iRadio' Launch at WWDC

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, May 17, 2013.

  1. macrumors bot

    MacRumors

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2001
    #1
    [​IMG]


    [​IMG]
    Last week, we noted that Apple was still struggling to convince the major music labels to sign on to its planned streaming service, informally dubbed "iRadio", with Sony and Warner reportedly holding out even after market leader Universal had agreed to Apple's revised terms.

    In a new article highlighting how Google was able to announce its own music service ahead of Apple, The Verge notes that Apple's desire to provide a hybrid listener experience has meant more work at the negotiating table.
    According to the report's sources, number four music publisher BMG is also holding out against Apple's proposed terms, and while there still appears to be significant momentum behind iRadio and a desire by many parties to get a deal done as quickly as possible, it is now looking as though Apple may not be able to launch the service at next month's Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC).

    Word of Apple's plans for a Pandora-like service surfaced last September, with subsequent reports indicating that Apple was targeting the first quarter of this year for a launch. As negotiations continued to prove difficult, Apple shifted its focus to a summer launch, but it now appears unclear whether the company will be able to meet even that revised goal.

    Article Link: Difficult Negotiations May Prevent 'iRadio' Launch at WWDC
     
  2. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2012
    #2
    Don't worry Eddy Cue has this ;)
     
  3. macrumors 6502a

    Ice-Cube

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2006
    Location:
    Somewhere over the rainbow
    #3
    Good things don't come easy. I'm all ears.
     
  4. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    #4
    What 'on-demand' feature would differ from Spotify/Google Music of typing in a name, artist, or album and being able to listen to it immediately?
     
  5. macrumors 68020

    bbfc

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2011
    Location:
    Gosforth, England
    #5
    We'll have to wait and see. I'm sure it will be some magic and revolutionary feature! :)
     
  6. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2007
    #6
    I'm still confused with this approach and why anyone would want it, unless it's free.
     
  7. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #7
    If Apple goes the Pandora route, they don't need to negotiate with the record labels.

    Just use the compulsory rates for Internet Radio set by Congress. That's what Pandora and iheartradio use.

    http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/201...-comparison-of-how-much-various-services-pay/

    Pureplay Webcasters Per Performance Royalty Rates
    2011 - $.00102 per performance
    2012 - $.00110 per performance
    2013 - $.00120 per performance
    2014 - $.00130 per performance
    2015 - $.00140 per performance

    Anyone who want to run an online radio can just pay that rate set by Congress.
     
  8. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    SLC, Utah
    #8
    Launch it at WWDC anyway and use the buzz as a negotiating tool.
     
  9. macrumors 601

    Plutonius

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2003
    Location:
    New Hampshire
    #9
    I would be very surprised if this really goes through.

    People are looking for a service similar to Spotify and the labels are trying to gouge Apple over the pricing (Apple as far as what was reported, offered Pandora level of pricing to the labels which is on the high side).
     
  10. macrumors G5

    gnasher729

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    #10
    "Hey Apple, all your customers are so excited about this, surely you can pay a bit more than you intended? "
     
  11. macrumors 68030

    Patriot24

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2010
    Location:
    Phoenix, AZ
    #11
    I don't think Apple has a choice. This has to launch at WWDC given Google's announcement.

    There is only going to be a small window where Google's offering is not available as a native app on iOS. They need to go now.
     
  12. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 20, 2008
    #12
    I have tried rdio, spotify, and google's new service and can't help but feel like there is something missing from each of them. Spotify has a good selection but there is no way to store a collection of music on its iOS apps, besides using playlists. Rdio is lacking on their content offerings. And Google's web interface is an absolute mess and there is no iOS app. If it will take Apple a little bit more time to get it right I'm totally ok with that.
     
  13. macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2011
    #13
    Let the "Apple is doomed" or "Apple is catching up" comments begin now......:apple:
     
  14. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2009
    #14
    This.
     
  15. nagromme, May 17, 2013
    Last edited: May 17, 2013

    macrumors G5

    nagromme

    Joined:
    May 2, 2002
    #15
    Doesn't seem like the kind of thing you'd shoehorn into a developer conference anyway.

    Why the urgency? Apple has a massive head start in the music field, and if this article's "sources" are right, Apple's not trying to do exactly what Google is doing anyway. Do you really think there's only a window of 3–4 weeks, during which so many iOS users will jump to Google's music that Apple's music offerings can no longer thrive?

    You're right, though, that Apple doesn't have a choice: the choice is Apple's PLUS the parties on the other side of the negotiating table.
     
  16. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #16
    APPLE doesn't need licensing.....just pay the $0.0012 per stream set by Congress.

    APPLE could have launched it back in 2011 without LICENSING. That's what the compulsory rate is for.



    http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/201...-comparison-of-how-much-various-services-pay/

    Pureplay Webcasters Per Performance Royalty Rates
    2011 - $.00102 per performance
    2012 - $.00110 per performance
    2013 - $.00120 per performance
    2014 - $.00130 per performance
    2015 - $.00140 per performance

    Anyone who want to run an online radio can just pay that rate set by Congress.
     
  17. macrumors 6502

    g0odfr1end102

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2010
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #17
    "Difficult negotiations": THIS makes me excited. Can't wait to see what happens!
     
  18. macrumors 6502

    WillFisher

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2011
    #18
    I'm hoping for something similar to Pandora. The UK doesn't have the ability for a free mobile streaming service as far as I'm aware.
    Spotify has no free mobile streaming, aside the free month.
    Pandora is unavailable in the UK.
    And Google Music all Access I also believe is going to be unavailable in the UK initially. Plus, again, no free mobile streaming.
    If Apple could release matching the free amount (40 hours a month I believe?) Or even just Spotify's 10 hours, that would catch my attention.
    So here's to hoping!
     
  19. macrumors 65816

    ovrlrd

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2009
    #19
    They will just announce it and not include the labels that won't agree. That is what they did with the DRM-free iTunes move, and it worked fine because it forced the rest of the industry to agree.

    The same thing will happen here, once Apple calls their bluff they will fold.
     
  20. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    #20
    Apple is trying to build in a "magic per user fee"? :D
     
  21. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 17, 2013
    #21
    Sony

    I think Apple should just buy Sony and take over all it's media content and do whatever with the electronics part of the business. Sony's Market Cap is about 20 Billion and Apple would need 50.1 percent to control it. This would have made more sense a few months ago when Sony was worth 8 Billion less but still, Sony owns a lot of digital assets that Apple can assimilate.
     
  22. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #22

    buying from itunes and CD's is going the way of the dodo
     
  23. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2012
    #23
    As for running something similar to Spotify, the royalties rate is pretty clear.

    70% of the subscription revenue. It's $9.99 in the USA.

    $9.99 monthly subscription

    70% = $6.993 as royalties for the record labels/publishers/artists
    30% = $3.337 as revenue for Spotify/Apple/Google/Rhapsody/Rdio/MOG etc...


    Now, a cross between Pandora ($0.0012 per stream) and Spotify will need negotiation
     
  24. macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    #24
    As someone who can access Google Music from my phone (and has) I can assure you once you figure out the interface - admittedly, it felt clunky at first but once i figured it out (10 minutes) it's as smooth as silk. Given that it's an initial launch with these features, I can foresee crowd sourced playlists as another layer for the user to listen. It's pretty comprehensive - I honestly couldn't ask for more. It combined (for me) the best parts of Spotify, Slacker and Pandora into one unified service. That's why the "on demand" that's referenced in the article is making me scratch my head and wonder what that exactly could encompass.
     
  25. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #25
    i bet apple wants a cheaper rate which they aren't going to get
    its not 2001 anymore
     

Share This Page