Apple and Sony 'iRadio' Negotiations Stalling Over Skipped Songs

[gnasher729]

If Apple paid the "going" rate for skipping music the same as all the other companies, this problem would not have arisen.

Other companies only allow you to skip 12 songs a day. So if there is an album with fifteen songs, and I want to listen to one of them but can't remember the title, I'm stuck...

Of course the reason why they only allow you to skip 12 songs is because you skipping songs costs them a lot of money. Skipping 15 songs in 1 minute costs them the same as listening to an hour of music.

 

[samcraig]

Other companies only allow you to skip 12 songs a day. So if there is an album with fifteen songs, and I want to listen to one of them but can't remember the title, I'm stuck...

Of course the reason why they only allow you to skip 12 songs is because you skipping songs costs them a lot of money. Skipping 15 songs in 1 minute costs them the same as listening to an hour of music.

I believe Google's service has unlimited skips.

 

[gnasher729]

Yes, and I love the examples you have given of Sony innovating.

The hardware guys at Sony are excellent. It is their media arm that kills it.

Back in the 80's, engineers at Sony built the worlds smallest record player. They took a tiny model of a Volkswagen van, filled it with lots of electronics, put a needle at the bottom, a little motor, something looking like a satellite dish on the top as a speaker. You laid an LP on the table, put the van down, and it would start driving and playing the music. And that's what they did just for fun.

But there are the media people who were afraid that if people bought minidisc players or mp3 players, they could record and not pay for Sony music. That's why Apple sold 300 million iPods, and Sony did sell nothing like that, because the engineers had to put in all kinds of DRM features that made things unusable.

 

[daveathall]

Other companies only allow you to skip 12 songs a day. So if there is an album with fifteen songs, and I want to listen to one of them but can't remember the title, I'm stuck...

Of course the reason why they only allow you to skip 12 songs is because you skipping songs costs them a lot of money. Skipping 15 songs in 1 minute costs them the same as listening to an hour of music.

Do Spotify only allow you to skip 12 songs a day?

Edit; Found the answer, premium members have no skip limit whereas free users do.

Fact still remains, and I repeat my original comment. If Apple paid the "going" rate for skipping music the same as all the other companies, this problem would not have arisen.

 

[iChrist]

well it'd be an a level pandora because it'd literally have

1. your iTunes history so it knows you right off the bat
2. possibly unlimited skips for free

on apple's end, unlike pandora,

1. they can sell you the music directly for more profits
2. have a built in userbase if they just make this a default app on your phone


they might even consider to move it off iOS and open platform who knows

Wow, your iTunes history, what a game changer!

Look kid, buying songs for $1.30 a pop is a suckers game. Unless you are buying only a few songs a month and never get sick of them, you are better off subscribing to something like Spotify. Even FREE spotify lets you do the same on your computer.

Based on how successful Ping and iTunes genius are at selecting songs... I suspect the radio stations produced by iRadio will be disappointing. The only benefit to the consumer is you get to easily buy what you are listening to from iTunes... which is not a benefit at all.

Apple is sacrificing their radio product to save their archaic business model in iTunes.

 

[macfacts]

So many people here seem to think ANY record label would be OK with users skipping songs. Why would that be when most of those record labels pay FM Radio stations to play their songs (it is called payola).

Those record labels want their new artists to have air time on the radio, it is called advertising/marketing. Why would Sony want to have their artists get ZERO air time by letting subscribers to skip the song. Apple does not help artists advertise or promotion with the cut they get from iTunes songs "sold".

 

[gnasher729]

So many people here seem to think ANY record label would be OK with users skipping songs. Why would that be when most of those record labels pay FM Radio stations to play their songs (it is called payola).

Those record labels want their new artists to have air time on the radio, it is called advertising/marketing. Why would Sony want to have their artists get ZERO air time by letting subscribers to skip the song. Apple does not help artists advertise or promotion with the cut they get from iTunes songs "sold".

That's why Sony is in trouble, and Apple is raking in the money: Because Sony thinks about what Sony wants, and Apple thinks about what customers want. As a customer, if I started listening to a song, don't like it, and then I'm forced to listen it to the end, do you think that makes me (a) buy the song or (b) curse loudly and make me never, ever consider buying a song from Sony again?

 

[samcraig]

That's why Sony is in trouble, and Apple is raking in the money: Because Sony thinks about what Sony wants, and Apple thinks about what customers want. As a customer, if I started listening to a song, don't like it, and then I'm forced to listen it to the end, do you think that makes me (a) buy the song or (b) curse loudly and make me never, ever consider buying a song from Sony again?

I don't think people care about labels. They care about artists and songs. And that "care" is pretty fickle anyway.

Are you really going to suggest that people will not buy X album because it's on SONY?

I think you might fall into the category that I mentioned earlier. One who believes that Apple always has the upper hand and/or any company should bend over backwards to work over them.

 

[gnasher729]

Fact still remains, and I repeat my original comment. If Apple paid the "going" rate for skipping music the same as all the other companies, this problem would not have arisen.

Reminds my of Shel Silverstein (from memory): "Here is how we can stay friends forever: I do exactly what I want to do, and you also do exactly what I want to do". If Sony agreed to the same conditions that all the other companies are happy with, then the problem would not have arisen.

----------

I don't think people care about labels. They care about artists and songs. And that "care" is pretty fickle anyway.

Are you really going to suggest that people will not buy X album because it's on SONY?

If I use software that works really nice and does what I want, until I try listening into a song owned by Sony, and the user experience is totally messed up because of Sony, and that happens repeatedly, yes, then I would say "**** Sony" and not buy music from them. Just like people looked at Sony music players, saw what idiotic things Sony did to make them less usable, and said "**** Sony".

 

[samcraig]

Reminds my of Shel Silverstein (from memory): "Here is how we can stay friends forever: I do exactly what I want to do, and you also do exactly what I want to do". If Sony agreed to the same conditions that all the other companies are happy with, then the problem would not have arisen.

----------



If I use software that works really nice and does what I want, until I try listening into a song owned by Sony, and the user experience is totally messed up because of Sony, and that happens repeatedly, yes, then I would say "**** Sony" and not buy music from them. Just like people looked at Sony music players, saw what idiotic things Sony did to make them less usable, and said "**** Sony".

I think you might be speaking for yourself and a small group of people. I don't think the general public cares. If they want a Christina Aguilera or Brad Paisley or whoever album or song - they aren't going to not buy it because it's Sony. Or because Apple's music player doesn't play it.

First of all - like I said - you aren't going to take it out on the artist. If you like their music - you'll buy their music regardless of label, method.

Second - There ARE other streaming services. It's not like Sony has ONLY one option. And actually - it might get you to consider using different software. So that you COULD listen to the artists you prefer.

 

[ElTorro]

I think you might be speaking for yourself and a small group of people. I don't think the general public cares. If they want a Christina Aguilera or Brad Paisley or whoever album or song - they aren't going to not buy it because it's Sony. Or because Apple's music player doesn't play it.

First of all - like I said - you aren't going to take it out on the artist. If you like their music - you'll buy their music regardless of label, method.

Second - There ARE other streaming services. It's not like Sony has ONLY one option. And actually - it might get you to consider using different software. So that you COULD listen to the artists you prefer.

Exactly. Google's all access is available on close to a billion android devices, so Sony won't be exactly hurting if Apple decides to drop them.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

Sony represents the artists, so why shouldn't they want to protect their rights. If you read the article, Spotify pay a full license fee for skipped tracks, so would it be reasonable or fair for Apple to get an advantage? Or is it reasonable, just because it is Apple, that they think they should by default get what they want?

Sony represents the artists in nearly the same way cancer represents the victim. It's all about the money.

Out in Hollywood, the paper money rolls
They feed their egos, instead of their souls
A million here, a million there, a mindless corporate dance
Get paid for frickin' off, in the south of France
They don't do the shows, but they act like the stars
They fly around in G4's and suck on big cigars
It ain't about the talent, it ain't about the skill
It's all about the silly stupid horse poop deal
...
I got no corporate gig, I got no guru
I don't own the ocean front in Honolulu
You write the big checks, but I pay your bills
Now someone's got to tell you 'bout overkill

 

[Walter White]

If Apple paid the "going" rate for skipping music the same as all the other companies, this problem would not have arisen.

Well you assume too much. The reality is we just don't know what and how. Maybe Apple was offered some "special" pricing scheme, just because it;s Apple and they thought they can leverage more? We can guess all day if we want.

----------

Exactly. Google's all access is available on close to a billion android devices, so Sony won't be exactly hurting if Apple decides to drop them.

Billion is just a paper sheet number, a statictics. In reality the number of devices this service could be used on is much smaller.

 

[ElTorro]

Sony represents the artists in nearly the same way cancer represents the victim. It's all about the money.

Out in Hollywood, the paper money rolls
They feed their egos, instead of their souls
A million here, a million there, a mindless corporate dance
Get paid for frickin' off, in the south of France
They don't do the shows, but they act like the stars
They fly around in G4's and suck on big cigars
It ain't about the talent, it ain't about the skill
It's all about the silly stupid horse poop deal
...
I got no corporate gig, I got no guru
I don't own the ocean front in Honolulu
You write the big checks, but I pay your bills
Now someone's got to tell you 'bout overkill

It is always about the money. But don't make the mistake that Apple is out there giving you stuff for free. It's quite the opposite.

 

[PinkyMacGodess]

It is always about the money. But don't make the mistake that Apple is out there giving you stuff for free. It's quite the opposite.

True, and Apple would be in event helping participating labels market to US, still... For Sony to be like that... Odd... BUT Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it Sony that came up with a rootkit scheme to force copy protection/DRM on their customers?

Their history of Sony letting their 'music division' wag them like a flea bitten hound should be embarrassing... And I'd join the call for Sony yo spin off their music division completely.

Yep It was Sony... That was one of the most stupidest actions taken by a music label to date... They are HUGE dicks. If I was Apple, I'd say 'Then go play with yourself!'...

----------

Billion is just a paper sheet number, a statictics. In reality the number of devices this service could be used on is much smaller.

And the people then that actually use the service will be lower still. There are people that own a smartphone and have no music on it, no videos, no apps, no pictures, no wi-fi, and no Bluetooth devices...

 

[daveathall]

Well you assume too much. The reality is we just don't know what and how. Maybe Apple was offered some "special" pricing scheme, just because it;s Apple and they thought they can leverage more? We can guess all day if we want.

You think that there would not have been a deal if Apple had agreed to pay the going rate? Really?

Reminds my of Shel Silverstein (from memory): "Here is how we can stay friends forever: I do exactly what I want to do, and you also do exactly what I want to do". If Sony agreed to the same conditions that all the other companies are happy with, then the problem would not have arisen.

Not heard that before, must admit, tis fair comment. I do think though that if "special exceptions" were made (and revealed) once contract renewal time came for the other companies the tone is set for them to negotiate for their own "special exceptions" and so on and so on. I do see your point though.

 

[Walter White]

You think that there would not have been a deal if Apple had agreed to pay the going rate? Really?

I don't know, you don't know. It could be anything.

 

[fithian]

That's what I would expect. Free versions of a service have adverts interspersed and a paid service does not.

I have Pandora on my Marantz AVP and it is free. No ads. Not sure how many skips I can do.

----------

Spotify is free. You arent forced to pay for it.

Where's your rational here? Also, why would Apple provide it for free? It'd kill their iTunes sales.

Spotify is not free for any iOS devices, only computers. $10/month for iOS devices.

 

[dba415]

That's why Sony is in trouble, and Apple is raking in the money: Because Sony thinks about what Sony wants, and Apple thinks about what customers want. As a customer, if I started listening to a song, don't like it, and then I'm forced to listen it to the end, do you think that makes me (a) buy the song or (b) curse loudly and make me never, ever consider buying a song from Sony again?

did you REALLY just say that Apple thinks about what the consumers want? This just proves that you will defend Apple no matter what. If Apple cares why don't they offer a true streaming service a la Spotify? THAT is what consumers want. Never mention that they refuse to implement expandable storage on their other products so they force people to purchase a higher capacity device.

 

[charlituna]

Now, you could have said that about House of cards. But in that was an Awesome move.

It will be about exclusive content in the end.

Perhaps. But apple doesn't need to become a studio etc to do that. Folks can already create a movie or even TV show and sell it in iTunes directly. They aren't currently doing it because Apple's system means they have to take all the risk. And no one has the balls yet to do that. Not for a new show, not to keep a cancelled show going. Pity really cause producers might have discovered that fans of firefly, terra nova, deception etc would have been wiling to pay for their shows in such a way

 

[Walter White]

Perhaps. But apple doesn't need to become a studio etc to do that. Folks can already create a movie or even TV show and sell it in iTunes directly. They aren't currently doing it because Apple's system means they have to take all the risk. And no one has the balls yet to do that. Not for a new show, not to keep a cancelled show going. Pity really cause producers might have discovered that fans of firefly, terra nova, deception etc would have been wiling to pay for their shows in such a way

I'd pay 10 US dollars per episode of Stargate Universe if it was revived that way.

 

[gnasher729]

I think you might be speaking for yourself and a small group of people. I don't think the general public cares. If they want a Christina Aguilera or Brad Paisley or whoever album or song - they aren't going to not buy it because it's Sony. Or because Apple's music player doesn't play it.

First of all - like I said - you aren't going to take it out on the artist. If you like their music - you'll buy their music regardless of label, method.

Second - There ARE other streaming services. It's not like Sony has ONLY one option. And actually - it might get you to consider using different software. So that you COULD listen to the artists you prefer.

Most of the time I don't say "there is this album, I want to buy it". I say "I have some spare money, I'll buy some album, let's say what they have". So I'll look at various albums, listen into all the songs. The one where I can't skip music, that's the one I most certainly won't buy.

And sure, there are other choices for Sony. However, for artists under contract with Sony it means that the biggest player, the one with several hundred million paying customers, is not open to them. Tell me how Sony is going to explain that to its artists. And to its shareholders.

 

[Walter White]

I believe Google's service has unlimited skips.

If you can skip songs when you want and how many times you want it's not really a radio service, is it?

 

[The Phazer]

Apples version will be free. That is why it will instantly become the largest streaming service the day it launches.

It will likely be a much improved version of pandora and be free.

Apple's service will be free?

That seems exceptionally unlikely.

 

[samcraig]

Most of the time I don't say "there is this album, I want to buy it". I say "I have some spare money, I'll buy some album, let's say what they have". So I'll look at various albums, listen into all the songs. The one where I can't skip music, that's the one I most certainly won't buy.

And sure, there are other choices for Sony. However, for artists under contract with Sony it means that the biggest player, the one with several hundred million paying customers, is not open to them. Tell me how Sony is going to explain that to its artists. And to its shareholders.

Like I said - that's you. I don't believe it's the majority. You can think it is. And Sony will explain it by stating they took their interest and stockholders interest first by not conceding to terms that were not acceptable. Was that a "trick" question? Again - I just think you believe that Apple is (always) right and that everyone should bend to their rules. I'm glad not everyone nor company thinks like you.

If you can skip songs when you want and how many times you want it's not really a radio service, is it?

Are you suggesting that google's model is bad? And I don't believe they refer to their service as a radio service. It's a music streaming service.