Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple and Sony 'iRadio' Negotiations Stalling Over Skipped Songs

I for one will not be paying for service that forces me to listen to music I do not want to. Needs to be a 'skip-as-much-as-you-can-eat' service for me.

Otherwise, is that not what 'real radio' already provides for free in essence? So no reason for me to delete my Spotify account then..
 
AppleMark said:
I for one will not be paying for service that forces me to listen to music I do not want to. Needs to be a 'skip-as-much-as-you-can-eat' service for me.

Otherwise, is that not what 'real radio' already provides for free in essence? So no reason for me to delete my Spotify account then..
Click to expand...

apple is making an iRadio service that's free
 
Can't skip songs on a service you pay for - the "industry" has gone bonkers. Its all about the money, they don't care what the consumer thinks. I just simply refused to follow them.
 
Loving all the Sony hate :rolleyes: did no one read the fact that Spotify has to pay the full royalty fee's? You know that money which pays the artists and everyone else?
Sorry but I'm with Sony on this one as it's the industry norm, I don't see why bully boy Apple should be able to get more control for less money. Sony is representing the industry I would imagine after all.

God the way Apple treats these company's over apparently stealing it's intellectual property, yet when it comes to Sony's intellectual property it wants it all for as little money as possible or free and everyone on here turns the other cheek :rolleyes:

Apple simply wants to bury the competition by forcing the industry to give it some sort of special treatment deal, it's a stupid idea too as someone else said here, why can we not have subscription based all we can listen to iTunes model? Oh yeah it means less money for Apple no doubt. It's good to see Sony stand up to Apple. They are not as strong as they use to be and should be innovating, not carbon copying, hell in the paper yesterday was a report on how the majority of big hedge fund investors and other investors think Apple has lost it's way and are not innovating, thankfully for Apple for now at least they also think it can save itself, for now...

This is not innovating Apple.

Have a read of the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ovative-edge-three-in-four-investors-say.html

Here's a quote, now remember this is no fanboy hate but a major investors comments, the share holders:

“Apple is innovating around the same things which, in my mind, is not really innovating,” said Gala Prada, head of pension funds and portfolio manager for Fiatc Seguros in Barcelona, who answered the poll. “There are companies like Samsung — which are taking the lead right now innovating in all kinds of consumer and electronics products — which also make Apple, on a relative basis, look a little bit behind,” Prada said.

I think investors are beginning to get tired of the same old thing? Not sure what they would make of another Spotify service from Apple other then another same old thing?
 
Last edited:
thermodynamic said:
Leasing isn't buying.

I'll pay for the songs I like, preferably to the artist directly since they did the work and therefore deserve the money, and not have to worry about a magical OFF switch or any other form of SaaS chicanery...
Click to expand...

Biggest lie people tell themselves ever. For the vast majority of artists there was so much work put in by other people BESIDES that artist. Of course the artist deserves to get payed, but you are kidding yourself if you think they are the only ones who "did the work".
 
How about you just pay according to the ratio you listened? Pay 2% for skipping after a few seconds, save 2% for going on to the next rather than hearing the final chord resound... In the end it will all balance out.

I'm such a genius... :rolleyes:
 
Still not sure if I want to own complete albums as in the past or may prefer to stream them in the future. For me streaming still has a radio style touch, which means I want to hear single songs in random order, not entire albums.

Maybe Apple will tell me what I actually like or not :)
 
How much does Apple pay to have the rights for you to listen to 30 seconds of every track on iTunes?

Also I don't want a stupid Apple 'radio' service, I like listening to commercial radio as it's funny and you get the news etc, the DJ's make the station. I can't see a streaming service offering the same as BBC Radio 1 or Kiss FM etc?
 
PinkyMacGodess said:
No one seems to be able to stop Sony from its lust for self inflicted wounds...

Imagine where Sony would be if they let their WalkMan division a freer playing field rather than handcuffing them, and destroying an obviously excellent product line... Will they never learn. Apple is offering them a lifeline, and they refuse it over 'skipped songs'. Is Apple to keep track of every bleeding song that anyone listens to so they can divvy up the fractions of a penny because I 'skipped' a Justin Bieber track? Get a grip people (at Sony)...
Click to expand...

Well yes, considering Apple records everything else you do I'm sure it's not too hard to record every track you listen to on its radio station. Think you may need to wise up to just how much of what you do IS recorded on a server somewhere. It's not difficult to do, it's the way the world works these days :)
 
apolloa said:
Well yes, considering Apple records everything else you do I'm sure it's not too hard to record every track you listen to on its radio station. Think you may need to wise up to just how much of what you do IS recorded on a server somewhere. It's not difficult to do, it's the way the world works these days :)
Click to expand...

Oh, like 'The Net'? The underlying preposition of that movie was that all computer systems, no matter what OS they used, could be accessed from the same software; no matter what... It was 'a little ahead of its time' in thinking that, but...

Let's use the case of Sirius/XM (the soon to be bankrupt?) satellite music service. Imagine if their radios had a return signal, and subscribers could 'fast-forward', skip it you will, tracks. They have how many subscribers? OK. Imagine something trying to keep track of what they listen to, AND keep track of the fraction of a second in some cases, or second or slightly more that you listen to before you hit the 'pass' button. That's a whole lot of data being returned for a whole lot of a small amount of money. I mean, if I am listening to something in the car (and it's not 'Layla') I will just sit through it, but given the option to 'skip' a song, I'd use that button a lot I'd imagine. A lot of data... It would be easier to just log start and stop times and figure out an average track length and pay accordingly. But someone always thinks they are being cheated out of something... And, back to my analogy, how much would Sony want to get paid for me just seeing the title of the track, never hearing more than one note mind you, just seeing the title of the track as I hit 'Hell Yeah, Skip That Crap'...

How many people buy physical CD's after hearing the music somewhere? How many people go to iTunes/Amazon/etc and purchase music they have heard over radio/commercials/etc? And Sony wants to stop this potential new market driving service because they want to sweep the crumbs off the floor? It just sounds like much ado about not very much, and typical Sony shortsightedness, illogic, and greed.

Sony, with their Walkman products, could have led the industry! Hell, they could have CREATED the industry! Instead they crippled the products to please their greedy parasitic music label bastard child... Amazing that they still don't get it... IMO.
 
Skipped songs. This is where the music industry is so out of touch with today's technology. You can already skip songs on a cd. If you have all of your cd's on your computer, you can skip songs.

And yet there's something wrong with being able to skip songs while listening to the same songs over a cellular network.
 
sk1wbw said:
Skipped songs. This is where the music industry is so out of touch with today's technology. You can already skip songs on a cd. If you have all of your cd's on your computer, you can skip songs.

And yet there's something wrong with being able to skip songs while listening to the same songs over a cellular network.
Click to expand...

But you have already paid for the songs that you skip on a cd. :)
 
Why not just do this.

Don't pay anything if they skip before 1/4 of the song is played, pay half if they skip 1/4 to 2/4 and pay the full amount if they skip after that.
 
another free music choice

I also use iHeartRadio. it's free and besides working like Pandora, you can also listen to a lot of radio stations across the country.
 
sk1wbw said:
True, but are you not allowed to change the radio to find another song? Wouldn't that be about the same thing?
Click to expand...

It would, but not the same as a cd where the skipped song is still paid for. TBH, if it is just a radio service it holds no interest for me, if I could pick a specific album like one can on Spotify then I would look at it. Cant see me giving up my Spotify sub for it though. :)

Thing is, go to the iTunes store, buy nine songs from the album "The shocking Miss Emerald" effectively skipping 6 songs, one would pay more than someone buying the whole album of 15 songs, this is true for most albums. When it comes to making quick money out of music, they are all as bad as one another, Apple is no saint.
 
Last edited:
apolloa said:
Loving all the Sony hate :rolleyes: did no one read the fact that Spotify has to pay the full royalty fee's? You know that money which pays the artists and everyone else?
Sorry but I'm with Sony on this one as it's the industry norm, I don't see why bully boy Apple should be able to get more control for less money. Sony is representing the industry I would imagine after all.

God the way Apple treats these company's over apparently stealing it's intellectual property, yet when it comes to Sony's intellectual property it wants it all for as little money as possible or free and everyone on here turns the other cheek :rolleyes:

Apple simply wants to bury the competition by forcing the industry to give it some sort of special treatment deal, it's a stupid idea too as someone else said here, why can we not have subscription based all we can listen to iTunes model? Oh yeah it means less money for Apple no doubt. It's good to see Sony stand up to Apple. They are not as strong as they use to be and should be innovating, not carbon copying, hell in the paper yesterday was a report on how the majority of big hedge fund investors and other investors think Apple has lost it's way and are not innovating, thankfully for Apple for now at least they also think it can save itself, for now...

This is not innovating Apple.

Have a read of the article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...ovative-edge-three-in-four-investors-say.html

Here's a quote, now remember this is no fanboy hate but a major investors comments, the share holders:

“Apple is innovating around the same things which, in my mind, is not really innovating,” said Gala Prada, head of pension funds and portfolio manager for Fiatc Seguros in Barcelona, who answered the poll. “There are companies like Samsung — which are taking the lead right now innovating in all kinds of consumer and electronics products — which also make Apple, on a relative basis, look a little bit behind,” Prada said.

I think investors are beginning to get tired of the same old thing? Not sure what they would make of another Spotify service from Apple other then another same old thing?
Click to expand...

First, Spotify pays a different rate than say Pandora. Pandora's rate is lower because it doesn't let people play the exact song they want at the time they want it. Further, Pandora pays the artists more than Spotify.

Since, unlike Spoitfy, Pandora is a radio streaming service the issue of does it let people skip songs arises. If so, does Pandora have to pay for a skipped song is an issue. Pandora's deal allows users to skip a certain amount of songs a month without paying. This is what is at issue. Apple is trying to add a feature, perhaps an innovative one, that lets people fast forward, rewind, or skip. Unlike Universal, Sony is standing in the way. Moreover, services like Pandora are geared toward helping people discover new music to buy, which in turn makes labels more money than Spotify does. People would have to listen to a single song over a hundred times for the labels to make what they do from one iTunes purchase. Apple also has the right to try and strike a deal different than Pandora, which is already being raped, if it thinks it can add value. History has shown Sony is its own worst enemy.

Second, do you mean the same institution investors that were disappointed by Apple's record breaking 5 million iPhones in 3 days to actual people, but excited by Samsung's 10 million sales to the retail channel in 28 days? Or how about the analyst who recently valued Apple at 270 dollars a share based on estimated 2012 earnings that were 70 billion off the mark (even though the earnings were already released). Apple is the most manipulated stock on the market. I would ignore them. As Warren Buffet says those so called investors are giving Apple a great opportunity to buy its stock back at discounted prices, and Apple has allocated 50 billion to do just that.
 
Pandora feels so dated. Even when it first launched, I had a hard time using it. I have a music library because I like to listen to specific songs and have control. I've sinced moved on to Spotify. Can't remember the last time I bought music. Why on earth would apple choose such a dated model?

----------
JAT said:
Well, there are TV execs that don't think you should be allowed to use the restroom during a commercial break.
Click to expand...

Wonderful. Televisions equipped with cameras that pause even on commercial breaks automatically when you leave the room.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back