Apple and Sony 'iRadio' Negotiations Stalling Over Skipped Songs

[samcraig]

Just cut Sony out of the deal. No Sony music on iRadio. Watch how long it takes for Sony to come crawling back. When they do, charge them more than the other labels.

Never going to happen. And you know that will all the issues with getting iBooks off the ground and competitive - how's that fairing in comparison to the competition.

Apple doesn't need to bend over. But they aren't in the position to demand EVERYthing they want and expect to get it.

 

[bilboa]

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.

I would think that whether or not it overtakes Pandora or Spotify also depends a lot on whether iRadio would be accessible from non-Apple mobile devices or outside of iTunes. If it's only accessible from iTunes or Apple iDevices, then I don't think it'll wipe out Pandora or Spotify any more than the iTunes store has wiped out other video rental services. Renting or buying movies and TV shows through iTunes is convenient for people who have iDevices or Apple TVs, but not for anyone else. I think iRadio will be similar.

 

[ani4ani]

Exactly, this is ridiculous. Sony want payed for skipped songs which is nuts and so thoroughly money grabbing. This should piss the hell off.

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?

 

[marksman]

And full of ads. No thanks. But I'm guessing there's lots of people who will put up with ads to get something for "free". Wouldn't it make more sense to have a paid model too?

Who cares if there are ads on the screen when listening to music?

----------

I quit using Pandora because of the skip limit and still keep iHeart Radio and listen to it sometimes. When I hit the skip limit, I just quit listening until next time which could be a month or two later.

Jelli is my favorite. I can go to a lower populated channel and with two or three accounts play whatever songs i want for free.

 

[marksman]

Spotify isnt radio. It's essentially like iTunes. You have playlists, you can even play iTunes playlist. It has the added benefit of allowing you to play pretty much any music out there. There's no restrictions on how many times, or for how long or any nonsense like that. It's pretty much as perfect as that kind of service can get, and unless Apple can undercut it, theres no point in them trying.

Download it and try it - the free version is just as good, just with a 30 second advert after every few songs.

----------



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.

Because they said it will be free. Apple is not competing with spotify's expensive monthly service.

They will be offering a superior version of the streaming radio model. This will actually be designed to encourage people to buy songs they really like.

I am not a person who sees much real value in paying $120-$180 a year to stream music. However an improved streaming radio model would certainly get my attention.

Spotify has six million subscribers. A tidy little sum but they are not taking over the world and I am not even sure they are currently profitable. Spotify is far from ubiquitous and regardless the final form iRadio takes if is going to put spotify's future growth in peril.

Apple could offer the same pay service as spotify if they wanted. In fact they could likely do it for less. It has been clear for a while now apple is not interested in that business and is instead interested in the bigger pie.

 

[Terrin]

If you have been following Sony lately, than you should have figured out that since about 2009 they have only continued to improve their products and took drastic measures, including hiring a new CEO - a great CEO, in fact.

Their products are more focused on satisfying customers than ever before - and they are innovating. In fact, I'd argue that, currently, Sony is a more innovative and customer-focused company than Apple. And I really like Apple.

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

----------

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?

LOL. That is kind of a joke. Big labels put up money up front so the artists can record. Then the artists have to pay the money back with album and music sales. Most artists never get a dime from album sales. Touring is where artists make money.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Doesn't everyone realize Apple already has a dead product if this is true?

So what if Apple's iRadio lets you skip or rewind, with Spotify you can make playlists out of virtually any song made, and play and stream them AT WILL.

you truly are confused

 

[bean dip]

Not sure if you guys realize this, but Sony entertainment is huge. Also, Sony manufactures android devices. They hold the dice and know damn well without their catalog iradio will suck.

----------

Because they said it will be free. Apple is not competing with spotify's expensive monthly service.

They will be offering a superior version of the streaming radio model. This will actually be designed to encourage people to buy songs they really like.

I am not a person who sees much real value in paying $120-$180 a year to stream music. However an improved streaming radio model would certainly get my attention.

Spotify has six million subscribers. A tidy little sum but they are not taking over the world and I am not even sure they are currently profitable. Spotify is far from ubiquitous and regardless the final form iRadio takes if is going to put spotify's future growth in peril.

Apple could offer the same pay service as spotify if they wanted. In fact they could likely do it for less. It has been clear for a while now apple is not interested in that business and is instead interested in the bigger pie.

a bigger piece of the pie being a b level Pandora? You sir are high on apple

 

[szw-mapple fan]

1. "0 people using it..."
2. It's a joke.

Sorry, I was half awake when I made that comment. lol

 

[omenatarhuri]

It's easy to think that Apple should get into everything but in reality it's a rather foolish thought. Particularly in regards to media. The big studios etc are making what folks want and it doesn't matter if Apple pulls a Netflix/Amazon and starts producing shows when Warners etc will still blanketly encourage torrents with insanely high prices, vastly delayed release dates, crap like box sets with no way for those that bought the season to buy up and so on. And all the Apple shows and movies in the world won't give them the copyrights to change that nonsense. And unless Apple can find a legal hole to put an end to exclusive deals then he studios will simply say no to Apples setting rules and go to whomever will let them keep things playing by studio rules

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.

 

[FrozenDarkness]

Not sure if you guys realize this, but Sony entertainment is huge. Also, Sony manufactures android devices. They hold the dice and know damn well without their catalog iradio will suck.

----------



a bigger piece of the pie being a b level Pandora? You sir are high on apple

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

 

[0098386]

I don't use music streaming services, I much prefer to at least own a license that lets me play any of the songs I bought on any device I can shove it onto. Is skipping really a thing? If you're forcing me to listen to music I don't want to listen to; you've lost me as a customer.

Side question: How does it work when you don't have a phone signal?

 

[kimlo]

On Windows Phone Nokia Music is $3.99 per month (basically a Pandora like service) with unlimited skips. Or free with 6 skips per hour (144 skips per day max) with zero ads. It's pretty awesome.

A radio service from Apple would be worth it if it was $5 or so per month with unlimited skips.

 

[ConCat]

Whats wrong with a formula such as:

Payment = Standard Fee * (Played Length/Total Length)

The beauty of that formula is it's one that Apple can rely on to be consistent over time, regardless of how many songs are skipped. It would have solved Pandora's problem too. It would also allow Apple to negotiate a slightly higher price per song to make up for Sony's lost revenue from the current skipped song pricing model. Food for thought, without a doubt.

 

[omenatarhuri]

I don't use music streaming services, I much prefer to at least own a license that lets me play any of the songs I bought on any device I can shove it onto. Is skipping really a thing? If you're forcing me to listen to music I don't want to listen to; you've lost me as a customer.

Side question: How does it work when you don't have a phone signal?

Exactly, this skipping talk is absolutely perplexing. I hope Apple maintains class and customerfocus.

 

[daveathall]

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

 

[samcraig]

Who cares if there are ads on the screen when listening to music?

It's a shame Marksman either pretends or actually has me on ignore. But for the people that read his comments I wanted to address the above. The articles about "iRadio" have mentioned that iAds were going to be (also) audio ads.

So yes. It matters to a lot of people. A lot of people care about intrusive audio ads.

 

[Tech198]

skipped songs ? Making things too complicated than it needs to be..

If it was one flat fee, regardless of how much, or little, the user plays..... why should that matter ? Their happy anyway that its more money for them.

After all, isn't that what all this is about ?

 

[ArmCortexA8]

The idea is probably that you would pay a fixed amount (possibly zero) to Apple to listen to as much music as you like, and Apple pays the record companies according to how much you listen to. On average, Apple would pay for one song for every four minutes listening time. But if Apple has to pay a full song's worth if you listened to the first five seconds and skipped the rest, you could cost Apple 50 times as much.

There are obviously two solutions to this: Either Apple negotiates that they don't pay for a full song if you listen to five seconds only, or (I think Pandora does that, might be someone else) Apple doesn't let you skip more than a small number of songs every day.

Without that, it could be that for 8 hours of listening Apple pays 120 songs, and for ten minutes of you skipping songs every five seconds Apple also pays 120 songs.

One of the fine examples why I refused to partake in any streaming or internet based music service where I cannot download what I want without restrictions to use on any device I wish. Looks like I'm sticking to the good old fashion way of doing things. The "industry" is not going to tell me how I obtain my music and where and when I can play it.

 

[Macman45]

0 People using it means 0 skips. Does it matter Sony?

Sadly, that's Sony....It's their way or no way. My Bravia 3D glasses ( which are an OPTION on my 3D TV) will not work with any other brand of TV.

If you want a keyboard...Sony's only.

Same applies to every other accessory they make. I love the TV, but it's pretty darned poor when you have to pay <$150.00 to use the 3D functions.

Not so with LG etc. etc. They keep shooting themselves in the feet, and don't learn...This is just another example of overprotective behaviour. Then they wonder why I bought another brand of TV for my bedroom.

 

[Ralf The Dog]

Never going to happen. And you know that will all the issues with getting iBooks off the ground and competitive - how's that fairing in comparison to the competition.

Apple doesn't need to bend over. But they aren't in the position to demand EVERYthing they want and expect to get it.

The difference is, every other label is on board with the current plan. The only label that is not is Sony. Most labels like the idea of skipping songs. Better to have the option of skipping a song than to have the user, turn off the device and do something else. They look forward to using iRadio as a leader to bring in more iTunes sales.

iRadio will work quite well without Sony music. Sony music will not work that well without iRadio.

Sony's position reminds me of an old TV show called Max Headroom. It was a future where TVs were everywhere and off switches were a serious crime.

 

[NOV]

The problem is that this would destroy the iTunes download business. Would those $15 fees make up for that? I doubt it.

A Pandora-like-format would put a dent in downloads, sure, but it would allow the downloading business to survive in some form alongside iRadio.

'iTunes download' business model is doomed in the long run anyway.

 

[samcraig]

The difference is, every other label is on board with the current plan. The only label that is not is Sony. Most labels like the idea of skipping songs. Better to have the option of skipping a song than to have the user, turn off the device and do something else. They look forward to using iRadio as a leader to bring in more iTunes sales.

iRadio will work quite well without Sony music. Sony music will not work that well without iRadio.

Sony's position reminds me of an old TV show called Max Headroom. It was a future where TVs were everywhere and off switches were a serious crime.

Not every publisher was on board with iBooks. Maybe you've forgotten that. And has Sony said they are against skipping - or is it an issue with proper compensation FOR skipped sonhs.

And at the end of the day - Sony will be the same Sony is if they don't go along for the ride. Could they INCREASE sales potentially - sure. But if you want to buy an artist on Sony - you're still going to buy. Or if you're a consumer and it's important to get Sony artists streamed - guess what? You can pay for spotify or google's offerings.

I'm not sure why people think it's "go with Apple" or you're sunk. Or that any/every company should bend over/be happy to do business with Apple. It' a complete fallacy in logic

 

[lolkthxbai]

Announce the song, let the user choose to play or not.

If the user plays the song, lock it in (unskippable) and Sony receives royalty.

If the user skips the song, announce a new song and Apple pays no royalty.

Rinse and repeat.

If there were even some level of compromise between the two companies you could even allow the song to be skipped after 30-60 seconds of playing if the user chooses to play the song and doesn't like it.

 

[lars666]

Announce the song, let the user choose to play or not.

If the user plays the song, lock it in (unskippable) and Sony receives royalty.

If the user skips the song, announce a new song and Apple pays no royalty.

Rinse and repeat.

Too cumbersome by far. Do you always want to have to "free" every new song before it plays while just listening to iRadio in the background?

Skipping within the first 30 seconds doesn't count as played (royalty-wise) would work in my opinion.