Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Caves on Streaming Music Royalty Rates, First Deal to Be Signed Next Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There are two established alternatives for streaming radio already in the market. The circumstances are entirely different with iTunes was originally launched. Apple had very little bargaining power this time around.
Hopefully it will allow uncensored songs
Itunes match still often gives me the edited version of songs I try to play. If anyone has a fix I'd be interested in hearing
Itunes match still often gives me the edited version of songs I try to play. If anyone has a fix I'd be interested in hearing
The record labels and artists get paid when their songs get played on Spotify, Pandora and other services... right?
So why wouldn't they want to get paid from Apple too?
You make it sound like 100% of Apple device users are already paying for some service.
Pandora has 4 million paid subscribers... Spotify has 6 million.
I'm guessing Apple's implementation of a streaming service would surpass those in no time.
They will get paid...they just don't have the bargaining chips to negotiate better deals that the alternatives.
I'm obviously not following this story too closely.
Who doesn't have the bargaining chip?
The labels have the songs... but Apple has 300 million iDevice users who love to spend money.
Seems like both sides have a lot to gain.
Ummm... I might be wrong here, but it's just going to stream music. That's it. It will simply be a welcome perk and convenience for users and help bolster their iTunes brand.
I'm not sure if pre-emotively attacking Apple for something that literally doesn't even exist yet is the best logical way to discuss this article. All we "know" is apple is trying to get rights to stream music...
Other than that, looking forward to hearing about this unidentified service at an unidentified date on an unannounced future device
Those same music labels (and overall industry) sure wouldn't want it leaked out that they gave Apple a better deal than Pandora and Spotify, especially after the lawsuit between Pandora and ASCAP. Everyone knows Apple won't disclose the terms, so they'll leak whatever they want everyone to believe.
That's what the labels want you (and other business partners) to believe.
Royalties.
Apple were offing to pay Royalties approx half of what Spotify does, but seem to have decided to match them.
The people who write the music get a large percent of these royalties = they may make a tiny amount of money from the music they have written. Better than nothing.
There's reasons for both sides to get the deals done because it opens up new opportunities for each, but the labels look at Spotify's and Pandora's accessibility and penetration on iOS devices already and say to Apple, "we already have a big presence on your devices. What else do you have?" And that's where Apple loses a good chunk of its leverage. It doesn't help that Apple is many years late to the game where the two alternatives both have solidified themselves as successful mainstays.
Like making it free, which it should be anyway since it brings in revenue from people buying songs they see on iRadio?
----------
Selling music. So evil. Those good folks at ThePirateBay are the only holy ones here!
----------
Even if iRadio turns out to be the same thing as Pandora except made by Apple, it will be a lot better just because of iTunes/iPod integration.
spotify
January, 2010:------------ 250,000 paying subscribers
March 17, 2010:----------- 320,000
July 20, 2010: ---------------- 500,000
December 8, 2010: ------ 750,000
March 8, 2011:--------------- 1,000,000
July 14, 2011: -----------------1,600,000
Sept 21, 2011: ---------------- 2,000,000
Nov 23, 2011: ------------------2,500,000
Jan 26, 2012: -------------------3,000,000
July 31, 2012:--------------------4,000,000
Dec 6, 2012: ---------------------5,000,000
March 12, 2013:------------------6,000,000 paying subscribers
and in the USA, among the 4 biggest revenue segments
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/...GVMmoIp2Xklr6mQ
Streaming: $1,032.8 million USD (up 59%)
Album Download: $1,204.8 million USD (up 12.5%)
Singles Download: $1,623.6 million USD (up 6.7%)
Physical CD Album: $2,532 million USD (down 18.3%)
At this rate, streaming could surpass singles download in about 20 months time.
January, 2010:------------ 250,000 paying subscribers
March 17, 2010:----------- 320,000
July 20, 2010: ---------------- 500,000
December 8, 2010: ------ 750,000
March 8, 2011:--------------- 1,000,000
July 14, 2011: -----------------1,600,000
Sept 21, 2011: ---------------- 2,000,000
Nov 23, 2011: ------------------2,500,000
Jan 26, 2012: -------------------3,000,000
July 31, 2012:--------------------4,000,000
Dec 6, 2012: ---------------------5,000,000
March 12, 2013:------------------6,000,000 paying subscribers
and in the USA, among the 4 biggest revenue segments
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/...GVMmoIp2Xklr6mQ
Streaming: $1,032.8 million USD (up 59%)
Album Download: $1,204.8 million USD (up 12.5%)
Singles Download: $1,623.6 million USD (up 6.7%)
Physical CD Album: $2,532 million USD (down 18.3%)
At this rate, streaming could surpass singles download in about 20 months time.
I don't quite understand why Apple can't offer a service like Spotify?
----------
I'd rather choose what I want to listen to than have music suggested* for me.
*Spotify also does this.
----------
I'd rather choose what I want to listen to than have music suggested* for me.
*Spotify also does this.
Correct.
But my point is... an Apple-branded streaming solution would probably have huge adoption right from the start... simply because it would be part of iOS. It's on the iPhone when you buy it. And Apple will promote the hell out of it.
I can see a big ol' button in the App Store: "Click here to sign up for 1 year of iRadio" and it's billed to your iTunes account.
That's the difference between what Apple could offer and what 3rd parties can offer.
Yes... Spotify and Pandora are already on iOS. But like I said before... Pandora has 4 million paid subscribers... Spotify has 6 million. But that's on BOTH iOS and Android which combined represent 90% of the smartphone market.
Let me repeat that... a total of 10 million paying Spotify and Pandora customers... on both iOS and Android... out of a billion devices. That's not very good adoption after all.
I'm thinking Apple could sign up at least 20 million iRadio users in the first few months... simply because it's from Apple and it's easy to sign up for.
Look... I understand what you're saying: "why would I pay Apple for iRadio when Pandora already exists?"
But then look at how many paying customers Pandora has compared to the market as a whole.
Yeah... damn them for wanting money for their products. Damn them all to heck!
I don't quite understand why Apple can't offer a service like Spotify?
Probably because people would be less inclined to buy songs off of iTunes with that kind of service.
And then you realize there are over a BILLION smartphone users in the world...
I'm thinking Apple could surpass Spotify/Pandora in a very short time.
If its integrated in the music app il def use it, well aslong they make it available to my country they will have a great advantage over most streaming services wich mostly work only in the states (spotify is available in a couple of countrys) but the rest whe have to use a vpn; if apple supports all countrys they allready do with itunes/appstore it can be a big success.
they will have a great advantage over most streaming services wich mostly work only in the states (spotify is available in a couple of countrys) but the rest whe have to use a vpn; if apple supports all countrys they allready do with itunes/appstore it can be a big success.
I just want to point out that 4 million Pandora subscribers and 6 million Spotify subscribers doesn't necessarily equate to 10 million subscribers. There could be a considerable number of users subscribed to both.