You mean accepting a deal that is already well-established among a few other big players in the streaming music business, because Apple is a few years late to the party and has no ground to demand ultra low royalty fees?
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
You mean accepting a deal that is already well-established among a few other big players in the streaming music business, because Apple is a few years late to the party and has no ground to demand ultra low royalty fees?
Very true.
My point was... the number of PAYING subscribers isn't all that great when you look at the market as a whole.
Woo for correct use of "couldn't care less"
I'm thinking it wouldn't be very Apple to have advertising.
Could be combined with Match?
Which is probably why Apple is just now getting around to joining the streaming music party.
----------
You're assuming every iOS user wants streaming music.
One thing to consider is that iOS users can simply download the Spotify or Pandora apps for free and subscribe to their service, so having it integrated into iOS probably isn't going to significantly alter the Pandora/Spotify subscription base, nor are tens of millions of new users going to sign up for iRadio just because it's integrated into iOS.
People have to be interested in a product before they buy it (in these numbers). I think the majority of people just aren't really interested.
Yes, that is not the best outcome for streaming services across the existing players, All the big names have been pushing for lower rates for years, and if Apple was given them, they would have a better case for also getting lower rates. Apple is the only company with a potential user base big enough to bring about a change. If even they can't achieve it, there's no hope for any future reductions for the other services either.
----------
I hope it is not ad-supported, or I will have no interest. I don't mind paying a subscription, but I will not listen to ads.
People don't know what they want until you show it to them.
If Apple launches some kind of new streaming service... it will be all over the TV with many commercials... and it will be reported on the news as well. You know all the hoopla that surrounds every Apple announcement.
There are lots of people who don't know what Spotify or Pandora is.
But if Apple is serious about this... they will get the word out.
Although it's a little too early to say predict how well an Apple streaming service would do... I'm leaning more towards success.
I subscribe to the £5 a month Spotify, so no ads, and only use it on my iMac where I work. For that its great - incorporates my iTunes library, plus I can listen to anything else, without ads.
I don't know that I'd ever be convinced by the full premium streaming service for my phone though, as it would just come unstuck due to download caps.
I guess this is the direction its going in though - rather than buy songs / albums, just subscribe to All Music, and have access to it everywhere. The last sticking point is the cost of streaming if you stream a lot though.
I don't know that I'd ever be convinced by the full premium streaming service for my phone though, as it would just come unstuck due to download caps.
I guess this is the direction its going in though - rather than buy songs / albums, just subscribe to All Music, and have access to it everywhere. The last sticking point is the cost of streaming if you stream a lot though.
^This.
And (for me) I only stream music at work or home. On the road I use purchased music, so having one service (Apple) that could provide both needs would be great (again, for me).
How is it different?
They have a much much bigger catalog and those streaming will easily be able to buy the song. That's value added. Plus it's integrated instantly in millions of devices.
How can it compete w/ established players in the field?
iTunes have over 400 Million ACTIVE users with credit card numbers. That number was reported nearly a year ago so it's obviously grown since then.
I believe that they'll roll it out much quicker than the competition across the globe. Also there was a report in the TechCrunch article that it's actually going to be a hybrid between Spotify and Pandora. All we know is they are acquiring streaming rights, however that will look in Apple's form, we simply don't know. I for one will drop Pandora for it if there is roughly an equivalent feature. Why? Because it's integrated and they will more than likely have a larger library and it'll will more than likely be cheaper since Apple could operate this as a break even ie iTunes which makes billions now.
----------
We're two peas in a pod.
They have a much much bigger catalog and those streaming will easily be able to buy the song. That's value added. Plus it's integrated instantly in millions of devices.
How can it compete w/ established players in the field?
iTunes have over 400 Million ACTIVE users with credit card numbers. That number was reported nearly a year ago so it's obviously grown since then.
I believe that they'll roll it out much quicker than the competition across the globe. Also there was a report in the TechCrunch article that it's actually going to be a hybrid between Spotify and Pandora. All we know is they are acquiring streaming rights, however that will look in Apple's form, we simply don't know. I for one will drop Pandora for it if there is roughly an equivalent feature. Why? Because it's integrated and they will more than likely have a larger library and it'll will more than likely be cheaper since Apple could operate this as a break even ie iTunes which makes billions now.
----------
We're two peas in a pod.
I think I'm going to like this.
The question is why didn't this happen a long time ago? Oh well, things take time. Ever since the success of the iTunes store it seems like the media groups are a little more leery of doing deals with Apple and are looking for better deals than what Apple got initially with the music labels. The curse of being the 800lb gorilla. Hopefully, iTunes new status as a money maker will be able to make this a free service.
Lol @ praising good grammar by starting a sentence with "Woo"!
The question is why didn't this happen a long time ago? Oh well, things take time. Ever since the success of the iTunes store it seems like the media groups are a little more leery of doing deals with Apple and are looking for better deals than what Apple got initially with the music labels. The curse of being the 800lb gorilla. Hopefully, iTunes new status as a money maker will be able to make this a free service.
Lol @ praising good grammar by starting a sentence with "Woo"!
Last edited:
Will this be a paid subscription service or just a massive benefit to being an iTunes/iOS user?
I mean why would I buy another song when I'll just stream all I want.
Maybe I just answered my own question, it's gotta be paid service....
I mean why would I buy another song when I'll just stream all I want.
Maybe I just answered my own question, it's gotta be paid service....
The Apple backbone is a thing of the past.
----------
+1 for using the @ symbol during a grammar discussion.
I use Spotify, too, and I really like it. I use the ad-supported version, though. It sounds like Apple's offering will be more like Pandora, and it will be free, hopefully without ads. If so, I think it will be more of an iTunes Music Store feature that will promote artists within genres in an effort to get users to buy more music. I don't know why some people here think you would have to give up Spotify or Pandora to use this feature in iTunes. I like having more options!
----------
Good point... There are a lot of artists/albums/songs that I can't get on Spotify. I wonder how Apple's licensing deals will affect their offerings. I can't believe everything that Apple has for sale in the iTunes Store will be available for streaming, but that sure would be nice!
----------
If they do that, they have a Spotify-killer... at least a killer of the non-subscription version of Spotify. I kind of doubt this will happen, though.
I just listened to and have access to at least two new albums this week alone that would have cost me $10 a piece, so yeah for someone who listens to a lot of new music, its well worth it. Plus I can use the radio function which offers similar functionality that Pandora has.
The return of Lala's one time full play would not be a bad thing. They might even be going for something more like 5 times and you can download it to do that offline. Say maybe with a limit of 2 songs in that mode at a time. The whole buy offline patent could be tied into this idea. If you like the song you can buy it even if you aren't online and it doesn't evaporate etc
----------
I don't quite understand why Apple can't offer a service like Spotify?
Because Copyright laws bar the distribution and/or broadcast of materials you don't have the legal rights to. Apple has to get permission from the copyright holders and they haven't been willing to give Apple those rights yet.
----------
We don't know what Apple is trying to do so it's hard to say if they would or wouldn't be accepting an established deal.
----------
Could be a feature of Match. The whole upload etc was likely based off tech they got from Lala.com (the following in Ping being another part).
Perhaps they could are going for one time full play previews for anyone but if you are a match member you get up to 5 full plays and an offline mode for them.
It does seem strange.I can't imagine what Apple could offer that would make it superior to what's already available,other than some slick integration into the OS.
BUT...Apple often surprises, so I'm eager to see what they have cooked up.Maybe it will be awesome.
----------
Yes,not much leverage with content providers now,the field is too crowded.
If you can actually organize your "collection" by artist instead of only Playlists (like you have to do with Spotify) then I would switch. I don't use playlists and don't want to be forced into only using that method to find what I want to listen to. That's why I was using Napster (until it was swallowed up by the monstrosity that is Rhapsody).
.
People. Real question is if Apple can improve on the excellent Ping. Will be hard to improve on such good product like Ping.
----------
If I decide I want my stream music to only work on Apple product and nothing else, and also cost more, then I will probably switch,
People. Real question is if Apple can improve on the excellent Ping. Will be hard to improve on such good product like Ping.
----------
If I decide I want my stream music to only work on Apple product and nothing else, and also cost more, then I will probably switch,
I willing to bet they still received a lower rate than Pandora for the sole reason that, with a seamless iTunes integration, an Apple service would likely lead to way more music purchases. It's logical to give Apple a lower streaming rate in exchange for a higher rate of users spending money to buy songs they like.
Apple's becoming more like Google
creating iRadio just so it has a place to sell more ads. Creating a streaming music service to sell more radio ads. As long as the revenue from the ads is more than the cost of the content, they make more money. This is why I NEVER use pandora and will not use iRadio.
creating iRadio just so it has a place to sell more ads. Creating a streaming music service to sell more radio ads. As long as the revenue from the ads is more than the cost of the content, they make more money. This is why I NEVER use pandora and will not use iRadio.
I would agree, since it doesn't even exist yet
----------
Wow! I'm glad you know exactly what they're doing. Mr. Cook, why are you on MR?
Edit: Since when does any radio streaming service show ads with a paid subscription. You argument is completely flawed. You're comparing Spotify paid to Pandora free... please
----------
Ah, the voice of reason, glad to have you hear. Other here seem to think Apple was weak. Apparently they don't understand you always start w/ a low ball offer and work up from there. Honestly, from the Studio's POV, why would they offer you less? Pandora and Spotify are doing just fine for them. Not as much leverage but again, I agree w/ this is going to see a decent uptick of up-selling (rent to own).
Its kinda like this, rough numbers.
Performance royalties are earned whenever a piece of music is played on TV or Radio, etc, not when a song is purchased.
Of performing royalties:
Of writing performance royalties: Song writer gets 50%, lyricist gets 50%.
Of publishing performance royalties, the publisher gets those. An independent musician will get 100% if they own their own publishing company. If they're signed to a label, a typical split will be 60% for the artist, 40% for the label. Quite often the label will act like a bank and loan the musician money and recoup that by also taking their 60% until its paid off. This money can be used to buy instruments, tour with, pay rent, etc. Many examples have the musicians never being able to pay this back.
Lastly there are mechanicals, not royalties per say. These are 'physical' sales of CD's and tracks....typical stuff, i forget what I make per track through tune core.
Perhaps mechanicals is where the 'big bad' labels make their money, but the publishing and writing performance "royalties" are mainly a source of income for the artists. Lets say some washed out guy who's 60 wrote a hit song 40 years ago. Nobody is buying his CD's anymore, he too old to tour. Luckily the track is still played on the radio around the world. Performance royalties are now the only way he keeps a roof over is head.
I have occasionally written music for many projects where I get no fee, or very very low fee, the only income from Performance royalties.
Older media forms like Radio and TV pay better, the new media forms pay much less- generally due the the new players in the industry (youtube, spotify, etc), the inability of the associations that protect musicians and labels to make much headway, and most importantly due to general public opinion. The last one is unfortunate really, I think a lot of people are misinformed and companies such as youtube actively support this misinformation for their own interest.
Still, perhaps the money Spotify pay are mainly 'mechanicals', meaning the labels are indeed making a chunk from it. But if we're at all talking performance royalties, then Its screwing over the musician more than the label.
So perhaps my post about performance royalties is not so relevant to this specific situation....? But hey, just wanted to educate everyone a bit
Last edited: