Apple Music's Jimmy Iovine: 'Streaming Services Have a Bad Situation'

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

He doesn’t care if Spotify goes down under - he is only worried that they would have to reduce their price to compete.

Apple pays nearly double to artists what Spotify does. They have more room to negotiate as they add more members.

 

[nebo1ss]

That's not at all what he said. What was actually said was that Spotify is in a dangerous place because they have nothing other than streaming to offer. If something happens tomorrow and Apple or Amazon drop the price of their streaming service to $1.00 a month, Spotify is out of business. Google, Amazon, and Apple would live on, as they have something else to offer. Spotify doesn't.

Iovine has been in the business a long time and understands it. It's a business that has seen a lot of change in recent years and throughout history. Betting everything on streaming remaining the only way is a fools bet. It'd be much smarter to place bets in more than just a single place.

That would be illegal. Predatory pricing is illegal under anti-trust laws that exist today.

 

[buklauu]

Is iTunes ever going to support FLAC? I have stuff from Tidal (that isn’t available in iTunes) I’d love to import into iTunes but converting FLAC files to the iTunes equivalent is a pain.

iPhone 7, 8, and X all support FLAC playback on iOS 11. So hopefully iTunes support is not far behind.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Not entirely true, as radio stations do not play music 'for free', but artist gets compensated. Legendary are stories like those of the members from 70s band Slade who still earn a nice income from their Christmas hit back in the day that now is still popular on retro stations.

But as an artist you could make an income from actually selling your music on physical media and that option disappeared.

Right... but my point was... you made good money on tour then... and you still do today.

The way the earlier comment was worded... it sounded like touring was some new trick.

 

[-BigMac-]

The only part of the industry that "needs saving" are the producers and labels who got rich by acting as gatekeepers to what was, in the past, an expensive product to produce, distribute, market, and sell. In 2017, that is no longer the case, and we should all be content with letting that industry die.

It is incredibly easy for musicians to make, record, and distribute music these days. For MOST musicians, the industry has never been better. It is worse ONLY for those lucky few (VERY few) who were allowed into the big boys club in the past.

The idea of going back to physical media is simply laughable. Are you trolling?

Hes trolling or just has no idea haha BRING BACK THE CD DRIVES! #MacbookPro1018

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

That would be illegal. Predatory pricing is illegal under anti-trust laws that exist today.

Predatory pricing is only illegal in certain jurisdictions and certain products. It's incredibly hard to prove and enforce. The chances Spotify would have a case are very very slim.

There's zero requirement for Amazon, Apple, or Google to charge what they do. If they decide, "We're willing to make less profit on this." they certainly can lower their price. Where those companies could afford to run their music services at almost no profit, Spotify can't. Spotify is bleeding more than $500 million a year in losses right now. They'd be doomed while Apple, Amazon, and Google could just say they're operating their music service as an attraction to their related products and there'd be no predatory pricing claim that could be made.

Additionally, in the US you have to be a near monopoly for predatory pricing to come into play. That doesn't work in this case where there are numerous music providers, especially where the largest streaming service is Spotify themselves.

 

[joueboy]

So before the Beats acquisition he was like yeah streaming is the only way to go. Then 3 billion dollars and years later now he's saying you know what streaming is in bad situation. Well played Iovine, well at least you're making more money than your boss Timmy.

 

[Abazigal]

That would be illegal. Predatory pricing is illegal under anti-trust laws that exist today.

Good luck proving it. What’s stopping Apple from say, offering free Apple Music services for two years to anyone who purchases a new iPhone, for example? Last I checked, freebies weren’t a crime.

 

[tgwaste]

If Spotify's business model is not sustainable, let them be. I mean the market will decide in the end.
I personally am disappointed that consumers are gratifying into streaming music. We have worked so hard to get legal non-DRM music, yet now people are willingly adopting vendor specific DRMed music in the form of streaming music.

The thing is one month of service costs less than 1 album. I no longer have to manage any of my own library or buy albums. i can get anything / any time for $8/mo. Thats reasonable

 

[pika2000]

The thing is one month of service costs less than 1 album. I no longer have to manage any of my own library or buy albums. i can get anything / any time for $8/mo. Thats reasonable

If you buy every album that comes out every month, then by all means go with spotify. Do note that you don't actually own anything and you are simply paying for radio. When you actually want to own certain tracks, you are paying extra.

For me, I don't buy every albums every month. Haven't we learned about just getting the tracks we like since the age of napster? I actually spend more money paying spotify, and they still don't have the music I want.

But let the market decide. It's a long game, and that's what Jimmy is saying, will Spotify able to last long enough against the likes of Amazon/Apple/Google.

 

[Ma2k5]

Apple pays nearly double to artists what Spotify does. They have more room to negotiate as they add more members.

Not sure how that is relevant, in the end, if they lower their subscription cost, it would lower their profits.

 

[iCat]

The only part of the industry that "needs saving" are the producers and labels who got rich by acting as gatekeepers to what was, in the past, an expensive product to produce, distribute, market, and sell. In 2017, that is no longer the case, and we should all be content with letting that industry die.

It is incredibly easy for musicians to make, record, and distribute music these days. For MOST musicians, the industry has never been better. It is worse ONLY for those lucky few (VERY few) who were allowed into the big boys club in the past.

The idea of going back to physical media is simply laughable. Are you trolling?

Amen

 

[pika2000]

The only part of the industry that "needs saving" are the producers and labels who got rich by acting as gatekeepers to what was, in the past, an expensive product to produce, distribute, market, and sell. In 2017, that is no longer the case, and we should all be content with letting that industry die.

It is incredibly easy for musicians to make, record, and distribute music these days. For MOST musicians, the industry has never been better. It is worse ONLY for those lucky few (VERY few) who were allowed into the big boys club in the past.

The idea of going back to physical media is simply laughable. Are you trolling?

That would be the idea, and yes, current consumer technology allows almost anybody to try their best into making and distributing their own music. However, in reality, the consumers still prefer the "music" that the mainstream labels feed them with. There are many independent artists out there, but they are drowned out by the marketing machines of the big boys.

 

[apolloa]

Was Netflix losing money every single quarter with no real plan for profit?

Well, Spotify are still here and increasing their customer base last I read. So I don’t think your opinion on their being no plan for profit is accurate...
I think that sums up why an Apple exec is trying to bring down their main competitor. Don’t believe a word if it. Apple just wants that market share and to kill the competition anyway it can.

 

[Michael Goff]

Well, Spotify are still here and increasing their customer base last I read. So I don’t think your opinion on their being no plan for profit is accurate...
I think that sums up why an Apple exec is trying to bring down their main competitor. Don’t believe a word if it. Apple just wants that market share and to kill the competition anyway it can.

Let me ask you a serious question. If free users are costing more than they bring in and Spotify isn’t wanting to stop having free users, what’s the plan?

 

[apolloa]

Let me ask you a serious question. If free users are costing more than they bring in and Spotify isn’t wanting to stop having free users, what’s the plan?

Well considering they are still in business and growing and have been for a few years now, I expect Spotify have a plan you don’t understand or know off, because they are still here, evidence what they are doing is working.
Im not going to be naive enough to second guess a business that is still trading successfully. If they go bust, then we can talk.

 

[Michael Goff]

Well considering they are still in business and growing and have been for a few years now, I expect Spotify have a plan you don’t understand or know off, because they are still here, evidence what they are doing is working.
Im not going to be naive enough to second guess a business that is still trading successfully. If they go bust, then we can talk.

They only around because they’re getting cash injections from outside sources. They’re not profitable. They’ve never been profitable. They’re growing their customers and their expenses.

What can’t you see?

 

[PG(Austin)]

Amazon has a streaming music service you can pay for.

https://www.amazon.com/gp/dmusic/promotions/AmazonMusicUnlimited

I do pay for it...but will not renew it.