I think if Apple really expect 6 cents per 100 plays with much more flexibility than Pandora, then it's essentially a middle finger to the music industry. There's low balling an offer, and there's a insulting offer. It's too low, and the only way I see the music industry accepting that is if Apple somehow has a fallback deal where they have to guarantee certain increase in iTunes sales due to this deal, and if they don't meet the increase, the rates goes up automatically or apply Pandora like limitations.
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 Reportedly Offering Half of Pandora's Royalty Rate for Streaming Music Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oy vey,. Are you serious with what you wrote? Uh, sir, here's the definition of "hate". Double check the meaning of words before you post.
Did you read what you posted? Maybe you missed the first few words. It said "intense or passionate"
But really - you're going to quibble about Bieber now?
Oy vey,
Hate and dislike don't mean the same thing. Hate is a degree of dislike. Just like detest, abhor, loath, and abominate display different intensity of dislike.
Just like I abhor Justin Bieber's maturity, but I'm indifferent to his music and everything else about him.
1+
Please next time you do a music story use a better 'artist', someone that can actually sing, and not turn up 2 hours late to a concert!
As for streaming music, that would be a nice addition but personally I don't know how much use I'll make of it.
Last edited:
That's business. Apple has the upper hand here and they know it. Pandora is doing horrible as a business and it's because they bent over for the record labels. Apples not going to. They already sell billions worth of albums and songs each year on iTunes. You add a radio that's embedded into each iPhone and that number will only grow. The labels know it, Apple knows it. It's only a matter of time before they give in again.
----------
It's a business. Record labels have been ***** artists for years and will continue to do so.
----------
It's a business. Record labels have been ***** artists for years and will continue to do so.
Yeah, a watered down, platform locked, version of Pandora will be an even bigger hit than Maps was.
You are funny man.
Here's my "6 cents"... (he he, I think I'm funny...)
6¢/100/200m might advantage big name "artists"... Might not be as good for small for indie artists.
I guess it would depend on how users can actually get to new music. I like Pandora for this, I play something based on my tastes and what I know and then I get surprises and discover new stuff.
Also, and I haven't really read the article, might be 6¢/100 songs regardless of the time a song player... If it plays 3 seconds, then I skip it, that might still count towards the 100 songs...
I think Pandora stops after a while when there is no user interactions, so that also limits royalties. With iTunes streaming, it might not be the case and that would also increase revenues.
Lots of "ifs" and things we don't know.
But personally, I'm all for better royalties for artists, especially for small indie bands as there are truly some gems out there, but still don't know. (There can be lots of crap too)
But we all know that whatever's accepted in the end will likely not advantage artists...
So, because record labels have been ***** artists for years, Apple can ****** them even harder? Including the independent artists that don't have a record label ***** them...
But not everyone who streams the song on Spotify would have been willing to pay $1 for it, or buy the CD. If that had been 1 million downloads through torrents, she would have made $0.
We don't really know how much the availability of music streaming services cost or benefited Lady Gaga in total because we have no idea if more people being able to hear the song meant more people seeing her live in concert, or if it was primarily people who would've pirated the song anyway, etc.
crazytrain said:
Smaller indie bands aren't getting much at all in royalties from streaming services, but they are getting much more airplay and visibility than they would have traditionally on the radio or TV. The recommendation system, shared playlists, and social nature of some of these streaming services does lead to new people being introduced to music they never would've heard before. Maybe a portion will then decide to see them live, buy merch, buy the download, etc.
Even CD sales and downloads aren't really that much when you haven't been elevated to stardom by record labels. But the more people who hear and like your music, the more who will come to see you live.
I do sympathize with the artists, but they still have touring, and streaming/downloads are the future (present?) of music. Consumers are unlikely to pay substantially more to stream music.
I say they should buy Pandora. I couldn't think of another app that has more pull than it, maybe iheartRadio, but I doubt it. [well ok, Spotify but they aren't going anywhere]
Besides, even though Pandora is a good company, they haven't made very much money if any at all. I just think Apple and Pandora would benefit from each other.
Apple: Marketing, Money, iCloud Streaming/Storage, iTunes
Pandora: Brand awareness, currently installed on many phones, appliances, and within Automobiles. Assets, and Streaming capabilities, and Knowledge.
Just to name a few.
Besides, even though Pandora is a good company, they haven't made very much money if any at all. I just think Apple and Pandora would benefit from each other.
Apple: Marketing, Money, iCloud Streaming/Storage, iTunes
Pandora: Brand awareness, currently installed on many phones, appliances, and within Automobiles. Assets, and Streaming capabilities, and Knowledge.
Just to name a few.
two turntables and a microphone
in us$bn, trend shows traditional music sales (light blue) count for less than half of industry's revenue as artists turn to the stage (blue blue) for cash.
in us$bn, trend shows traditional music sales (light blue) count for less than half of industry's revenue as artists turn to the stage (blue blue) for cash.
There are over a hundred million iPhones out there potentially ready to download and start using the hypothetical iStreaming service. Lets say just 10 million of them start using the service and each one listens to 100 songs (extremely modest estimate) a month, thats $60,000,000 Apple shells out a month for 12 months is $720,000,000 pumped into the record industry. Again a very modest estimate. It will be over a billion per year easy.
Crazy train that is exactly right. And when folks are listening to their free pandora and spotify they are less likely to buy songs on ITunes. So the artists are being crushed. And it isn't even that they are losing to a better business and the free market. They are losing to businesses that are themselves putting themselves out fo business. But due to a quirk of capital allocation they are funded for years and can do this at a loss for years. Eventually shareholder and investors will be left holding the bag. But lots of artists will be hurt in the meantime.
But as a consumer, things are great for me.
----------
But the point is that Spotify is just going to go out of business. It has its funding as they go for market share. But no plan to actually make a profit. As long as spotify or pandora is giving away the product for free, no one can make money in this industry.
It's a nice way of putting it. However, it's a zero-sum game. Anyone who switches from streaming Pandora/Spotify/etc to streaming iRadio wouldn't count in your calculations (and actually would count as a loss to record industry: 6c vs. 12c/21c)... so your numbers are overestimating how much Apple will add to record industry (in new revenue). 1 song = 1 song.
Exactly. The Apple user base for ad supported music streaming would be much larger than the current global iTunes user base because it is free. The labels are bing short sighted. They should at least strike a deal with options to increase the base price if the user base does not materialize as expected.
They can either stream the music and make money or don't stream the music and make nothing. I say stream the darn music already.
I don't think Apple has anything to do with the artist. It's the record companies that decide the amount in the contract. Maybe they have dealings with the independents that don't have a label. And I'm sure they would jump at the chance to be in iTunes. Apple has positioned themselves strongly in the music business. They changed the way everyone discovers and buys music. The labels will cave eventually.
That's just only good business practice, bargaining for the best possible deal. With the size of their installed user base, they'd be negligent towards their shareholders, not to do this.
Besides, are you willing to pay more for iTunes Match (which it is reportedly going to be bundled with), or are you willing to suffer through more commercials, to make-up for the added cost of higher streaming fees?
Streaming radio sucks. Nobody wants it.
Streaming music ala Spotify, Rdio, XBOX Music, Deezer, etc. is the future.
Let's just cut to the chase; Apple is being idiotic. I hope the record companies freeze them out for this lowball offer.
----------
Or they can freeze Apple out and stay with companies who are paying better (Mirosoft, Google (in the near future), Deezer, Spotify, etc.)
They don't need Apple. Streaming sites are going to eat iTunes for lunch. The data is clear.
----------
So if some random guy offered you $1.50 per day to clean his house from top to bottom (taking roughly 7 hours), would you accept that deal?
Nobody should ever accept such a crappy deal. Apple is insane if they think anyone would accept so little money.
Streaming music ala Spotify, Rdio, XBOX Music, Deezer, etc. is the future.
Let's just cut to the chase; Apple is being idiotic. I hope the record companies freeze them out for this lowball offer.
----------
Or they can freeze Apple out and stay with companies who are paying better (Mirosoft, Google (in the near future), Deezer, Spotify, etc.)
They don't need Apple. Streaming sites are going to eat iTunes for lunch. The data is clear.
----------
So if some random guy offered you $1.50 per day to clean his house from top to bottom (taking roughly 7 hours), would you accept that deal?
Nobody should ever accept such a crappy deal. Apple is insane if they think anyone would accept so little money.
Not likely; no one can afford to ignore such a potentially HUGE stream of revenue. The content owners might be miffed, but they will negotiate.
Looking through these comments its pretty obvious most of you have never negotiated for anything before.
This is a first round in what will likely be dozens of bid offers, and Apple (or anyone else) would not be doing their jobs if they did anything else except start low and gradually work your way up to meet somewhere in the middle.
Its how pretty much every negotiation in history has worked.
I would suspect that given what Apple can offer and maybe come up with creative ways to use its resources to work a deal in its favor, mainly a widely fanatical user base and access to a good percentage of the mobile devices in use, Apple stands a chance at doing a bit better than Pandora.
This is a first round in what will likely be dozens of bid offers, and Apple (or anyone else) would not be doing their jobs if they did anything else except start low and gradually work your way up to meet somewhere in the middle.
Its how pretty much every negotiation in history has worked.
I would suspect that given what Apple can offer and maybe come up with creative ways to use its resources to work a deal in its favor, mainly a widely fanatical user base and access to a good percentage of the mobile devices in use, Apple stands a chance at doing a bit better than Pandora.