Apple Still Negotiating With Music Labels Over Streaming Terms Days Before WWDC Launch

[OllyW]

I don't think the majority of people care about owning music anymore.

It's not as clear cut as you think, total income from all digital music (combined downloads and streaming) only caught up with income from physical sales last year so more people are still buying music than streaming.

In 2014, the industry’s global digital revenues increased by 6.9 per cent to US$6.85 billion. For the first time, the industry derived the same proportion of revenues from digital channels (46%) as physical format sales (46%).

http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php

 

[Schizoid]

WWDC...
Why We Don't Care

 

[BMcCoy]

Developers care.. since it is a conference for developers.

 

[haydn!]

I'm not sure what all the fuss is about for this.

It will be an US only feature that 75% of Apple customers will never get to use!

 

[Dave245]

If you take a step back and look at your comparisons there is only one choice that makes sense.. streaming.

I don't think the majority of people care about owning music anymore.

Personally i don't care about owning the music, what i do care about tho is being able to access it offline, if Apple's music streaming allows this then i would think about it, that's if we in the UK end up getting it (We still don't have Apple Pay or iTunes Radio).

 

[thekeyring]

I'd prefer Apple fix the bug infested tripe Tim Cook has foisted upon us since Steve died than some lame radio service.

That's a little extreme. Was iOS 6 bug filled? No. Regardless, if rumours are true iOS 9 will focus heavily on squishing bugs which iOS 8 introduced...

 

[Chupa Chupa]

I'd prefer Apple fix the bug infested tripe Tim Cook has foisted upon us since Steve died than some lame radio service.

So true. I don't know if it has anything to do w/ Steve Job's presence or not, and we'll never know, but I haven't experienced so many Mac OS annoyances since the early versions of OS X. And it's more than just bugs. The whole way iTunes is redesigned is still non-intuitive. Photos is not ready for prime time. FCP X and Motion still are not interlinked as they once were. It's like the Apple in Cook is receding and the HP is coming out.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

It's difficult for me to get behind streaming of any kind when I'm hamstrung by U.S. Carriers and data limits.

That's just 1 reason. There is also the fact that if you "rent" music then you are perpetually paying for it OR you lose it, no matter if you listen via unlimited WiFi or cell data or you are on a pay per GB plan.

I enjoy owning my collection, and more importantly, not having to spend $10/month on music if there is nothing new worth the price of admission. But I'm even more hardcore than that -- I still buy CDs because the quality it better and, oddly, the cost is either the same or less on Amazon. I admit storing the CDs is kind of a PITA and if Amazon or iTunes started selling lossless downloads I'd be all in.

 

[Rogifan]

Developers care.. since it is a conference for developers.

Why would developers care about a streaming music service?

 

[mantan]

At this rate the only thing unveiled at WWDC will be .... new emojis.

Labels are just like RE agents....parasites. Neither create anything nor provide any benefit to the creator of the product (musicians/builders) or consumers of the product (music lovers/homeowners). Actually cable companies fall into the parasite category also.

I would call the actual delivery of content that cable and satellite providers provide as a 'benefit' to the consumer. More importantly to the networks that make shows, they provide a steady steam of predictable income through subscription fees that fund all the programming they make. The networks make a pretty penny for it...and get to have the cable/satellite providers be the pinata when customers complain about costs.

Do they nickel and dime? Absolutely? Is their customer service usually poor? Yep. But it's hard to argue they don't provide a benefit.

 

[BigInDallas]

I hate the scumbag labels. They don't care one whit if artists get a dime... they want the maximum amount for doing the LEAST.
Why would Apple pay MORE than Spotify?? Because eventually they have the ability to eclipse Spotify in users and make the labels a boatload more?? So, to your potentially most lucrative partner ever.... may as well try to give them the WORST deals & terms? What clowns. I wish a model would arise destroying them. I'd love it. I'd literally drive to the welfare office to laugh in the face of all the unemployed music execs. They are the bottom feeding thieves that represent 100% of what people are talking about when they mention the "shady" part of the music industry.

Angry? Take a Breath

 

[iBreatheApple]

Never say never but I don't think there's anything they could do to get me off of Spotify Premium. A few weeks ago I figured 'why not' seeing their student discount was only $4.99/month (up to four years). I'm so glad I tried. I always said that I refuse to 'rent' music but at that price point, and being able to download 10,000 for offline use, no ads, unlimited skips, and being able to scrub through a song, it is more than worth it.

 

[gotluck]

Well... if the the labels weren't a part- I'm sure the same 30/70 split that has worked so well on the App Store could apply! I don't get the competitors comment... to the record labels, I suppose both Spotify & Apple seem more business partners than competitors. The deal they cut with either seems little to do with competition. The labels aren't running a streaming service of their own, they're simply leasing the content they strongarmed the rights to.

Hah! Yes the labels sure do know how to make the 30 70 split look good

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

It's not as clear cut as you think, total income from all digital music (combined downloads and streaming) only caught up with income from physical sales last year so more people are still buying music than streaming.

And I'm pretty sure that those physical sales don't count the used CD market. For music library-building purposes, a used CD delivers the exact same quality of music as a new one. It will cost a fraction of the cost of a new one, often less than buying 1-2 songs off of it via services like iTunes. Except for rare scenarios, I quit buying new CDs at least half a decade ago. But I still buy lots of CDs. I have zero interest in renting access to music. It appears to have a place in the market but I don't believe it is a replacement (for owning music) anymore then renting a place to live or a car to drive can replace owning a place to live or that car.

I see all these posts and press implying that consumers want streaming over owning because music buying numbers appear to be rolling over. My take of that is that digital never degrades, so once it's owned it's as good as new forever. As long as someone doesn't make bad backup decisions and suffers a hard drive failure, there's no re-buying. AND, as soon as one owns a fair number of favorite songs, shuffle mode fills music-listening time with favorite songs. Once that list is fairly long, the desire to freshen the list up with new songs can fade... and one can go long stretches of time without missing new music additions. Does this work for everyone? No. For some streaming is going to be much more desirable. But neither will be an "ALL" solution.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Given the lack of music deal, absence of new Apple TV hardware, and google photos stealing their thunder, this keynote's looking a little like:

- wow, we made a lot of money
- here's what's new with OS X... oh wait, we thought we'd just focus on fixing the existing screw ups.
- Here's what's new with iOS... that thing about fixing screw ups? Yeah, we'll do that there too.
- Dammit, we're PRIVATE! We'll bill the snot out of y'all, but we won't sell your data to anyone! Really! That's why we're great!
- Uh... here's Cold Play.
- Bye... go program something.

I love your dry sense of humour; you must be English.

 

[TallManNY]

Never say never but I don't think there's anything they could do to get me off of Spotify Premium. A few weeks ago I figured 'why not' seeing their student discount was only $4.99/month (up to four years). I'm so glad I tried. I always said that I refuse to 'rent' music but at that price point, and being able to download 10,000 for offline use, no ads, unlimited skips, and being able to scrub through a song, it is more than worth it.

The problem is that it Spotify isn't charging enough to actually (A) pay the artists and (B) keep themselves in business. Sure take advantage of it. That price is great. But recognize that this is kind of part Ponzi scheme and part just ripping off the artists. It is still losing money and this with the fact that it's highest "paid" employees are working for far less cash salary because they are hoping (quite reasonably so) for IPO riches. If it ever paid the artists a decent amount or had to pay its employees in actual cash, it would lose even more money.

 

[applesith]

I can't wait to see what Apple actually has to show on Monday.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

Never say never but I don't think there's anything they could do to get me off of Spotify Premium. A few weeks ago I figured 'why not' seeing their student discount was only $4.99/month (up to four years). I'm so glad I tried. I always said that I refuse to 'rent' music but at that price point, and being able to download 10,000 for offline use, no ads, unlimited skips, and being able to scrub through a song, it is more than worth it.

The problem is, in a few years, when you're a busy man and don't have much time to listen to music, you may regret not buying the music you like.

 

[thekeyring]

At the very least it was much, much, much better. Steve resurrected dying Apple and in 15 years made it the most valuable company in the world.

Yes but it doesn't mean it'll fail without him. The worst area Apple is affected seems to be marketing/perception. They lost their top salesman. When Tim Cook announced a watch that could make phone calls - like something straight out of a scifi film - people scoffed "Yes, but it relies on the iPhone...". When Steve Jobs announced a phone that could actually make video calls, people said it was the future. They ignored that it, like Skype and other IMs, required Wi-Fi.

Also, Pixar carried on after Steve Jobs stopped being CEO. NeXT struggled with Steve Jobs as CEO. Steve Jobs being CEO is not a requirement for - nor does it guarantee a company - success.

 

[cliffster82]

Given the lack of music deal, absence of new Apple TV hardware, and google photos stealing their thunder, this keynote's looking a little like:

- wow, we made a lot of money
- here's what's new with OS X... oh wait, we thought we'd just focus on fixing the existing screw ups.
- Here's what's new with iOS... that thing about fixing screw ups? Yeah, we'll do that there too.
- Dammit, we're PRIVATE! We'll bill the snot out of y'all, but we won't sell your data to anyone! Really! That's why we're great!
- Uh... here's Cold Play.
- Bye... go program something.

HAHA. Don't forget "BTW, we made a watch! It's beautiful. It tells time. It does notifications....um yea so there's that."

 

[teslo]

all these music streaming models mean more and more miley cyruses and BlackEyed Peas coming up and getting rich off the deals, merch, and licensing that sprout from tangential offers. the actual streaming will mean nothing to them financially, it will just be exposure.

local bands and indie artists will need their own services, as these big-wig streaming services won't bother for two seconds promoting or featuring them. their networking ties and potential deals/merch/licensing opportunities will make them seem like a waste of time. it's like a serious catch 22 for locals/indies at this point. i suppose there's always youTube channels ,eh?

 

[teslo]

HAHA. Don't forget "BTW, we made a watch! It's beautiful. It tells time. It does notifications....um yea so there's that."

you guys and your cut-n-paste disparaging cynicism... so much confirmation bias, it's cute <3

 

[Tycho24]

Angry? Take a Breath

Thanks for the condescending (lack of) concern for my emotional well being!!
Lol. Don't worry about me... I have a pleasant life & don't let most things bother me.
However, luckily... I'm not a COMPLETELY unfeeling machine. I can indeed, have strong feelings about things that matter to me. Social injustice, for example. The powerful preying on the powerless... these types of things.
To me: this type of anger is justified... righteous indignation, I believe they call it.

 

[MH01]

Developers care.. since it is a conference for developers.

While people complain.....

Apple users also care very much, cause most of the features announced are benefits/features of the new OS that Apple develops, any other features are bonuses bases on what the clever Devs can bring to the party.

 

[mwd25]

"Apple was seeking an agreement that allow it to offer a streaming music service to customers for $7.99 a month rather than the standard $9.99 rate. However, Apple was forced to back down after record labels resisted the change."
Someone please explain that to me. I would think Apple could charge whatever they want for their service, now, if the labels don't give them a good deal, then Apple will have to charge more because they don't want to take a hit financially. If the label said we are not cutting our price, Apple, in theory, could charge customers less then competitors and thereby make up for the loss by taking in more customers. It seems like the article is saying the labels can dictate to Apple what they charge for their service. Do they mean Apple chooses to back down because they dont want to take a hit or do labels actually dictate what streaming services can charge. Don't see how that's possible.