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 Still Negotiating With Sony and Warner Over iRadio Royalties
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If I can't listen to whatever I want, whenever I want, it's a failure. Spotify and Xbox Music are unbeatable at the moment.
The only thing iRadio could have an advantage in is Apple´s database that could mix genres and styles on-the-fly to discover new music. It´s more like a feature for the iTunes music store, not comparable to Spotify at all.
iRadio doesn´t want to be a direct Spotify competitor. They only want to direct more sales towards their music store and steal away some share from Spotify if possible.
iRadio doesn´t want to be a direct Spotify competitor. They only want to direct more sales towards their music store and steal away some share from Spotify if possible.
Spotify is not established in all markets, Spotify and Pandora are not available in Canada for example and I am sure a few other markets.
So I would be interested in seeing what Apple has to offer.
I don't really see what this does that radio doesn't. Pandora pretty much already has any market for this that exists cornered, and it's small.
And if you want music on demand Vevo, Youtube and Spotify exist.
----------
Why do you think this would be available in all markets?
iTunes Match isn't now, and launched in the US only.
You only need to invest about 5 minutes to know what iRadio is going to offer. Certainly not a Spotify-like replacement.
Also, Apple doesn´t offer every service worldwide, so your other point is moot.
Most likely the service will be free and have ads. It will be part of iTunes. Also, you seem a little paranoid suggesting that Apple is in league with AT&T, Version and the rest to make you use more data and go over your cap. Conspiracy theories abound and they are for the most part only theories. Stop worrying about Apple and pay attention to your own data cap, then you won't go over.
I don't think it will be available in all markets in the beginning but iTunes match was available in other markets fairly quickly so hoping it would progress quickly.
I guess the point I am getting at is when I see comments like. "that is what Spotify" is for or "how is this going to be better than Pandora", "Apple is wasting their time" etc, etc. Well people the world is a big place and their are potential markets not served by the more popular streaming services, so there are some people interested in Apple's offering and Apple probably is looking at the big picture as well trying to look at potential revenue sources.
Anyways enough of my rant!!
----------
How do you know what Apple is offering? Your point is moot by thinking you know what Apple is bringing to the table.
Apple doesn't absolutely need "iRadio". They should make a final offer and if the music execs don't accept, just walk away saying: "If you change your mind you know where to reach us. Bye bye now".
Just read what I wrote. The answer is in there. iRadio is not a Spotify-replacement, they want to sell more music and probably also make money with additional ads. There´s almost nothing in there for customers. They won´t ever create a service on top of the iTunes music store that will eat into their music sales. Don´t get your hopes up. That´s why it has taken them so long to negotiate, because they want to make a lot of additional money with iRadio.I don't think it will be available in all markets in the beginning but iTunes match was available in other markets fairly quickly so hoping it would progress quickly.
I guess the point I am getting at is when I see comments like. "that is what Spotify" is for or "how is this going to be better than Pandora", "Apple is wasting their time" etc, etc. Well people the world is a big place and their are potential markets not served by the more popular streaming services, so there are some people interested in Apple's offering and Apple probably is looking at the big picture as well trying to look at potential revenue sources.
Anyways enough of my rant!!
----------
How do you know what Apple is offering? Your point is moot by thinking you know what Apple is bringing to the table.
What led you to that conclusion? Seems like the service will either be free with ads, or paid with no ads (or both options), similar to the other ones.
Well said. Spotify is the true rival here.
Spotify > Pandora
I guess it is a matter of preference. I prefer Pandora. The main reason is I want to discover new music without exploring myself. That is Pandora's claim to fame, and I still think it does it well.
Further, if people care about the artists, like they claim they do, Pandora compensates the artists much more than Spotify does.
I know that Apple have a ridiculous amount of cash in reserve. However I am not an advocate of making somebody pay more because it is assumed [or known] that they can pay more.
It is a little like those shops that do not have any prices on the items they sell and then decide on how much to tell you they want, based on how much they think you will pay.
A licence fee, is a licence fee?
However I suppose Apple, only offering 6 cents was cheap in retrospect also..., or maybe it's time for Apple to see what it is like at the receiving end for once?
Spotify pays more because you can make playlists
Apple probably wanted that feature
----------
No talk
Apple probably wanted that feature
I know that Apple have a ridiculous amount of cash in reserve. However I am not an advocate of making somebody pay more because it is assumed [or known] that they can pay more.
It is a little like those shops that do not have any prices on the items they sell and then decide on how much to tell you they want, based on how much they think you will pay.
A licence fee, is a licence fee?
However I suppose Apple, only offering 6 cents was cheap in retrospect also..., or maybe it's time for Apple to see what it is like at the receiving end for once?
----------
No talk
I disagree. As much as I'd like to see an on demand subscription service, iRadio will be big. You'd be surprised at how many people still listen to regular radio.
I kind of like the fact that no one company dominates the streaming market in the same way that iTunes dominates the download to own market. It keeps prices down and allows new entrants to come into the market.
I've been using Spotify for a while and I'm currently trialling Rdio and I have to say that I'm very impressed with them both. Why pay £8 for one album when you can listen to as many albums as you like for £10/month. It's a no brainer. Especially as the Spotify/Rdio tracks are the same quality as iTunes tracks.
I've no objections to iRadio but I would much rather see Apple put their efforts into providing the option to buy HQ lossless tracks in either 16bit or 24bit. If they offered HQ lossless tracks I would switch back to iTunes and stop buying CDs altogether.
I've been using Spotify for a while and I'm currently trialling Rdio and I have to say that I'm very impressed with them both. Why pay £8 for one album when you can listen to as many albums as you like for £10/month. It's a no brainer. Especially as the Spotify/Rdio tracks are the same quality as iTunes tracks.
I've no objections to iRadio but I would much rather see Apple put their efforts into providing the option to buy HQ lossless tracks in either 16bit or 24bit. If they offered HQ lossless tracks I would switch back to iTunes and stop buying CDs altogether.
Right in the short term, wrong in the long one
I believe it's the first time "i miss Steve".
With the Pandora-like agreement Apple is doing exactly what a Microsfot would do: go where the money is, not where it will be.
Consumers want to have Spotify-like service, and in the end the consumer always win. If Apple doesn't do it, someone else will.
We had complete albums, then iTunes revolutionized the industry with the capability of purchasing single tracks, now Spotify and the likes revolutionize it again with their service, wich is plain better (for 90% of consumers) than purchasing music in iTunes.
I'm not using iTunes since one year, and so is any of my friends who had a chance to try Spotify. They couldn't believe it costed 10$ per month, just as i couldn't believe a song could cost 1$.
Apple should go where the consumers want to be lead, and do it better than competitors. It pays in the long run. The right thing to do is to satisfy and surprise consumers, not one-year forecast of share value.
Why on earth should i ever purchase a song that i listened from "iRadio" for 10% of what i pay to Spotify monthly to listen to it wherever i want whenever i want on whicherever device i want, all perfectly synced, is beyond my mind. And boy, yes i'm an Apple fan.
Trying to go against the tide, against what is better for consumer, might be good for iTunes sales for the next 2 years, but plainly wrong in the long run.
Purchase spotify, integrate it with your ecosystem, make it better rename it and re-invent the music industry again.
I believe it's the first time "i miss Steve".
With the Pandora-like agreement Apple is doing exactly what a Microsfot would do: go where the money is, not where it will be.
Consumers want to have Spotify-like service, and in the end the consumer always win. If Apple doesn't do it, someone else will.
We had complete albums, then iTunes revolutionized the industry with the capability of purchasing single tracks, now Spotify and the likes revolutionize it again with their service, wich is plain better (for 90% of consumers) than purchasing music in iTunes.
I'm not using iTunes since one year, and so is any of my friends who had a chance to try Spotify. They couldn't believe it costed 10$ per month, just as i couldn't believe a song could cost 1$.
Apple should go where the consumers want to be lead, and do it better than competitors. It pays in the long run. The right thing to do is to satisfy and surprise consumers, not one-year forecast of share value.
Why on earth should i ever purchase a song that i listened from "iRadio" for 10% of what i pay to Spotify monthly to listen to it wherever i want whenever i want on whicherever device i want, all perfectly synced, is beyond my mind. And boy, yes i'm an Apple fan.
Trying to go against the tide, against what is better for consumer, might be good for iTunes sales for the next 2 years, but plainly wrong in the long run.
Purchase spotify, integrate it with your ecosystem, make it better rename it and re-invent the music industry again.
Last edited:
It would make sense. The problem is, the music labels are likely to make more money off of streaming now than they will off of downloads/purchases. They are looking to boost profit. This is one area that they are stonewalling everyone. It's the same cost for streaming for everyone as far as I'm aware.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You're right that I am making an assumption. It goes like this. Apparently Apple is going to pay about 12 cents per song. Is Apple going to just burn that money on our behalf? Are they going to make enough from ad revenue to wash that out so they can give us the service for "free"? Or are they going to ask us to pay a bit to mitigate some of that cost? And even then, where's the profit to justify all of this?
The rumor is that the Studios will get a cut of ad revenues so ads seem very likely. The rumor is that Apple can't get the Studios to give them a better-than-Pandora deal on the cents-per-song piece; thus, the belief that Apple is going to pay 12 cents per. I doubt- and here's the assumption- that there can be enough in the advertising revenue to wash out the 12 cents-per-song cost (how profitable is Pandora's operations based on ad revenue vs. royalty?). Thus the assumption that there is probably a fee to us.
Certainly, I could be wrong about that. But if all the money in this for Apple is just ad revenues and a few more low margin song/album transactions because iRadio exists, why is Apple going to all this trouble? Apple likes fat margins. Where's the fat going to come from in this model?