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 Working to Finalize Streaming Music Deals Ahead of Rumored WWDC Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Uh, Beats is profitable even without the streaming service. Spotify is actually losing money. It made a whole lot more sense to buy Beats in my opinion. I'm glad Apple is making the decisions rather than people on forums who don't understand business and how to build a sustainable service.
And 5 years from now when Spotify has gone under or sold off to someone else when they run out of money (or out of artists because they aren't making any money on it either) Apple and Beats will still be here.
Right.... "promotion", so you've really bought into that. How many artists do you even know? Promotion for what? Gigs, concerts? How do they even set up tours when they don't have any money (or their labels have no money) ?
If you knew how bad it is right now compared to how it was 20 years ago; it's not even imaginable. For everyone but the superstars, the bottom has dropped out!
So, I find your spiel hilarious. No, Apple is not a saving anyone (hello mr straw man), but the artists are so low on the totem pole right now that anything would be an improvement.
----------
If Apple offers artists a better deal than spotify, spotify will run out of artists willing to grovel.
Apple can just roll that higher money to artists into their whole ecosystem and bam, spotify is toast.
Artists don't have to give their product away if they don't have too.
I am looking forward to see how they implement the service. I was using MOG when they were bought by Beats and Beats got rid of many of the best features in favor of gimmicks (which I admit that some people like). Their "curation" engine is top notch, but the rest of the trade offs sent me elsewhere (I went to Rdio which I prefer to Spotify).
The upside to getting rid of the Beats service and merging it with iTunes is that iTunes Match could be integrated and give you access to everything from one app. Google does this already, but you have to give up a remote controllable desktop app, which is a no-go for me. When I tested it, it was clunky in comparison to Rdio and Spotify.
Also, if Apple could get this to work with Siri (especially the search engine), that would be amazing. Until then, I will stick with Rdio.
The upside to getting rid of the Beats service and merging it with iTunes is that iTunes Match could be integrated and give you access to everything from one app. Google does this already, but you have to give up a remote controllable desktop app, which is a no-go for me. When I tested it, it was clunky in comparison to Rdio and Spotify.
Also, if Apple could get this to work with Siri (especially the search engine), that would be amazing. Until then, I will stick with Rdio.
Paying so much money might've been a blunder, but streaming is important. Even Amazon has streaming radio now.
That's a lot of "ifs" Who's to say Apple is in this as a charitable organization for artists? If they offered a better rate to artists, including new artists and not just millionaire talent that does quite well under any system then cool. I would support that.
But if it's the same, and only trying to kill competition by copying it then I would be the first to argue antitrust monopolistic actions and join end it.
Problem is they have never been able to SEE that the iTunes buying the song set up needed an alternative, i.e. streaming.
Now they are coming very very very late to this game and do not have the better mouse trap. (I am gladly waiting to be proven wrong)
Plenty of folks can't warm up to the BEATS brand either.
It seems a little soon to give up, to me! Any time you assume Apple definitely cannot do something, you risk being mistaken. Beats wasn't a failure before, and I think there's a good chance it will not become one now.
Remember, they're not late to the whole digital music game, just late to one (yes, very important) feature. They still have plenty of music mindshare and music user base to build from, and plenty of relationships and exclusives too. They're not the same as some random streaming startup trying to join the game late.
Also, this blunder got Iovine, and we don't know what deals he's helped with behind the scenes, but HBO Now is rumored to be one of them. Those kinds of deals add up--good for Apple and for Apple users.
And even the headphones are a healthy business, even if Apple's so big they don't strictly need it.
As for the Beats brand name--I couldn't care less. Keep it if it's useful, change it if not.
I don't think it will ever be as it will be 20 years ago - the digital age changed that forever. I agree that revenues are down compared to the roaring ages before the digital age and think that the indie/unknown artists do have a harder time, but I would argue that streaming services increase the chance of becoming known/popular due to easy access to music. Btw
I also don't think I created a strawman - the post to which I responded suggested that spotify has a terrible business model while Apple's (who appears to charge the same) doesn't seem as bad.
And btw: no one forces artists to offer their music on streaming services - they are free to opt out if they feel they are being robbed and reminisce in the good old days
They'll make up what they paid in a few years in the headphones alone. If the streaming service fails, they'll still get their money back.
$3 Billion is nothing for Apple... they would be stupid not to try and enter the growing streaming market.
I'm glad they (always) take their time.
Exactly. I'll never buy anything Beats. I don't like to associate myself that I bought anything Beats. Just not who I am.
I totally don't get the Apple hate on this.
Spotify has a horrible businessmodel that strangles artists. Do you know how many people should listen to your song just to live from it as an artist?
I'm not a fan of that what's-her-name-again that pulled her songs from Spotify but I surely understand her point of view
I love Soundcloud as an 'artist discovery' platform and buy the albums on iTunes or a real album if I really love them
Spotify's business model is fine.
The reason artists complain and receive such little money doesn't have to do with Spotify itself. It pays 70% of all of its revenue out in royalties to the labels. The labels then pay out those royalties according to their contracts with those artists, as well as all the songwriters, producers and mixers that helped record that artists music. So the problem isn't with Spotify or even streaming. It's with the labels. So unless Apple is going to let royalties cut into more than 30% of its profits, there won't be much of a change in how much artists get.
The reason people are hating on Apple is because they're rumored to be attempting to get exclusives and get labels to no longer offer free music on YouTube or other platforms. Which is only going to drive up pirating rates.
Well, I'm betting they will soon opt out. Because they'll have options. These days I'm not even sure it is the artists which are putting their money on Spotify but their dumb labels... Spotify and other "let the music be free because I'm cheap as hell" services, will die on the vine.
I totally don't get the Apple hate on this.
Spotify has a horrible businessmodel that strangles artists. Do you know how many people should listen to your song just to live from it as an artist?
I'm not a fan of that what's-her-name-again that pulled her songs from Spotify but I surely understand her point of view
I love Soundcloud as an 'artist discovery' platform and buy the albums on iTunes or a real album if I really love them
How many albums do you actually buy per year?
That's interesting because I pay for Spotify and I've discovered a ton of new artists through them. I may not be purchasing their album, but I'm spending plenty of money, sometimes over $100 to see them live multiple times or to buy merchandise. Streaming has definitely helped with exposure for a lot of new or indie artists.
Really, anti-trust to offer more money, or selling only to them? It would only be anti-trust if they prevent artists from accepting the crappier deals. But, why would they?
Money speaks in this, like it does in many other things. If all artists in the world decided to sell only through Apple because they're offering the best deal, well they would have the right to do so; anti-trust wouldn't have one peep to say about it. If others want those artists, they'd just have to pay better. That's how capitalism work. Even if all artists decided to negotiate as a group, not even sure that would bring the anti-trust people in there since well, you can't force people to play music for a price, if they don't want to.l.. (not that I would expect such an union to ever really take hold, artists are too disparate).
Right now, Spotify and the like are exploiting a temporary weakness of artists. I don't think this will be the same way in the future.
Yep, I think they hedged their bets when they bought Beats. The headphone revenue made this an easy decision for them, even if they were mainly interested in streaming.
The interesting thing is that they could have bought a business that had a much larger streaming user base with that same money, but I think Apple believes this market is mostly untapped at this point and would rather start the business on the ground level and build up in a more Apple-centric way.
Many on this site seem to think the war is over and Spotify has already won. Personally, I think that the streaming business is still in its infancy stage, so there is still a lot of room for a major tech firm like Apple to maneuver.