Apple to Push Paid Streaming Music Service With Free Trials and SoundCloud-Like Sharing

[MacRumors]

Ahead of the rumored debut of Apple's upcoming streaming music service, Re/code has shared several details on the initiative, sourced from industry insiders. As we've learned previously, Apple will charge $9.99 per month for the service and will not offer a freemium streaming tier as other music services like Spotify do, but the company is aiming to introduce ways to let people listen to some content for free.

First and foremost, Apple hopes to offer listeners a free trial period, which lasts between one and three months, letting them sample the music service for an extended period of time before opting for a full subscription. The length of the trial will depend on what Apple is able to negotiate with music companies.

Apple is also working on a feature that may let artists and music creators upload samples of songs that could be listened to without subscribing to the service. Re/code's sources are describing this as "something akin to SoundCloud." SoundCloud is a music sharing platform that lets users upload and share originally-created music, and a similar feature within Apple's new music service would give indie artists an easy way to share music while providing listeners with free content.

The third way Apple plans to potentially get music to listeners for free is through a revamp of iTunes Radio. We've heard hints of this previously, but the new version of iTunes Radio may feature stations that are curated by humans rather than computers, with different content available in different locales. New Apple hire BBC Radio 1 DJ Zane Lowe and other recently hired radio staff may spearhead this initiative.

Re/code's report also shares some details on the streaming music negotiations that have already landed Apple in a bit of hot water with various regulatory bodies, including the FTC and the Department of Justice in the United States and the European Commission. Apple has been attempting to convince music labels that ad-supported free streaming music does not generate enough revenue.

But as we have previously reported, Apple doesn't intend to provide free, unlimited on-demand streaming, as competitors Spotify and YouTube do. In private meetings with label executives and other music industry figures, Apple has been arguing that free streaming won't generate enough money for the industry via advertising, and doesn't give enough people incentive to pay for subscriptions.

Apple is still working to complete deals ahead of the launch of the streaming service, but it is said to be on track for a WWDC debut. According to a report earlier this week, the streaming service will be introduced during the Worldwide Developers Conference in June and released later in the month alongside the public launch of iOS 8.4.

Apple's streaming music service is built on its existing Beats music service, and will continue to focus on curated content. To draw in additional customers and to distinguish itself from competing services, Apple is planning to offer a range of exclusive content. There are also plans to rebrand and revamp the music service, deeply integrating it into iTunes and the newly revamped Music app introduced in iOS 8.4.

Article Link: Apple to Push Paid Streaming Music Service With Free Trials and SoundCloud-Like Sharing

 

[PhiLLoW]

I bet 50$ that this service won't be available in any european country until 2025.

 

[elmateo487]

In before 100 people say "But I am going to be a student for 20 years, so I can just have Spotify for 4.99 a month"

 

[iamMacPerson]

If they keep iTunes Radio I will be so happy. I use iTunes Radio a lot because it's free, but I won't pay $10 a month for streaming music. I'd much rather buy music through iTunes or on a CD. (Yeah on some of my favorite artists I still buy CDs, old school here lol)

 

[Paradoxally]

Unless Apple plans on adding lossless streaming, I'll stick with Tidal.

 

[mcnaugha]

I hope they're wrong

For me they're just wrong. I pay for Spotify and I'm delighted with it. I really believe they should have bought Spotify and Bose and not the turd that is Beats. I am deeply ashamed that they are now bullying the industry into destroying Spotify. I hope they fail. This is not Apple anymore.

 

[GhostRaider]

I'm not understanding what Apple is trying to do. So they want to eliminate radio and shuffleplay so that no one gets to listen to free music on their phones?

They must be doing some strong drugs for them to think like that. Beats will be dead on arrival at this point.

But as many people have said, Spotify takes care of all of this. Free music when you want and paid subscription that works on iPhones, iPad, Mac, PS4.

There really isn't a need for another music streaming service.

 

[mcnaugha]

Unless Apple plans on adding lossless streaming, I'll stick with Tidal.

Research has shown that humans can't distinguish between 320kbps MP3 (Spotify Extreme) and 16-bit CD quality. TIDAL is totally hot air... and heading for failure.

Only studio master 24-bit/96KHz stands a chance of making a difference. Even then, most people won't care about the difference.

 

[nando87]

Meh, thanks for trying Apple but I'll keep with Spotify

----------

For me they're just wrong. I pay for Spotify and I'm delighted with it. I really believe they should have bought Spotify and Bose and not the turd that is Beats. I am deeply ashamed that they are now bullying the industry into destroying Spotify. I hope they fail. This is not Apple anymore.

Someone will explain you sooner or later in this thread that Bose is the snob's Beats. And B&W the rich's Beats. Sennheiser is nice tho

 

[MacrumoursUser]

I bet 50$ that this service won't be available in any european country until 2025.

Of course. I wouldn't expect anything else.

 

[Bot4Hire]

Another streaming service that offers nothing more than what's currently being offered.

It's right in line with Apple Watch not offering anything Everybody else is offering.

Apple's lost it's edge and has become as boring as Microsoft of old.

At least Microsoft is giving users a reason to switch platforms.
That used to be Apple's job, now they're just following the puck along with all the other "me to" companies of past.

 

[pbush25]

I see upsides to this. I already pay for Spotify, so the price doesn't make a difference to me, but what really irks me about the current setup of music is that I have my local files in iTunes and then things that I don't want to buy, but can just stream in Spotify, and then of course there's SoundCloud. If Apple manages to bring their entire iTunes catalog to their new streaming service, and seamlessly integrate it into the music app on my phone, I'm going to be one happy person. I'm tired of having to use three different apps just to listen to my music, and this is where I think people fail to see the benefits of Apple offering their own streaming service.

Also I think Apple knows that if this is going to succeed then they need to launch it worldwide from day one, and something tells me they'll be able to achieve this. The record companies are actually siding with Apple for once, which gives them a lot of bargaining power.

And they've said that they would be bringing this to Android and other platforms too, not just inside their walled garden.

 

[mi7chy]

I'd rather support the underdog... Spotify.

Apple has turned into an industry big bully.

 

[Alumeenium]

the old bait and switch

no thanks Apple

I'll stick with Free Spotify and Youtube

 

[Paradoxally]

Research has shown that humans can't distinguish between 320kbps MP3 (Spotify Extreme) and 16-bit CD quality. TIDAL is totally hot air... and heading for failure.

Only studio master 24-bit/96KHz stands a chance of making a difference. Even then, most people won't care about the difference.

Not this crap again. Tell that to audiophiles that spend thousands on audio equipment. I'm sure they listen to Spotify and lossy music formats.

I am not as hardcore as them, but music definitely does sound better on most tracks with Tidal on a pair of $150 headphones and a good amp. I can only imagine what they'd sound like with $1000 headphones and the like.

But you don't even need Tidal, just grab any CD, rip it to FLAC, and it will sound better than MP3 320 kbps. The major point of Tidal is convenience (I can buy CDs and rip them, but that takes effort) and it's definitely not headed for failure -- you better double check that.

I'm sure that many would also tell you that 128 kbps and 320 kbps lossy sound the same.

 

[DDaddyx2]

I love Apple but I also love Spotify. It works on all non-Apple devices (PS4, RokU). I've got no interest in their Beats service.

 

[2457282]

Forget all this radio stuff. Get me my watch!!!!!

More seriously (actually that was serious) -- I still prefer to own the music (download). All I need a place to listen to free music that will allow me to discover new stuff to buy. I like the current itunes radio because there are no commercials and I discover good music that I buy. 20k songs in and I cannot believe I have invested that much into music over the years, but no regrets.

 

[Paradoxally]

Also I think Apple knows that if this is going to succeed then they need to launch it worldwide from day one, and something tells me they'll be able to achieve this. The record companies are actually siding with Apple for once, which gives them a lot of bargaining power.

And they've said that they would be bringing this to Android and other platforms too, not just inside their walled garden.

I really hope the record labels and artists are able to end Spotify's free tier. There have been attempts but mostly futile. They pay nearly nothing to the artists and while Spotify claims piracy rates have dropped, they have just been mitigated. The artists are still not getting enough,

 

[wxman2003]

$120 a year is ridiculous.

 

[pbush25]

I really hope the record labels and artists are able to end Spotify's free tier. There have been attempts but mostly futile. They pay nearly nothing to the artists and while Spotify claims piracy rates have dropped, they have just been mitigated. The artists are still not getting enough,

I don't care about how much the artists "aren't making anymore". In fact, I hope Apple is not able to end Spotify's free tier, because a lot of people use that and love it, and I'm tried of hearing about rich artists complaining they're not making enough money. That's not where my concern lies. I just want all my music in one place, and if I can pay the same for Apple's streaming service that I can for Spotify, and am able to accomplish that, then I will definitely switch. Others will not and they will stick with Spotify, and I hope they do. Competition is good for us.

 

[newagemac]

I'm not understanding what Apple is trying to do. So they want to eliminate radio and shuffleplay so that no one gets to listen to free music on their phones?

They must be doing some strong drugs for them to think like that. Beats will be dead on arrival at this point.

But as many people have said, Spotify takes care of all of this. Free music when you want and paid subscription that works on iPhones, iPad, Mac, PS4.

There really isn't a need for another music streaming service.

So competition is bad now???

 

[scottsjack]

$120 a year is ridiculous.

Exactly. I've got a cable TV/fast Internet bill of $140.00 per month, AT&T for iPhone. Adobe wants me to pay $10.00 for Photoshop. MS wants me to pay another ~$10.00 for Office.

Forget it. NO MO.

 

[jpgr15]

<deleted>

 

[Monique1]

and if I can pay the same for Apple's streaming service that I can for Spotify, and am able to accomplish that, then I will definitely switch.

This just in: Apple's service will cost almost twice as much. And ironically... the songs will sound the same.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

There really isn't a need for another music streaming service.

Yes, but Spotify is not owned by Apple and now Apple wants to step into Spotify's space. So Spotify must be getting increasingly bad, "stupid", "useless" to be followed by "99.9% don't want" and "not integrated as fully with iOS". Even the music will sound better with Apple's version (even if the files are duplicates). If you've been around here long, you know how this works.

I really hope the record labels and artists are able to end Spotify's free tier. There have been attempts but mostly futile. They pay nearly nothing to the artists and while Spotify claims piracy rates have dropped, they have just been mitigated. The artists are still not getting enough,

Absolutely right. We consumers should want to pay for something that we currently and legally get for free. We know that Apple isn't pricing this for Apple's profit motives but because they want to pass the extra money along to those poor artists.

Furthermore, I wish Apple would decide to monetize the air we breathe too. We shouldn't want to keep breathing for free. We want to pay. Besides we know that Apple air will be superior to existing air. 99.9% don't even like the existing air.