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 Trying to Torpedo Spotify's U.S. Launch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Agreed, artists certainly do deserve more than just sustenance wages. I guess the "entitlement" argument will always be thrown around though, but it's pointless.
i have spotify (i've been living in france for some time) and i have to say that i still fail to understand how they're able to make it work. pretty much any song you'd want access to is available, at no charge, in the application, and the ads you have to listen to are infrequent and short. the quality is fantastic as well. i've completely given up on itunes or other paying services because Spotify simply does it all. the spotify application now also has the ability to access your itunes library, and the program is much slimmer and faster than itunes itself, so much more so that I now prefer to listen to my personal music in spotify (where i can also create playlists that are a mix of my own stuff and streaming spotify music).
and if you really do want to take the music with you, you can just sign up for their 10/month service and download an app to your iphone.
so this sounds a lot like a spotify ad haha, but seriously apple has reason to be scared...
and if you really do want to take the music with you, you can just sign up for their 10/month service and download an app to your iphone.
so this sounds a lot like a spotify ad haha, but seriously apple has reason to be scared...
I have to say, judging from the screenshots, the Spotify Application looks very nice 
I like the dark grey-ish look. Makes iTunes look a bit stale in comparison.
I like the dark grey-ish look. Makes iTunes look a bit stale in comparison.
Okay, so how many tracks by Freak Kitchen can you "spotify"?
FWIW, Apple has 50 tracks from 7 of their albums (including 1 from some 'various artisis' compilation CD), as well as 45 cuts from 2 solo albums by the band's brilliant leader, Mattias Eklundh.
[btw, in case the irony is lost on anyone... Freak Kitchen hails from Gothenburg, Sweden.]
Are you really ?
The free service depends on advertising. In the end, Spotify pays royalties to record companies that in turn pay to produce music. How they pay for it through the free service is through advertisers. You listening to music is what Spotify is then selling to make money to provide said music.
Exactly like commercial radio does. That's how something can be free yet all royalties can get paid. It has been this way for years with TV, Radio and now some streaming services use the same model.
Anyone here screaming that Spotify is akin to torrenting and pirating music is basically wrong and just trying to again defend Apple. About the only way to defend Apple on this is to claim this rumor is false. That's the only defensible position there is. Anyone trying to argue Spotify is somehow the bad guy is really being disingenious.
I asked you to clarify what you were trying to say, you did, and I have to say that I agree with almost all of it.
I guess there are two pretty polarised sides of the argument here; End users love Spoitify as it gives them legal access to music free or very cheap. Artists and writers dislike it because of the derisory royalties they receive in comparison to other business models.
I fall in to the latter category, so as such I support Apple on this one. But I know for sure that if I wasn't a recording artist, i'd be cursing them for trying to stifle competition.
You're going to find lots of artists that are not on Spotify. No Led Zeppelin, Beatles, AC/DC etc. Then again, try finding the Beatles or AC/DC on iTunes... This is purely down to commercial decisions taken by the artists and/or labels.
Personally I don't use Spotify to stream music I already have (and it integrates perfectly well with your own local music collection anyway - much slicker than iTunes can). I use Spotify to find interesting new music. Once found, add it to a playlist and it's there for as long as I want it, no matter where I am in the world. There are loads of websites with user-created playlists. Click a link, add it to your collection, and off you go. If you have a facebook friend with Spotify the his or her playlist shows up in the app. It's all so simple and elegantly done that even Apple would find it hard to improve on.
The problem with Apple saying that Spotify may not make money for anyone
but their own shareholders (which are pretty much the big record companies anyway) is perhaps that they could well be correct.
Spotify are using the classic business model where the value of the company is based on what you think it will become, rather than what it is now.
They are not making a profit, but are selling out the artist copyrights for nothing and instead giving away large shares to the record companies.
Same old same old...
It might turn out Apple are correct, that they will never make money and become sustainable in their own right.
Great service from a consumer POV though...
FWIW YMMV
but their own shareholders (which are pretty much the big record companies anyway) is perhaps that they could well be correct.
Spotify are using the classic business model where the value of the company is based on what you think it will become, rather than what it is now.
They are not making a profit, but are selling out the artist copyrights for nothing and instead giving away large shares to the record companies.
Same old same old...
It might turn out Apple are correct, that they will never make money and become sustainable in their own right.
Great service from a consumer POV though...
FWIW YMMV
Spotify does not force artists to give them the music for their service. Artists are in complete control of what they receive or not receive as far as royalty payments go. To demonize Spotify over it is wrong, look to your contract and who you signed it with and demonize them for any gouging that might have occurred.
And sorry, read through the thread again. A few of the people bashing Spotify here are not recording artists. They are known Apple "does no wrong" people. Which is why it's getting a little tiring that everytime there's even a slight rumor that Apple says something negative about another company, instantly that company is bad, its business model is lame, its service is not intuitive and its stealing money/tech/ideas from someone else.
It's come to the point where rational discussion is close to impossible on this forum because of these people.
Just the one.
Not that it means much.
Spotify has a lot of rare recordings from many artists.
Attachments
Of course, THAT'S what's been missing from my life! Freak Chicken! Sorry, Freak Kitchen. They must be huge on iTunes! To be fair, I found a lot of European bands on Spotify that iTunes never bothered to feature, so Apple can back off about what's good for the musicians. I cannot imagine that a small band would get more power against a large corporation than a smaller company that relies on its music service exclusively, rather than selling consumer electronics.
Give Spotify a break, they are less than two years old, yet they already managed to offer the same Beatles songs that took iTunes several years longer.
This is just a natural step in music consumption. Any music delivery scheme has been through it. Radio, MTV, cassette players, MP3 players, CD burners, iTunes, and now Spotify.
First there's a lot of whining from whoever is making the most money off music at the moment. Then there's an adaption period and the music industry slowly finds a way to make money again. Then someone gets a bright idea and it all starts over again.
The first problem is that the major record companies are so powerful that they've been able to delay new distribution models for decades. The second problem is that the companies are run by idiots.
It's not a coincidence that the largest music distribution platform in the world is owned by a computer company.
I've been involved in one of the first online music services in my country. You won't believe the paranoia of the labels at that time. For example, it was a major issue whether we would be allowed to cache album cover images in a resolution of about 100x100.
First there's a lot of whining from whoever is making the most money off music at the moment. Then there's an adaption period and the music industry slowly finds a way to make money again. Then someone gets a bright idea and it all starts over again.
The first problem is that the major record companies are so powerful that they've been able to delay new distribution models for decades. The second problem is that the companies are run by idiots.
It's not a coincidence that the largest music distribution platform in the world is owned by a computer company.
I've been involved in one of the first online music services in my country. You won't believe the paranoia of the labels at that time. For example, it was a major issue whether we would be allowed to cache album cover images in a resolution of about 100x100.
Excellent points, indeed. The paranoia I do believe. In fact I've heard from several folks that these executives (from the Recording industry) are SO ridiculous that simply mentioning "online" gets them red in the face and they start muttering off about people "stealing" their work. These guys are clueless and nearly every move they make shows it. Spotify might actually be a small glimpse of hope though -- the labels invested some cash themselves.
The thing about cover art...wow. Somehow, though, I'm really not surprised. CONTROL is really the key word - and they're losing more and more of it every day, much to the chagrin of the old hands who pretty much run the whole damn industry.
Well, it's business and from their point of view, I understand.
But I fully agree with you, it's still wrong. I just know that businesses will do what fills their bottom line best. And it just feels like it should be wrong from an anti-competitive standpoint (something in me says that it borders on being illegal but I'm not even close to a lawyer so I will admit I have no idea if it is or not, it just feels like it is).
Well to be fair you also get the people who love to find any thing apple does wrong and go crazy on how it's a total scandal blah blah blah (not saying you are wrong. I'm saying there are people that balance those people out). And then both sides like to accuse anyone who disagrees with them of being of the type of the other side because they feel that disqualifies any arguement they have.
And then there are the people in the middle. And anyone new (or like me who has a hard time remembering who is who) has to figure out who is who.
Sure, but Apple's patents for coverflow and Time Machine have actually been GRANTED by the USPTO.
Go figure...
would Apple give 20 hrs a month free then..?
Millions of people won't touch an iTunes sub because its from Apple.
Oh, it goes further than that. Some people can't see a distinction between the appreciation of Apple's products and blind devotion to every action Apple makes.Yeah, might as well Torrent
Some people really have double standards.
Most of us fall into the former and have objective views on Apple's products and business practices. Some, like *LTD*, are of the latter mindset.
Except:
1) It works now.
2) It works well.
3) It's cheap.
4) It's legal.
I realize you're concerned because Apple didn't invent it, but it's really very very good and since you can listen to it from a mobile device such as an iPhone, iPod, or Android device it has the potential of making downloaded iTunes music obsolete in time. My guess would be 5 years if it's opened up world wide.
In short, Apple should be working on a subscription service. The more, the merrier.
Ah!
That has more to do with the preponderance and widespread acceptance of home studio technology - owned by musicians with the skills to use it than it does the fact that big facilities are "lacking something" and thus not being rented out anymore.
Face it - if you have the skills to use the gear you'd rather record at home than pay $125 an hour for the facility not including cost of engineering talent as well as a producer if you're not producing it yourself.
That has more to do with the preponderance and widespread acceptance of home studio technology - owned by musicians with the skills to use it than it does the fact that big facilities are "lacking something" and thus not being rented out anymore.
Face it - if you have the skills to use the gear you'd rather record at home than pay $125 an hour for the facility not including cost of engineering talent as well as a producer if you're not producing it yourself.