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
This sucks big time!! Spotify has been available over here in Europe for ages now and its a great service. It has really matured since it first launched with options to listen to it offline (no internet connection required) if you pay for the premium service!! Works on iPhone, Android, Symbian and Windows Mobile. Or of course you can stream over 3G or wifi.
Apple are just annoyed that they didn't get to implement this first into iTunes!
I bet thats what that big data centre they are building is part of. Apple may not make lots of money off music sales through the store but you can bet it leads to big hardware sales for them!
Apple are just annoyed that they didn't get to implement this first into iTunes!
I bet thats what that big data centre they are building is part of. Apple may not make lots of money off music sales through the store but you can bet it leads to big hardware sales for them!Probably some other reason for it. They don't seem to have anything against other free streaming services like Pandora. Feels like TV networks. They will stream it for free, but they refuse to sell it for less then 2.99 an episode.
Apple doesn't make a lot of Money on iTunes because they are fairly low margin. They do better then break even though. That is one reason why Apple has made it easy to rip CDs and has never been a big DRM supporter. iTunes is popular, but Apple doesn't force you to buy your music from their store. Competitive reasons really don't make sense here. This sounds more like Apple is trying to get leverage for their own streaming service.
Apple doesn't make a lot of Money on iTunes because they are fairly low margin. They do better then break even though. That is one reason why Apple has made it easy to rip CDs and has never been a big DRM supporter. iTunes is popular, but Apple doesn't force you to buy your music from their store. Competitive reasons really don't make sense here. This sounds more like Apple is trying to get leverage for their own streaming service.
This sucks big time!! Spotify has been available over here in Europe for ages now and its a great service. It has really matured since it first launched with options to listen to it offline (no internet connection required) if you pay for the premium service!! Works on iPhone, Android, Symbian and Windows Mobile. Or of course you can stream over 3G or wifi.
Apple are just annoyed that they didn't get to implement this first into iTunes!
Spotify like servise would be a drop in the ocean for that data centre.
This sucks big time!! Spotify has been available over here in Europe for ages now and its a great service. It has really matured since it first launched with options to listen to it offline (no internet connection required) if you pay for the premium service!! Works on iPhone, Android, Symbian and Windows Mobile. Or of course you can stream over 3G or wifi.
Apple are just annoyed that they didn't get to implement this first into iTunes!
Apple are annoyed them didn't just implement 'free music' on the iTunes store? Can you imagine the discussions they'd have with the labels? "We'd like to make all your music available to listen to for free, supported mostly by adverts which pay next to nothing at all". I think the labels are absolutely bonkers for ever getting in on Spotify in the first place - the whole business model is completely unsustainable.
I applaud Apple for recognising the downfalls of Spotify. Yes, I do have a Spotify account, and I do use it to try out new music, but most people never BUY any music as a result, and the adverts/premium accounts alone aren't enough to support even the artists themselves.
When people bought CDs, the artist was often getting paid more after the label/distributors had taken their share out of it than ALL the money gained from playing a song on Spotify (which then has to be shared amongst the label, Spotify themselves as a service and the artist).
I'm saying this as someone in the music industry - I'd love all music to be available for free, but unfortunately, I have a living to earn, I have to buy food, clothes (and now the equipment to make music as there isn't the money available for recording sessions until you start to really make it).
</rant over>
You can disagree with me if you like, but Spotify really isn't helping the already dire situation in the music scene at the 'mo.
Just my 2c.
Spotify only lets you listen to 20 hours a month for free, if you want unlimited access you have to pay for their premium account. The free service is ad supported. Plus you can buy the tracks in europe through Spotify simply by pressing the buy button. It is not hard to see why Apple would see this as a threat.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is working on streaming deals themselves through iTunes store.
He has got you to do something he could quite easily have done for himself, and got you to do it for free.
That is actually quite a useful skill in running a business.
20 hours a month for free is still a lot and it's still no quite clear how effective the ads are. Do you care what people that make music get?
It's light years until it will be seen as a threat (if it survives that long).
Premium accounts still don't make up for it. £9.99 is the same as one album, yet Spotify are saying that's all you've got to pay per month to listen to any music you want - that's unsustainable.
How many people are going to actually buy the music through Spotify if they can just pay £9.99 a month for an unlimited amount of the same thing?
Would you rather buy a 32" Sony Bravia for £600 or £200?
Lady Ga Ga makes £108 on Spotify in one year.
I myself probably shan't be going into the music industry with the way things are going at the moment - I'm just not going to be able to make enough money to live off. I know many Unis and Colleges are also saying a similar thing to most of their students...
They are mostly volunteers. The volunteers have other jobs that pay the bills.
As long as people don't mind the lame crap I make when I play with Garageband, I am happy to volunteer to supply the world with free music that I make in my spare time.
As for me, I would rather pay for the stuff that real musicians make. The music world owes me nothing for free. (Well, they actually do owe me money for all the crap they used to make me buy to get the one good song on the CD, but iTunes has fixed that.
)
What about the huge amount of people that pirate music and don't pay for anything? And how about radio, how many people listen to more than 20 hours a week let alone month? All those car garages, factories etc that have the radio on all day everyday for the workers to enjoy. People taking long trips listen for many hours to the radio.
£9.99 is better than nothing which is what labels/artists get from torrents and newsgroups. How many people, young people especially, actually buy albums anymore? There is room for negotiation . If the labels feel that this is too cheap a service then the price could be altered to recognise this. Look at book prices through Amazons kindle service/app. Much cheaper than a paperback or hardback yet they aren't being criticised here.
In that case she is still overpaid.
/sarcasm
What's wrong with people thieves stealing property which isn't theirs when others are committing far worse crimes? An extreme example (in some ways) but still a comparison.
Radio is background sound, and always has been. In the situations you have chosen, people are't actually 'listening' to the music because they're enjoying the songs/recordings, they're using it as background noise to their work.
You're right, £9.99 a month is better than nothing, but it's not far off it especially when you consider just how expensive it can be to put together a high-quality album with great session musicians (who already earn next to nothing), a great (or even good) studio, a good engineer and a producer...
But that's because a book is MUCH cheaper to make than music. Music isn't 'free' to make, the recording process is a justifiably expensive process which involves a LOT of man hours, equipment, expertise and recording space just to even achieve a decent recording. This is before it's even got to the stage of being published or distributed.
Record labels are now going even further to try and secure their investments (ie, controlling what actually goes on during recording sessions). It's easy to hate the labels for it, and in some ways there is an argument for never even signing to a label, but that model also has a HUGE number of issues...
Put it this way, albums as comparably-pioneering and important as 'Thriller', 'Rumours' and 'Sgt. Pepper' aren't really possible to make in today's financial climate.
In that case she is still overpaid.
/sarcasm
Can't stand Lady Ga Ga myself
Its called competition Apple. Suck it up ya greedy b$sterds. Apple are beginning to take the piss with their pricing of music too. Just here in the UK a new album was 9.99 on iTunes, went over to Amazon DL service and it was 4.99 for the same download.
I think its time that Apple was investigated for this behaviour. Its bad practice and they are obviously looking to monopolise the industry. Steve Jobs is getting a bit big for his boots these days - where Im from that usually leads to you getting a bit of a slap.
Whilst I love Apple products they over he past few years their poor QC, service and inability to deal with blatant hardware failures (iP4) is happening all to often.
I think its time that Apple was investigated for this behaviour. Its bad practice and they are obviously looking to monopolise the industry. Steve Jobs is getting a bit big for his boots these days - where Im from that usually leads to you getting a bit of a slap.
Whilst I love Apple products they over he past few years their poor QC, service and inability to deal with blatant hardware failures (iP4) is happening all to often.
Please, once and for all:
record labels don't "steal" money from artists! In the current scenario royalties are split 50/50, expecially when it comes to digital sales. Record labels are essential for discovering, counseling and promoting talent. I am too a recording artist and I think it is fair that I receive some sort of income from my work. And my record label provides me with that. However, as someone already pointed out here before, Spotify unfortunately is not the solution.
If Lady Gaga made $167 for 1 million Spotify streams, and that's for the mega-hit "Poker face", how much can independent labels expect to earn from their releases? Please let's stop this "record labels are bad anyway" mantra. Maybe they have been arrogant in the past, nowadays everybody is just trying to survive, expecially the small independent labels that can't afford CD manufacturing and physical distribution and rely on digital sales to pay their bills.
record labels don't "steal" money from artists! In the current scenario royalties are split 50/50, expecially when it comes to digital sales. Record labels are essential for discovering, counseling and promoting talent. I am too a recording artist and I think it is fair that I receive some sort of income from my work. And my record label provides me with that. However, as someone already pointed out here before, Spotify unfortunately is not the solution.
If Lady Gaga made $167 for 1 million Spotify streams, and that's for the mega-hit "Poker face", how much can independent labels expect to earn from their releases? Please let's stop this "record labels are bad anyway" mantra. Maybe they have been arrogant in the past, nowadays everybody is just trying to survive, expecially the small independent labels that can't afford CD manufacturing and physical distribution and rely on digital sales to pay their bills.
The above is especially true for small labels who really are fantastically healthy for the music scene, and there are MANY of them out there...
Doesn't mean that Spotify is sustainable. It isn't actually. 20 hours for free a month are worth 297 US dollars if one song is 4 minutes long and costs 99 cents. I'm having hard time believing that they get that kind of money from ads to cover "free 20 hours a month".
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
But that is an issue that The artists need to talk to the record labels about, it is of no concern to the listeners, all they need to care about is whether or not The service is worth The money that they're paying.
Since i got spotify i havent used iTunes for anything Else than synching ipods and stuff, listening has been 100% spotify
algiris said:
But that is an issue that The artists need to talk to the record labels about, it is of no concern to the listeners, all they need to care about is whether or not The service is worth The money that they're paying.
Since i got spotify i havent used iTunes for anything Else than synching ipods and stuff, listening has been 100% spotify
Thats true but it is free to listen to as much as you want (apart from the BBC licence fee in the UK) and theres nothing to stop you from recording the tracks you like
But how many albums nowadays use live session musicians compared to 20 years ago? And how many albums nowadays are worth the purchase? Its mainly a few good tracks and filler.
I would argue that its also not possible because the talent to make such good records isn't there either. The problem with some record labels is they see what is selling and try to mimic it. Throw 2-3 singles on it and make the rest of the album out of cuts that are throwaway
Can't stand Lady Ga Ga myself
Yet look how much she sells. And to what market, young teens i would bet. These guys dont care if an album has fantastic artwork and has been recorded using the best equipment and talent available. They just want to listen to their catchy pop tunes on their mp3 players at 128kbps on their bundled iPod earbuds 
Watch you don't OD on that kool-aid!
Did you even think out your opinion? Or did you just see "Apple" and support their stance? Spotify coming to the US has virtually zero downside for the consumer - free music, and if anything, though unlikely, the price of to-buy music would only come down.
Think for yourself! Life's more fun that way.