Apple Trying to Torpedo Spotify's U.S. Launch?

[LondonCentral]

I think YOU should get your head out of that bunch of fallacies you seem to like bathing it in.
- “Anyone can be a musician” ??? Well, if you mean it like “Anyone can be a chartered accountant/brain surgeon/jet pilot/software developer…” then okay. But believe me, not “anyone” can pull out the hard work it takes to become a decent musician even at an amateur level, let alone at a level that would allow you to make a living from it.
- “Here's a tip to being successful; make brilliant music and expose as many people to it as you can.” Oh, well… The crux of the issue is that in the real world, the music that makes its performers *financially* successful is essentially the crappiest music out there, something that appeals to the musically uneducated masses and therefore sells in the millions units. It sells not because it is “brilliant”; it sells because the labels decide to push that crap with million dollar promotional budgets.
- “You're not entitled to a reasonable living wage if your music only appeals to a handful of people.” Hahaha the “entitled” silver-bullet argument, of course. Well, I look at it differently: among students who graduate from the most prestigious conservatories, only 1 or 2 in 10 will make it as professional performers. Most of them will have to teach or have a non-music-related day job to make a living. I happen to think that this state of things is unfair, considering that a Conservatory-level music education is not less taxing than any other university-level education. When people graduate med-school or engineering or whatever, they can expect to get a job that will allow them to make a decent living by being a practitioner of what they learned. However, when it comes to musicians, people don’t see a problem that a high level of education will allow only a 20% expectation, at most, to live from recording/performing. Because real valuable music “only appeals to a handful of people.” as you put it…
So maybe we should just get rid of all the music conservatories, all the Julliard, Berklee, Paris, London, Frankfurt, Vienna of the world, because what they teach there doesn’t appeal to the masses. This makes sense in a world when it’s all about the ££££ or $$$$. But just as a reminder, there’s such a thing known as Culture. I’m one to believe that it shouldn’t be left out of our lives just because it doesn’t pay well in business standards.

I agree with some of the things you've said regarding Culture and the importance of, lets say, the creative arts as a whole.
But, not all university vocations are the same.

There's no guarantee of finding employment after graduating, that goes without saying. However, a doctor/teacher/engineering graduate will/should always find gaining employment easier than a musician (of which there are many different types, granted), for very obvious social and economic reasons. I would like to live in a society where a Surgeon is valued higher than a musician. I know you probably disagree, despite the tangible benefits engineers and scientists have brought to humanity over the centuries. There's a strong argument against celebrity-like air of entitlement that certain musicians/performers have but I think your argument centers around demand and supply. No matter how prestigious the qualification, the number of 'talented' musicians that can be sustained financially is unfortunately finite. During a recession, governments will always cut funding to the creative arts first, before schools, police, health service etc. You may find that culturally damning. I don't. Culture is so much more than the contribution made by fairly paid musicians.

If Spotify is unsustainable, it will collapse. IF it doesn't collapse, something else that's unsustainable will. I suspect it is happening already, the over supply of qualified musicians requiring a livable income will dwindle down to a sustainable level.

So in conclusion, get a second job. They won't be the first.

 

[macrazee]

I love Apple Products. But this is crap. Be innovative and learn to adapt, don't stifle the free market. CRAP.

Agreed. It's disgusting, but predictable. A monopoly always seeks to keep the cash cows. Apple is very much Microsoft of the early to mid-1990's -- but uncle Steve's reality distortion field is still strong enough to keep the clueless with their credit cards at hand.

Spotify is fantastic. I've got an unlimited account (Free) which I use fairly regularly. It has some holes in the catalog--but they all do. Apple's main gripe here is the whole FREE thing. There are plenty of subscription services already available here in the US--Rdio, Napster, Rhapsody, Zune Pass, et al. But none of them offer a FREE component, even on a very limited basis (something akin to Spotify Open's 20-hour per month limit). Of course, they all suck somewhere. Some have crap quality streams, catalog selection, etc. Apple could have easily used their leverage a LONG time ago to bring about an iTunes Subscription service/model. They chose to overlook that facet of the market, Spotify came along and did it to perfection.

 

[SR2]

Apple wants to control all media distribition.

 

[macswitcha2]

go apple!

You can have your one apple, I like a fruit salad.

 

[Lailoken]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. You keep trying to give music away for free, and we're going to lose a lot of future music geniuses. Nobody works for free.

Giving away music != Not making money

The people who get free music and don't end up purchasing it are likely not to purchase music anyway if it was not free.

I on the other hand almost spent all my spare cash (quite a large budget for music) to purchase music I had 'discovered' on free services. If I did 'acquire' any free music I did not buy eventually it would be music I was either unable to afford or it was crap that I accidentally came upon.

But don't artists in essence give away music for free when it is played on the radio? Was there not also a big outcry when radio first started playing music?

History repeats itself.

 

[somnanbule]

*post removed*

 

[OllyW]

But don't artists in essence give away music for free when it is played on the radio? Was there not also a big outcry when radio first started playing music?

No. Artists were so desperate to get radio play that illegal bribes knows as "Payola" were commonplace.

 

[macrazee]

Surely it is not up to Apple, which offers a rival service to Spotify, to judge and report back to the record labels whether or not their competitor has a viable business model?

Kind of hilarious isn't it. Apple took great pride in tearing down the labels, and changing the Music model as we know it. Now the shoe is on the other foot -- remember, the labels already own 30% +/- of Spotify!

 

[HLdan]

Apple doesn't want to take any chances. Lame move Apple. Lame

I don't know why you guys write stuff as if you think Apple's reading it.

From what I've seen of Apple they are always trying to fight against the record labels in terms of keeping the prices fair for the end customer while the record label's are trying to fight against Apple and Amazon to raise them. I just love how this forum makes it Apple's fault when nobody really knows the true story. Unless you're sitting in the room watching Apple do it's evil deeds you should keep your negative responses to yourself.

 

[kas23]

I love the logic here. Musicians don't get enough share of their music sales. So let's fix this by giving them absolutely nothing.

This is the kind of convoluted logic used by thieves trying to justify their own crimes.

I think the point he was trying to make is that the artists shouldn't be relying so much on music sold via record companies as their sole source of income. Perhaps they should be more creative in finding alternative sources of revenue. And plenty artists out there are doing just that. For example, Trent Reznor sold a limited-edition autographed Ghosts set. There are also artists that sell music that you can directly download through their websites.

So, relying on record company sales as a sole form of income is a death sentence for the artist. Pirating is real and its not going away. Never, ever. And record companies are even worse. They would rather just kill off an artist than to lose any change themselves. They know a new Brittney, Swift, or Bieber fool will come along the next day.

I don't know why you guys write stuff as if you think Apple's reading it.

From what I've seen of Apple they are always trying to fight against the record labels in terms of keeping the prices fair for the end customer while the record label's are trying to fight against Apple and Amazon to raise them. I just love how this forum makes it Apple's fault when nobody really knows the true story. Unless you're sitting in the room watching Apple do it's evil deeds you should keep your negative responses to yourself.

So, can you please give us your spin about how the original topic at hand is a good deal for the end-consumer? I need a little entertainment.

 

[HLdan]

So, can you please give us your spin about how the original topic at hand is a good deal for the end-consumer? I need a little entertainment.

I would've given you a fair and mature answer to your question had you not written that childish remark that I highlighted.

 

[chagla]

You prefer less options?

choice's are an alien concept to apple. dictating is more like an apple thing.

 

[RoboCop001]

Mr. Worf.....

Firing torpedoes!!

What the hell is going on.....

 

[dscottbuch]

All the posters excoriating Apple do realize that there is NOTHING in the article, or any other that I've read on this subject, that Apple is actually TARGETING this service. The articles only report that

1) Apple met with some of the labels - probably happens all the time given Apple business
2) Apple offered an opinion that Spotify will be bad for the music labels revenue - probably true.

Everything else is editorializing by the author(s).

One can legitimately argue (2) and, if Spotify has a decent management team, this is what they are doing.

If Apple were TARGETING this service I would expect reports of pro-active steps - say Steve Jobs going to the labels himself, or maybe publishing another open letter or other actions. I have seen NO reports of actions beyond (1) and (2) above, which are NOT TARGETING.

It would really help this Country if people actually could think, and discuss, critically rather than just spewing emotional responses.

 

[robpaterson]

@JoEw: are you kidding? Of course artists make money from downloads, ESPECIALLY indie artists. I run a small indie record company, and I can safely say that we make much more from digital downloads than from CDs.

 

[kas23]

I would've given you a fair and mature answer to your question had you not written that childish remark that I highlighted.

Sorry I gave you a childish excuse to avoid answering the question.

 

[a cat *miaow*]

Apple are in a bad position. The record industry thinks it was screwed over by Apple. The TV/Movie industry thinks it's going to get screwed by Apple.

Agree with that. Apple have just spent the last few years proving themselves completely untrustworthy when it comes to business.

 

[Bernard SG]

All the posters excoriating Apple do realize that there is NOTHING in the article, or any other that I've read on this subject, that Apple is actually TARGETING this service. The articles only report that

1) Apple met with some of the labels - probably happens all the time given Apple business
2) Apple offered an opinion that Spotify will be bad for the music labels revenue - probably true.

Everything else is editorializing by the author(s).

One can legitimately argue (2) and, if Spotify has a decent management team, this is what they are doing.

If Apple were TARGETING this service I would expect reports of pro-active steps - say Steve Jobs going to the labels himself, or maybe publishing another open letter or other actions. I have seen NO reports of actions beyond (1) and (2) above, which are NOT TARGETING.

It would really help this Country if people actually could think, and discuss, critically rather than just spewing emotional responses.

Agreed 200%
The music labels are the ones refraining from cutting a deal with Spotify in the USA. Last time I checked, Steve Jobs is not the CEO of major label.
Clearly, if Spotify succeeds, the iTunes Music Store's days will probably be numbered. Apple is not going to maintain the infrastructure for a declining revenue source, let alone invest more money in their cloud-based streaming project. However, in the big picture that wouldn't be likely to seriously hurt Apple's overall business.
On the other hand, the music companies have a lot to lose if Spotify succeeds at launching in the US.
For the record (no pun intended), the RIAA is IMO one of the most despicable lobbies that USA's capitalism has given birth to.

 

[forgetaboutpro]

I feel sorry for you guys, Spotify is a fantastic service. It streams to my sonos at 320kbps, plays on my iphone over 3g and has global playlists between my mac/phone/sonos. You can even save files for offline use. Way better than anything offered on the itunes store.

Apple needs to accept that competition is healthy and will ultimately make them better.

 

[finchna]

Yes, the free version is ad supported.

My wife liked the free service so much that she now subscribes fir £10 a month and she now gets to play all her Spotify playlists on her phone which also work without any data usage as it downloads the songs to your device for "offline playback".

The free service does lead to subscribers too so there is another possible revenue stream there.

Sounds like Apple is working on their subscription service, so perhaps Apple is delaying Spotify until they have their subscription system running. Not that that Apple's tactics are good, but they may only be temporary until Apple competes effectively on the subscription turf.

 

[marksman]

Habitat for Humanity? Doctors Without Borders? Engineers Without Borders?

I was going to bash this analogy, because those are mostly part-time efforts, or done for a period of time, while those professions allow the people to make a lot of money the rest of the time, so they can afford to do it.

That being said, it is a good analogy, because artists make their money doing shows, touring and selling merchandise. So giving away the music for free is actually a pretty good idea. Since the artists see so little of it in most cases anyways, they will still make money off their other avenues.

 

[Killyp]

Wow, classy to put my name on someone else's quote dude. Keep up the good work!

That was a genuine mistake which I'm very sorry you're offended about. Nonetheless, in the politest way possible, I think you're being a little on the rude side, which is never helpful. We should keep this conversation as mature and sensible as possible.

Spotify has a business model that long-term will work out great for both artists and customers. Your problem is that you don't think outside of the box. There are plenty of ways to increase profit other than the way you think about it. Increase volume, increase target group, sell add-on services, not to mention the fact that it'll be a more fair playground, where marketing becomes less important and people will be able to grow their own music style. In long term Spotify has the potential to be awesome for everyone.

I agree with you RE the discovery of new music, but the fact is that nobody pays for it when they listen to it.

We could get into a whole debate about live touring etc... but unfortunately it's a VERY different world to the recorded music world, and there are many, many pitfalls of touring, such as actually being able to perform your material live, which isn't always possible with many genres of music.

If I can't really make much money from recorded music, then where should I get the cash from which is needed to hit a decent studio, record musicians A, B and C who I want on my tune? Please don't tell me I shouldn't have a violin on my song because I can't afford it, that is a whole different conversation. A day's rate at a good tracking studio is around £300-400, a good session musician can be £200 upwards, a mixing engineer will cost you approx. £300 a day, then the same with the mastering. Then you've got the legal side of looking after your music which is a totally hidden cost...

Take all these factors out of the recording chain, and you're going to directly impact the end-result. Do you not agree that musicians should be given the creative freedom they need to make the music they envisage, or would you like the music you listen to to be affected by financial constraints?

So what you are basically saying here is that you don't want to put the effort in or move to another area? I've known bands that where on continual tour, living in Ford Transits, going from club to club, getting paid, getting more attention.

Maybe for rock and roll, but not true with all kinds of music...

Getting a following. In fact that is how it used to be for ages, travelling minstrels etc. If you are any good, they'll ask you back, If you are crap, get a job instead.

That really is an incredible over-simplification...

Don't expect to get paid for something that people don't want. Mehinks the days of multimillionaire rockstars are nearly over.

Are you saying you don't want to listen to recorded music?

I'd be interested to know how you make a crust now being a performing AND recording musician... do tell.

Well if I knew the answer to that, then I'd be making a crust being a performing and recording musician. As it happens, I'm not, I'm a student in full time Music higher-education, who also records and performs.

We have a local band here called "Bessie and the Zinc Buckets" They have day jobs, but have a huge following and will pack out any of the locals venues, they love it (and make cash), and the audiences love them.

Exactly, they have day jobs - their 'career' as a musician isn't enough for them to live from, as a result, it's a hobby, a past-time.


Before anybody comes back at this with some logical, but not necessarily practical theory about things a musician should do to try and have a successful career - I suggest you try it yourself and see the real damage and impact which has been done to the music industry as a result of the way people's listening habits and values towards recorded music have changed...

 

[caddisfly]

"If you're using Spotify you might as well just torrent. It's a hairs-breadth away from that."

Ummm, not really is it? In fact in no way whatsoever! Spoify is legal music. You want free music? Get the version with adverts. You don't want adverts? Pay for the service. It's a fantastic service that Apple should be worried about and consumers should be happy about.

from what I can see - from a technology point of view - spotify is almost exactly like torrent:

it is a peer-to-peer structure which btw uses *your* bandwidth, your network connection, your machine and your spotify cache as a distribution node to stream music to other spotify customers in the near network space.....so keep an eye on your data plan ceilings ;-)

I find that to be a problem...others may not

At the end of the day, this is more about the labels trying to break Apple rather than supporting any other commercial model for music. They have shown time and time again that they will cut their leg off rather than give SJ any more influence.

 

[Dorfdad]

you reap what you sow apple! Stop cheap free music because it conflicts with what YOU want to do. I hope the TV Networks see the double standard you are spewing.

They dont want someone to tip their carts either but you have no problem with that one no?

Listen I want options and Spotify is a viable option for some.. I still want to own my music but some people just want to rent.. Whats wrong with that?

 

[HLdan]

Listen I want options and Spotify is a viable option for some.. I still want to own my music but some people just want to STEAL..

I had to change that for ya.