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 Urging Music Labels to Stop Licensing Free Songs on Spotify and YouTube
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Almost nothing you said is true.
Apple isn't 'dictating the terms' to their competitors, they are trying to bring the labels on board with the idea that giving everything away for free devalues the content the labels are offering and ties their revenue to the ups-and-downs of the internet advertising market. That competitors exist is effectively irrelevant - Apple would be having these discussions either way.
MOGs 'library' (their licensing deal) did not transfer to Beats. Those deals were contractually required to be renegotiated in event of company sale, which happened twice.
Beats UI and service is widely considered to be the best of any service, by people who know about this thing. Beats failing was the lack of a desktop app. The app is getting created from scratch (check out iOS 8.4 for a preview of what that will be like) and a desktop app will surely exist.
Finally: Apple stepping in to prevent an actual monopoly (Amazon eBook sales) from controlling the entire eBook market is not an abuse in any form. The law in question is intended to prevent what Amazon was doing (rigging the prices in an unsustainable, self-serving manner - driving the price paid by consumer far below the price they ((Amazon)) pay, so Amazon can gain market share) not what Apple did (help the publishers stop Amazon from devaluing their content).
The US suit against Apple is largely considered to be an embarrassment and is unlikely to survive appeal.
Last edited:
If you were to read the MacRumors article and apply critical thought you would be able to express more than 'Apple doing bad thing because ???'
Apple wants to be able to offer a streaming service. The current model (unsustainable loss-generating free models combined with a $10 paid subscription) does not make it possible for Apple to offer a good experience to users (Apple doesn't junk up UIs with ads) or to pay artists enough money to come close to replacing what had been lost by the existence of these free services.
In other words, the free offering is a net-loss for everybody - artists make less than if the offering did not exist, users get a worse product, less music is made.
Apple is attempting to get the record labels to do what they already have expressed interest in doing. Much like the Amazon thing.
I did apply critical thought, hence my post. Apple wants to offer a streaming service where they are the dominant player and take the lions share of the profits. Apple has only their own interests at heart. Not yours, not mine, not the labels, not the artists. They don't like the business model the others are using because it leaves money on the table.
I agree. Apple ALREADY has a free music streaming alternative, iTunes Radio. Yes, it's not as popular at the moment, but combined with Beats, iTunes exclusive content, and some rebranding, it'll be on top.
Yeah you're not expressing anything in line with reality. We're done here.
----------
'Radio' services are far different from streaming music services, which are intended to be used to play entire albums, libraries, etc. Having an ad play in between a song on the radio is far different from having ad breaks in between songs on an album.
Hmm, interesting. I've heard nothing but great things about Beats Streaming service.
iTunes Integration!!!! Finally!!
To me, the most exciting part of this story is the "deep integration" into iTunes.
I'm sure that many of you, like myself, abandoned your lovingly crafted iTunes collection for Spotify. However, I have tons of music that Spotify doesn't (and won't ever) have, and I'm constantly adding new music. So now i'm torn between two libraries, which *really* sucks.
I know, i know.... you can "import" your iTunes music into Spotify, but for me, that's not a real solution - there are many limitations to this, such as synching between devices, etc.
Not to mention Genius playlists - one of my favorite features.
I'm a happy premium Spotify subscriber, but I can't wait to get back to my old iTunes Library. Let's just hope they don't mess this up like they did with iTunes Radio and iTunes Ping (anyone remember that?
)
To me, the most exciting part of this story is the "deep integration" into iTunes.
I'm sure that many of you, like myself, abandoned your lovingly crafted iTunes collection for Spotify. However, I have tons of music that Spotify doesn't (and won't ever) have, and I'm constantly adding new music. So now i'm torn between two libraries, which *really* sucks.
I know, i know.... you can "import" your iTunes music into Spotify, but for me, that's not a real solution - there are many limitations to this, such as synching between devices, etc.
Not to mention Genius playlists - one of my favorite features.
I'm a happy premium Spotify subscriber, but I can't wait to get back to my old iTunes Library. Let's just hope they don't mess this up like they did with iTunes Radio and iTunes Ping (anyone remember that?
)
Wow! This is right up there with arguing that bank robbers are doing it to save bankers's souls from burning in hell...!
You know, "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God."Nope. Apple is engaging in anti-competative practices and it's using its market share clout to set the rules so it doesn't have to compete with the freemium services. Period.
Apple is trying to do what it did with ebooks: it screwed up the market, drove prices up for consumers, and by the time it was slapped by the regulators, it had already achieved its goals, destroyed smaller competitors and the fines were a small price to pay for it.
As for Beats, I had it, after MOG, for about six months. If you think the UI is good, or that the removing of Artist Radio improved the user experience, you have very low expectations.
After looking at the alternatives, I have since switched to Google Play Music and it's so much better than Beats, it's kind of sad. Plus I get all of the Premium YouTube vides for each artist listed on the page, of course included in the price.
oh the hypocrisy:
http://advertising.apple.com/
Oh yes, that iAD that Apple wants app developers to use heavily as it makes money from it! And lets not forget the endless ad filled apps and games on the app store eh?
You made one of the most hypocritical comments I've seen I think. Choosing to totally turn a blind eye to Apple's advertising measures IT uses of services.
What happened to working to the customer's benefit? What happened to competing by making the most compelling product/service for customers to pick? What happened to simply being best? Sigh. This is the wrong way to do business, and a market economy is not sustainable if business practices like this continue. Seeing this from Apple deeply hurts me. If you think a freemium tier is what customers want, and you feel threatened by it, don't eliminate your competition's offerings. Make your own version, and give customers incentive to upgrade to a paid subscription if that's what you really want.
----------
Furthermore, are there not already ads on iTunes Radio? It doesn't have to be a clunky, ***** interface either. There are ways of making the ads look like a compelling and interesting part of the UI, and you could do like with actual radio, where all ads are sound only, not changing the look of the interface.
----------
Furthermore, are there not already ads on iTunes Radio? It doesn't have to be a clunky, ***** interface either. There are ways of making the ads look like a compelling and interesting part of the UI, and you could do like with actual radio, where all ads are sound only, not changing the look of the interface.
Yeah I'm not going to respond to anything as wrongheaded and unreasonable as your post here. Sorry.
----------
I never said advertising sucks. I said ad supported music services suck. There is a difference.
----------
Just like there are ads on actual radio. There is a difference between ads on a 'discovery' service and ads cutting in as you listen to an album.
And supporting your comment: If it were really just to make a better service Apple was doing this, why do it in the first place? Why try and make labels oppose other companies' business models, if you think your idea creates a superior service? Just go trough with your plan, and the customers will follow you if you're right. Who cares what the other players do if you're better
Looks like the guys that were trying to explain that for us, as customers, paying more for books is better, simply we don't understand the way it works.robeddie said:
Last edited:
But what's wrong with giving the listeners a choice between the ad interrupted listens and a paid subscription model? Why do they have to eliminate the free option? It smells of fear to me.
And I get that there's a difference between ads and ads on music streaming services... But what exactly is the problematic difference?
Do you like books? Do you dislike one company having complete control of the entire market? I'm actually asking here.
The previous arrangement was that Amazon would sell books at a loss for the purpose of gaining control of the market. It worked. Amazon ruled the eBook world, abusing this power repeatedly. These are facts you can Google.
A lower price isn't everything. The companies that create the content are entitled to set the price at whatever they want the price to be. Consumers can buy it or not buy it, their call. What is unacceptable is Amazon rigging the price below what any of their competitors (Barnes & Noble, Sony, other smaller players) could offer.
----------
There are a lot of reasons why eliminating the free offering is good for consumers in the (not so) long run, but I'm not going to get into it quite yet. It's hard to discuss anything that doesn't benefit all consumers without being called 'anti-consumer' and other silly things.
I'll just add that the record labels are eliminating this model as-is. Anything Apple may be doing to aid in the process should be punctuated with how the labels dislike the ad-supported model and are working to end it.
Oh no, forcing people to pay for music again.. How awful of
How'd you enjoy getting rid of advertisements on television and being forced to pay for every show you watched, be it the news, prime-time, or what-have-you? You're used to watching free TV, what's so different about listening to free music?
Good for the artist = Yes. Good for the consumer = hell NO !
I would really like to hear your argument on why something free to the consumer is a bad idea whereas making them pay is a good for the consumer and a great idea.
The consumer benefits as more music is created. As people who would otherwise pay switch to streaming services (and not piracy, as streaming services offer a better experience than piracy) and use the free tier, less revenue is generated - a lot less. Figures are out there, if you are curious.
We're talking a Napster-era style collapse in revenue. Crashing through the floor.
Artists not getting paid = artists create less content. So long as you don't listen to exclusively top-10 artists, this is a problem that affects you.
The content being the same does not matter. Do you realize you are arguing in favor of a monopoly right now?
Yeap, but people will selectively turn a blind eye and conveniently forget about that to serve their 'apology' for Apple.
What you said again:
You state in YOUR comment that Ad-based services suck and trying to shake a few cents out of that audience is not a thing Apple does.. It's right there in black and white, the app store is FULL of ad based apps and services, Apple invented iAD's SPECIFICALLY for app developers to use so that APPLE could get some of that advertising revenue.
So what you are claiming is that it's totally fine for Apple to slam advertising services when it comes to music, but it's TOTALLY fine when it comes to Apple itself and apps on the Apple store..
As I said, your being VERY hypocritical. Do you have a major problem with radio stations as well, or is that only if Apple tell you to do so?