Apple Urging Music Labels to Stop Licensing Free Songs on Spotify and YouTube

[MTW]

unreasonable, foaming-at-the-mouth comment

Do you actually expect me to respond to bold, all caps shouting?

iAds take a thing that is bad and make it slightly better. It is not something Apple uses in their apps, it is for developers who have to use ads (for whatever reason). We're not talking about third party developers here, who have ad-based music services in the app store today. We're talking about what is expected of Apple.

Yes, apps are different. Ads coming in as you listen to an album...that's completely different from a banner ad in a low-grade app.

It's not hypocrisy. Some things are just different. Apps are not the same as music. Discovery (radio) services are different from 'all access' services, where one would be listening to an hour long block of music (also called an album), only to have it interrupted by ads. Ads disrespect the artistic intent in this context, and are just gross in general.

If you would like me to respond to you in the future, please do not shout at my in bold, all-caps text. Thanks.

 

[Rodster]

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.

Interesting, your take on things. Recently I discovered several artists on iTunes Radio and bought several of their albums on iTunes. If I was forced to pay, I would never had heard of them nor bought their albums because I wouldn't pay for the service. I don't mind the ads as sometimes those ads refer you to new music that's available on iTunes.

I lean on the side of allowing the consumer making the decision of whether to pay or not. I have no idea how the music business works but i've read over the years how it's more of the record labels screwing over the little guys. Free streaming music OTOH discourages piracy and encourages potential sales for the artists.

 

[MTW]

Interesting, your take on things. Recently I discovered several artists on iTunes Radio and bought several of their albums on iTunes. If I was forced to pay, I would never had heard of them nor bought their albums because I wouldn't pay for the service. I don't mind the ads as sometimes those ads refer you to new music that's available on iTunes.

Totally with you. Radio services are a completely different thing. Like the actual radio! The problems don't surface until you let the user pick and play anything they want, play entire albums, etc.

 

[tentales]

Apple != cool

Really Apple ?

Between 1984 and 1995 I considered Apple cool.
Between 1995 and 2001 I felt sorry for Apple.
Between 2001 and 2012 I was cheering for Apple.
Ever since 2013 I'm just increasingly pissed at Apple.

Why is that ?

 

[Rodster]

Totally with you. Radio services are a completely different thing. Like the actual radio! The problems don't surface until you let the user pick and play anything they want, play entire albums, etc.

OK, my bad I thought streaming radio was a no, no. Yeah I actually like the way iTunes Radio's format currently is. I would rather hear random stuff than a whole album. Hell, after I bought those several albums, I haven't even listened to them. It was just a way of giving back to the artists for a job well done.

 

[casperes1996]

Totally with you. Radio services are a completely different thing. Like the actual radio! The problems don't surface until you let the user pick and play anything they want, play entire albums, etc.

I really want to understand you, but I don't. Why is it you would rather not be allowed to pick the music you listen to, than to have ads?

Radio: We pick the music for you + give you ads!

All access streaming: You pick whatever you want to hear + ads if you don't pay.

How is the top one a better offer? I get the difference, and that they are different ways of listening, and that sometimes you do want radio, and that ads would be less annoying there, however, I'm arguing for the CHOICE (caps not to shout, but to emphasise) between paid and free versions.

 

[MTW]

I really want to understand you, but I don't. Why is it you would rather not be allowed to pick the music you listen to, than to have ads?

Radio: We pick the music for you + give you ads!

All access streaming: You pick whatever you want to hear + ads if you don't pay.

How is the top one a better offer? I get the difference, and that they are different ways of listening, and that sometimes you do want radio, and that ads would be less annoying there, however, I'm arguing for the CHOICE (caps not to shout, but to emphasise) between paid and free versions.

Radio is a discovery thing. The goal is to drive sales of music.

All Access replaces buying music. Which is great, except for it doesn't replace the money at the free tier.

It's a better 'deal' for consumers, but a one-sided one. The choice has collapsed music revenue, revenue coming from people who would otherwise be willing to pay. If you give people the option of free versus paid, they pick free. Which would be great and everything except for the whole having to pay for music to have music be made thing.

 

[apolloa]

Do you actually expect me to respond to bold, all caps shouting?

iAds take a thing that is bad and make it slightly better. It is not something Apple uses in their apps, it is for developers who have to use ads (for whatever reason). We're not talking about third party developers here, who have ad-based music services in the app store today. We're talking about what is expected of Apple.

Yes, apps are different. Ads coming in as you listen to an album...that's completely different from a banner ad in a low-grade app.

It's not hypocrisy. Some things are just different. Apps are not the same as music. Discovery (radio) services are different from 'all access' services, where one would be listening to an hour long block of music (also called an album), only to have it interrupted by ads. Ads disrespect the artistic intent in this context, and are just gross in general.

If you would like me to respond to you in the future, please do not shout at my in bold, all-caps text. Thanks.

That's fine, I called your bluff and see you can't reply back other then to agree with what I posted about you, your hypocrisy is evidently clear to all. But keep on apologising for Apple...

 

[MTW]

That's fine, I called your bluff and see you can't reply back other then to agree with what I posted about you, your hypocrisy is evidently clear to all. But keep on apologising for Apple...

You continue to embarrass yourself with these angry, half-thought-out comments. Please do not respond to me again.

 

[Boomish69]

Dunno why people are so anti Apple, I'd be interested in Record companies limiting licensing to Spotify but then being writer/musician I would. It has it's advantages for new musicians but in the long run , no one making music gets paid much from it's service.

 

[cdm283813]

On the surface, this sounds like a really crappy thing for Apple to do. Maybe people are happy with Spotify, Rdio, etc. and don't want your damn Beats service.

And imagine if Apple was the only game in town when it comes to iPhone, iPad and computers. Next time people criticize Android or Microsoft think about that for a minute.
We can't allow one company to control everything.

 

[AppleScruff1]

And imagine if Apple was the only game in town when it comes to iPhone, iPad and computers. Next time people criticize Android or Microsoft think about that for a minute.
We can't allow one company to control everything.

It seems like several on this forum who would love for Apple to control everything.

 

[JoEw]

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?

I do this already, I pay for HBONOW and Netflix.

This is a big reason I refuse to buy cable, since it is not ad free.

 

[ct1211]

Call me old fashioned, but I would rather just own my music.

Exactly! I am amazed at the people forking over monthly subscriptions for cloud storage, music etc. I make a good living but wow, I hate paying for cable every month!

 

[casperes1996]

Radio is a discovery thing. The goal is to drive sales of music.

All Access replaces buying music. Which is great, except for it doesn't replace the money at the free tier.

It's a better 'deal' for consumers, but a one-sided one. The choice has collapsed music revenue, revenue coming from people who would otherwise be willing to pay. If you give people the option of free versus paid, they pick free. Which would be great and everything except for the whole having to pay for music to have music be made thing.

See this angle I can understand a bit better. That said, I still don't agree, and here's why.

It's really quite simple. If the ads aren't generating enough money, there needs to be more ads. If it gets to a point where there are too many ads, or nobody wants to advertise, because their specific ad gets flooded, the customer will choose another solution. Market economy at its most basic. People won't always pick free, if paid is better, and free won't exist if it's not sustainable for the content providers and creators. It's that simple. And it's not for Apple to say if the model isn't generating enough revenue for labels and musicians. It's for the labels.

----------

Exactly! I am amazed at the people forking over monthly subscriptions for cloud storage, music etc. I make a good living but wow, I hate paying for cable every month!

I can agree with you two. To a certain extend. I use Spotify for my once a year songs or whatever. Music I really like, I buy, even with the existence of services like Spotify.

And actually, further developing the points above, a one time purchase is not worth as much as endless ad revenue, is it? So how is the ad model really that much worse for content creators and labels? And even if it is, go back to what I wrote above

 

[MTW]

See this angle I can understand a bit better. That said, I still don't agree, and here's why.

It's really quite simple. If the ads aren't generating enough money, there needs to be more ads. If it gets to a point where there are too many ads, or nobody wants to advertise, because their specific ad gets flooded, the customer will choose another solution. Market economy at its most basic. People won't always pick free, if paid is better, and free won't exist if it's not sustainable for the content providers and creators. It's that simple. And it's not for Apple to say if the model isn't generating enough revenue for labels and musicians. It's for the labels.

It just doesn't work that way. You can't shove an hours-worth of ads before a song. The price paid for ads is derived from lots of factors, but the 'quality of the user' is a big part. People who are unwilling to pay for music (and the only thing 'known' about the user is that they listen to music) aren't hugely attractive as far as advertising goes.

The labels are the ones saying it. That is why the end of free services has long been telegraphed - time and time again they have made it clear that they see 'free' as a trial, as opposed to a tier in and of itself.

 

[casperes1996]

It just doesn't work that way. You can't shove an hours-worth of ads before a song. The price paid for ads is derived from lots of factors, but the 'quality of the user' is a big part. People who are unwilling to pay for music (and the only thing 'known' about the user is that they listen to music) aren't hugely attractive as far as advertising goes.

The labels are the ones saying it. That is why the end of free services has long been telegraphed - time and time again they have made it clear that they see 'free' as a trial, as opposed to a tier in and of itself.

No, but that's the thing. If an hour of ads is what is needed, and people don't want that (which they obviously won't), then the market will regulate itself, without Apple pushing it to do so. I'm not saying freemium models might not be over soon. I'm saying that pressuring labels into stopping their business with for instance Spotify, is an immoral way of ending it. It shouldn't end because Apple pushes labels to quit. It should end because it's just not sustainable, and if it isn't the labels would pull themselves from it without Apple intervening.

 

[MTW]

No, but that's the thing. If an hour of ads is what is needed, and people don't want that (which they obviously won't), then the market will regulate itself, without Apple pushing it to do so. I'm not saying freemium models might not be over soon. I'm saying that pressuring labels into stopping their business with for instance Spotify, is an immoral way of ending it. It shouldn't end because Apple pushes labels to quit. It should end because it's just not sustainable, and if it isn't the labels would pull themselves from it without Apple intervening.

That's a myth. What the market is doing is killing the music industry. The ads don't pay the bills, so the companies go and get more funding to pay for the loss-generating offering, under the pretense that they can push more of the free users to the paid offering. They go to the labels and push for lower fees, on the grounds that they don't make any money.

Letting this play itself out would be too harmful to the fragile music business to allow to happen.

No one is pushing labels to end their business with Spotify. The push is to make Spotify into a business at all.

 

[bobenhaus]

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.

Yeah just like Apple tried to do with E-Books buy bringing the publishers on board and setting a dollar amount and same price for all publishers?? Yeah sounds like a big bully that cant compete but has tons of money to buy companies off. I see the DOJ in the future for Apple. Its not up to apple to dictate the market at all. Thats what people don't understand about economics.

 

[MTW]

Yeah just like Apple tried to do with E-Books buy bringing the publishers on board and setting a dollar amount and same price for all publishers?? Yeah sounds like a big bully that cant compete but has tons of money to buy companies off. I see the DOJ in the future for Apple.

What are you even talking about? What Apple did was to allow book publishers to set the price for their own products. In the same way that app developers do.

You just seem angry, and your anger is misplaced.

 

[ksuyen]

Verge has a bad history with Apple, they are not exactly Apple lover these days. I wouldn't be surprise if this is a smear campaign. There is no credential sources either, it's like bad journalism all over again. Oh wait, I am reading this in a rumour site, what do I expect LOL

 

[Pilgrim1099]

Verge has a bad history with Apple, they are not exactly Apple lover these days. I wouldn't be surprise if this is a smear campaign. There is no credential sources either, it's like bad journalism all over again. Oh wait, I am reading this in a rumour site, what do I expect LOL

When it concerns a federal agency, it's not a hoax or smear campaign. The music industry pointed fingers at Cook.

 

[AppleScruff1]

What are you even talking about? What Apple did was allow book publishers to set the price for their own products. In the same way that app developers do.

You just seem angry, and your anger is misplaced.

How long have you been working at Apple?

 

[ksuyen]

When it concerns a federal agency, it's not a hoax or smear campaign. The music industry pointed fingers at Cook.

The music industry just need a black sheep to put a blame on no matter how helpful said sheep want to be for music industry. Come on, can't you smell the whole thing is a bs? It's stinking

 

[Pilgrim1099]

The music industry just need a black sheep to put a blame on no matter how helpful said sheep want to be for music industry. Come on, can't you smell the whole thing is a bs? It's stinking

You realize that it's illegal to use a federal agency to sic another person or company? That would be like trying to call 911 for a fire that never happened. That person would get busted for such a thing.

Same thing with this kind of thing. No company would be this stupid to fake or smear a competitor for that.

So if the DOJ is involved, it's most likely for real and Little Timmy will get the shaft. He needs to GO..