Apple's iTunes Radio Terms With Record Labels Revealed

Todd B.

macrumors 6502
May 1, 2013
431
1
Why not just pay for your music. Everytime someone plays a song on these phony radio/spotify services, the artist makes about a cent.
Some one will definitely find a way to remove the ads.
1. I have found some great bands that I wouldn't have known about otherwise using Last.fm which I then purchased through iTunes. Just because you use a radio type service doesn't mean you don't use iTunes.

2. There is a way to remove ads. It's $25 a year and called iTunes Match.
 

madsci954

macrumors 68030
Oct 14, 2011
2,664
499
Ohio
Why not just pay for your music. Everytime someone plays a song on these phony radio/spotify services, the artist makes about a cent.
The point is music discovery, you hear a song you like, click Buy, and it's yours for good. You get the song you like and the artist gets paid, win-win.

Some one will definitely find a way to remove the ads.
Probably, but I would think it connects to Apple's server to authenticate whether or not someone has iTunes Match enabled. A jailbreak and hacking Apple's servers would probably be required.
 

Mac Taylor

macrumors newbie
Apr 3, 2013
6
0
I'm pretty sure you get to skip 5 or 6 per hour, so Apple gets exempted from having to pay for 2 of those 5 or 6.
I stumbled across this too...

By skipping 6 songs played for at least 20 seconds means 6x20=120 seconds... this is only 2 minutes, not 2 hours.

The WSJ article claims, Apple can avoid paying royalties if the played songs is in your library already.

That could mean, iTunes Radio won't play more than two songs you already know in 2 hours. This makes sense, so the end user might hear more music yet unknown and more likely to be bought in the iTunes store afterwards.

Pretty interesting...
 

Risco

macrumors 68000
Jul 22, 2010
1,752
150
United Kingdom
Cannot be more uninterested in this service and I actually think it's a mistake to go the Pandora route. Spotify, Rdio, and Google Play Music All Access are more appealing and more in tune with how a lot of youngsters consume music. I believe Google Play also gives you Radio functionality, while giving you the ability to save songs to playlist for offline listening.

Radio is dead. Let me choose what I want to listen to when I want to listen to it. I'll pay you 10-20 bucks a month for that service.
Radio is not even close to dead, it is evolving. Also also your $20 would not be nearly enough to sustain such a service.
 

Mike MA

macrumors 68020
Sep 21, 2012
2,028
1,633
I would have assumed Apple could negotiate better royalty rates than that.
 

jona2125

macrumors 6502a
Jul 12, 2010
771
632
Google did it better. Apple had the perfect opportunity to smash the radio market. I don't know why they didn't. They have iTunes. It would be a huge thing if they had done like Google and tapped into their library for streaming. I can't wait for Play Music All Access to release on the iPhone. I really don't see the feature point of iTunes radio at all. It was a nice thought and I'm sure it works well but Google did it better. All personal preference but from third person it just seems like Apple wasn't really thinking when they did this.
 

Chupa Chupa

macrumors G5
Jul 16, 2002
14,830
7,369
Still don't see a point in Apple duplicating what Pandora already does so well.

Also, can someone please take iAd out back and shoot it?
Don't see a point for Apple or the consumer?

For Apple there is $ to be made by integrating w/ the #1 store and also with AppleTV.

For the consumer, we'll have to see. If Apple integrates w/ the Apple Remote app and updates the Music app to work in cars like Pandora's does, I can see myself switching just because integration is easier.

Lots of products are good and then another company comes out with something similar that's even better. So I wouldn't be so "it's been done" just yet until we see it go live and play with it first hand.


I would have assumed Apple could negotiate better royalty rates than that.
Yes, but the media industry has a tendency to bite the hand that feeds it. They are an impotent group of bottom feeders and when they see an opportunity they drill in like lampreys.
 

Gasu E.

macrumors 601
Mar 20, 2004
4,421
2,222
Not far from Boston, MA.
But what's the deal with it only being available in the United States? This stupidity have to stop, there is no reason why customers outside the United States shouldn't be able to use all services like iTunes Radio, iTunes Match and not have all the content available through the iTunes Store.

I know this has something to do with all the goddamn stingy content providers and their filthy business about making various rules for different regions and whatnot, but please for the love of God fix this nonsense once and for all so we don't have to bother with this kind of feature fragmentation and frustration any longer.
You can be sure that, when these contracts are cut, nobody is thinking about how they can stick it to Norway. It's the extra task of trying to peck through the extra details of Norwegian law that leave your country out of it.

Here's a fix. Write to your government and tell them to align their copyright, royalty laws, etc., with those of the USA. Then whenever an agreement gets cut for the USA, the parties can just add the clause "... and Norway." Done.

Or you can continue to maintain your silly sovereignity and independence. Your choice. :)
 

RMo

macrumors 65816
Aug 7, 2007
1,212
207
Iowa, USA
People don't want to DISCOVER music, they just want to hear the stuff they like, and these other services don't seem to get that.
...yes, they do. I like Pandora because I've discovered new artists and even new songs from artists I know that are similar to ones I like. Pandora is great at that. Their utilization of the Music Genome Database is excellent. Spotify Radio, not so much (it just seems to pick things at random). I hope iTunes Radio or whatever it ends up being called is more like Pandora.

With the prices Apple is paying (supposedly more than others--though still a fraction of a cent per song), I'm not sure that I see this ending up like Spotify unless they offer a paid service. I envision it more like Pandora, with limited skips and, hopefully, good station-seeding (rather than things like the old AOL Radio where they are predefined for you and there was no skipping--kind of like the actual radio; I haven't used them lately but it's my understanding this has changed).
 

oneMadRssn

macrumors 601
Sep 8, 2011
4,741
11,031
New England
A cent? Are you kidding? It takes 7 1/2 plays of a song to make one cent. (.01)
You know how much it takes to make $5,000? 3,846,153 plays.

I recommend you go google what Pink Floyd had to say about Pandora, et all.

I've talked to a couple smaller bands. They are big enough to play venues in most big cities and travel the world non-stop playing. They said they are making no money off their music anymore. It's all about getting out there and playing live and getting gate money as well as getting some extra money from merch they sell at shows.

To the extreme, you can read what Metallica wrote. Basically, they have to tour every year or they lose money on their infrastructure of management, attorneys, staff, studio equipment bills, etc..

It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future as more and more people move to these streaming services or just steal music outright.
First of all, despite the fact that I love Pink Floyd's and Metallica's music, they can both kiss my ass as far as business is concerned.

Poor Metallica who shot themselves in the foot over and over again by disrespecting young fans is now complaining that they have to work hard to make ends meet? Give me a break... Instead of touring every year, maybe they can just cut loose some of that management and attorneys. Maybe they can build a time machine and not sue students.

Smaller bands have always made little money off direct music sales. Go lookup articles written pre-2004 about how CD publishing deals worked. Bands would make 2-10 cents per album sold (less than 1 cent per track) until their sales paid back their high-interest loan to the record company for fronting the cost of studio time, marketing, etc. (usually in the hundreds of thousands of dollars). It used to take some bands over a decade to pay back those loans to the record companies; many are still on the hook.

As far as I'm concerned, not much had changed; bands don't make any less money than they ever have. They can just tweet about it now.
 

jozeppy26

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2008
498
62
St. Louis
If I am going to pay a dime, I want to own my music. Services like Spotify are a joke. It's like renting house instead of making a mortgage payment.
 

wovel

macrumors 68000
Mar 15, 2010
1,836
160
America(s)!
A cent? Are you kidding? It takes 7 1/2 plays of a song to make one cent. (.01)
You know how much it takes to make $5,000? 3,846,153 plays.

I recommend you go google what Pink Floyd had to say about Pandora, et all.

I've talked to a couple smaller bands. They are big enough to play venues in most big cities and travel the world non-stop playing. They said they are making no money off their music anymore. It's all about getting out there and playing live and getting gate money as well as getting some extra money from merch they sell at shows.

To the extreme, you can read what Metallica wrote. Basically, they have to tour every year or they lose money on their infrastructure of management, attorneys, staff, studio equipment bills, etc..

It will be interesting to see what happens in the near future as more and more people move to these streaming services or just steal music outright.
These artists are so math challenged. Pandora and all streaming services pay more than 10x per listener what traditional radio does. These very vocal people really ought to learn what it is they are complaining about. 1,000,000 listens on Pandora should pay less than 1000 listens on traditional radio. There are less people listening.
 

jozeppy26

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2008
498
62
St. Louis
Does ITunes radio replace the current setup of radio stations under the radio icon in the Appletv or Itunes??

I would hate to lose my favourite radio stations that I currently listen to under the present scheme and most are adfree..
No on Apple TV. The current iTunes doesn't have iTunes Radio yet.

(both images are an Apple TV 3rd gen. on the beta OS, the top row apparently stays put now)
2013-06-27 08.48.13.jpg 2013-06-27 08.48.23.jpg
 
Last edited:

wovel

macrumors 68000
Mar 15, 2010
1,836
160
America(s)!
I kind of wish apple would really step up and blow away the other services (pandora) and double what they would pay. Steve always spoke about how it's all about the artists and the music. Apple could afford to set a new standard and really show that they value not just the customers but also the artists. My two cents.
Pandora and Apple are already paying multiples more than terrestrial or satellite radio. How much do you want them to pay?
 

jozeppy26

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2008
498
62
St. Louis
I've been an Apple fan since 1984, but I'll skip this one :apple:

No way I'm going to pay for listening to music on radio. And if the price is annoying advertising in my ears, then I'd rather avoid it altogether, and keep on supporting independent stations like Radio Paradise at my own pace.
Maybe it's just the beta, but it seems to me like ads are pretty rare. I don't have iTunes Match.

----------

Any new iPhone bought because of this feature pays for about 100,000 songs played.
A potential negative aspect, however, is the storage size of the device a customer purchases now. With iOS 7 you can stream past purchases seamlessly like its on your device. iTunes radio streams as well (obviously). So why opt for 32gb over 16? Or even 64?

----------

Ah iTunes Radio, I can only dream of that!

Here in Germany we don't even have music on YouTube, it's blocked by GeMa, the German Music Association, so the idea that one day we will get the chance to stream music "for free" on iTunes Radio without GeMa taking their share seems very unlikely.

Fingers crossed that Apple and GeMa will strike a deal enabling consumers to enjoy the music that people in other parts of the world can.

As an aside, we still don't even have Google street view working across the majority of the country thanks to privacy concerns and youtube clips with music in the background are either banned, show the GeMa logo and nothing more or have their soundtracks completely replaced by something ludicrous. Google must hate the German authorities! Pandora is also blocked here although Spotify seems to be allowed in! :eek:
use a VPN with a server in the US?
 

Todd B.

macrumors 6502
May 1, 2013
431
1
Google did it better. Apple had the perfect opportunity to smash the radio market. I don't know why they didn't. They have iTunes. It would be a huge thing if they had done like Google and tapped into their library for streaming. I can't wait for Play Music All Access to release on the iPhone. I really don't see the feature point of iTunes radio at all. It was a nice thought and I'm sure it works well but Google did it better. All personal preference but from third person it just seems like Apple wasn't really thinking when they did this.
Radio is FAR better for music discovery than an on-demand service - which, in turn, is far better for the artists. Plus, iTunes is going for discovery not your library. They have that in iTunes.

You overestimate the people that would go out and download a third party app when something is built in. That doesn't even account for the fact that Google Music can't go on Apple TV or a home entertainment centre (which can then be broadcast all over the home).

Compared to iTunes, Google Music is, like, child's play.
 

jozeppy26

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2008
498
62
St. Louis
simple: by integrating it into the OS apple can make it more effective at selling iTunes content than Pandora could be.

----------



the two models aren't mutually exclusive. I pay my music, but I use a service like this (Pandora) to discover new music I'm likely interested in.
And being able to control it through these methods is super nice.

2013-06-27 09.06.33.png 2013-06-27 09.06.49.png
 

avanpelt

macrumors 68030
Jun 2, 2010
2,915
3,656
Pandora will lose some of the ad revenue that's generated by people like me who have a free Pandora account and are active iTunes users, for sure.

As an iTunes Match subscriber, iTunes Radio is a no-brainer for me. Pay the same price I pay Apple now to store my music in the cloud and also get Pandora-like functionality that already knows a lot about the music I like to listen to? Yes, please! No ads? Sure!
 

jozeppy26

macrumors 6502
Jul 8, 2008
498
62
St. Louis
For the same reason Audi makes cars when BMW does a decent job of doing the same?
Too expensive for maintenance. Just buy a Toyota Avalon. IT HAS AIR-CONDITIONED SEATS! It LITERALLY blows air up your a**

----------

Radio is not even close to dead, it is evolving. Also also your $20 would not be nearly enough to sustain such a service.
Spotify is $9.99/month and offers exactly what that dude said he'd pay $20 for.
 

2bikes

macrumors 6502
Mar 9, 2012
413
4
What's odd to me is that Apple is paying higher royalties than competitors. I thought that Apple could leverage deals with the music labels/publishers because of their strong iOS ecosystem and established iTunes presence in the music industry.
Couple of things that could have caused this is that they will pay none or less royalties for the songs the listener already have bought. That is not the case for Pandora. Also they will sell more songs on iTunes than Pandora.

On a different note, what I wanted to see through what has been written on this tread so far was all the people bit*hing about how Apple should not be cheap and pay up like the others etc., eating their words. :p