Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
For starters, Google chose to offer a standard subscription music service very similar to those built by Spotify and Rdio, and that meant the terms had largely been established, according to multiple sources close to the talks. Apple, on the other hand, is pioneering a hybrid web and radio service -- one that resembles Pandora but melds it with some on-demand features, the sources said. The licensing agreement had to be created from scratch.

But I thought Google was innovative and Apple was not? :confused:
 
If its not like spotify where I can pick my own playlists and songs I want to listen to I don't want it!
 
Hopefully a much larger selection... Ideally, the entire iTunes music catalog. I don't think the labels would allow that to happen cos if it did, iTunes would destroy all competition. But if that happened, I'd be first in line to sign up.

As a GPMAA user for a whole 2 days since All Access launched, it certainly has had everything I've searched for. I'd hate to think what could possibly be missing!
 
Why? I like to own things. Renting music is not for everyone. I spend less money per year in iTunes than I would paying for a subscription to a streaming music service. Considering newer music is pretty hit and miss these days, I'd rather find the gems and buy them. I already own all the music from the last few decades that I would want to listen to.

too expensive to buy every CD, album or song i would want to listen to
 
Google's service is fairly standard. Negotiating was simple.
Apple is working on a hybrid service which will complicate negotiations.
Here's a quote from the original post, which you seem to have missed:

No, I didn't miss that, if you would have read my earlier posts you would have seen me pose the question of what exactly a unique 'on demand' service would differentiate it from what Google is offering.

Because right now, there's a radio option (it's called RADIO in the app in case you missed it) and it's accessible from the web. Please tell me what other features you think Apple is going to offer that would make it different.

You know (darn) well this is about money. Google was willing to pony up more $$$ up front and Apple does not work that way. Had you read the source article, you would have known that. But you seem to have missed that.
 
No.
Apple needs to stop being cheap and pay the piper.
Greed is holding Apple back.

It's all about money that Apple doesn't want to pay.

----------


Storm? More like scattered showers. :p

You are most certainly wrong. Apple is not the greedy one. The only thing on this planet that is greedier than a movie exec is a music exec.
Apple saved them. And they already forgot about it. It's why Steve won a Grammy. Thanks for keeping our business alive with iTunes, here's a ****ing metal. And to think that they want Apple to pay even more now than before for music infuriates me.
 
If its not like spotify where I can pick my own playlists and songs I want to listen to I don't want it!

Why don't you actually look at a review instead of complaining about something you are too lazy to look up.

You CAN create playlists for songs that you don't own and make them available for offline listening on Android devices or the Web.
 
As a GPMAA user for a whole 2 days since All Access launched, it certainly has had everything I've searched for. I'd hate to think what could possibly be missing!

The ability to play a radio station off of more than one band. I want an option (like pandora) where I can choose multiple bands from different genres to create a radio station.

On the radio or pandora I don't only listen to one genre of music. It may be there but I can't find it in help or any forums that I've been on. I did put in a request for it but haven't really seen anyone else who feels the same way I do.

That has really been my only complaint about it but I only updated it yesterday and have only had a couple of hours with it.
 
Last edited:
I'm still confused with this approach and why anyone would want it, unless it's free.

I am pretty sure an add supported version is part of it.

Seems like apple is trying to come up with a new hybrid that offers value. Googles offering is the same as rdio and spotify. No real reason to choose one or another. Apple did not just want to be a pandora clone, they wanted to provide an improved experience. They will get there.

----------

I would be very surprised if this really goes through.

People are looking for a service similar to Spotify and the labels are trying to gouge Apple over the pricing (Apple as far as what was reported, offered Pandora level of pricing to the labels which is on the high side).

Actually I don't think most people want to pay $120 a year.
 
I don't think Apple has a choice. This has to launch at WWDC given Google's announcement.

There is only going to be a small window where Google's offering is not available as a native app on iOS. They need to go now.

Google and apples offering are going to be fundamentally different. Google is just offering spotify for the same price even. Googles offering doesn't change much for apple as it seems from all reports apple was never targeting that market.
 
I'm still confused with this approach and why anyone would want it, unless it's free.
Hear hear. I don't really get it, seems like less customer-value than Spotify. But I suppose they make such dough from iTunes Music store that they don't want to go subscription.

To me it makes more sense to pay EUR 10 per month to listen to most music on the planet (Spotify) when I want, what I want. It even has a "radio" feature if I want to find new music.

...Then again, if Apple's offering is good enough, I'd be happy to save EUR 10 per month, but radio only wouldn't do that.
 
They will just announce it and not include the labels that won't agree. That is what they did with the DRM-free iTunes move, and it worked fine because it forced the rest of the industry to agree.

The same thing will happen here, once Apple calls their bluff they will fold.
No doubt in my kind this offering is a move to further leverage apple's control over the music business. That is why some of the music houses are fighting it but at the end of the day apple will have its way, have a superior consumer offering and an even tighter grip on the sacs of the music business.
 
Actually I don't think most people want to pay $120 a year.
I don't think people mind. Look at Netflix, their growing leaps and bounds. Same should happen to music eventually.

It would lovely if Apple would release direct competition to both Netflix and Spotify. Say, 15 euros for movies and music per month. Or 25 euros a month including music, movies and apps. 30 euros a month for "all-you-can-eat" books, music, movies, apps. This would be a great value to the customer and make Apple's ecosystem very attractive.
 
As for running something similar to Spotify, the royalties rate is pretty clear.

70% of the subscription revenue. It's $9.99 in the USA.

$9.99 monthly subscription

70% = $6.993 as royalties for the record labels/publishers/artists
30% = $3.337 as revenue for Spotify/Apple/Google/Rhapsody/Rdio/MOG etc...


Now, a cross between Pandora ($0.0012 per stream) and Spotify will need negotiation
Little chance apple offered a monthly streaming business. Apple and the record companies both want to protect their digital sales business. This is why apple will eventually get what they want, because they are the iTunes gatekeeper. This is a chit even google does not have to play

----------

Read the MacRumors news from the other month. Apple has offered to pay Pandora's rates for a similar service. I believe the labels feel that they got taken in the original iTunes negotiations and want to get their money back :D. It looks like they want Apple to pay more than everyone else.
They can't charge apple more given how those rates were derived.

That being said the rumors all point to apple requiring a lot of additional functionality and options over what pandora offers and that is where the negotiation is coming in.

----------

Meh at this point I no longer care, we've got a great bunch of options to get away from the old iTunes-only model. Spotify, Rdio, Pandora, Google Music, We7, Deezer, Mflow, Grooveshark, etc

It's laughable that Apple, with their domination of the music market still has not reached a deal, whilst a bunch of unknowns have no problem getting what are quite clearly, very decent deals in place.

If apple only intended to duplicate one of those services the deal would have been done long ago. It has been clear for a long time that apple has a more involved business model planned besides just copying one of the existing ones. These are likely good deals for the labels too but they are so afraid of apple they drag their heels on a good deal because they are afraid they are being tricked.
 
You know, seriously...I think Apple should just start selling vinyl. Become the largest online vinyl record store in the world. Vinyl is not dead yet!! And the quality is great!!! I am one who likes to own my music, to really own it....and Digital stuff is just not quite like owning the master press, it's just not.
 
If its not like spotify where I can pick my own playlists and songs I want to listen to I don't want it!

You will still be able to pay spotify or google or rdio $120 a year for such a service.

Apple's offering will likely be different and the primary plan will not cost $120 a year. For me $120 a year is not much of a bargain as probably more than half the songs I will listen to are part of the thousands and thousands I have spent buying music in my life.
 
You know, seriously...I think Apple should just start selling vinyl. Become the largest online vinyl record store in the world. Vinyl is not dead yet!! And the quality is great!!! I am one who likes to own my music, to really own it....and Digital stuff is just not quite like owning the master press, it's just not.

Then buy your vinyl from Amazon. They will also give you the digital music for free as an added bonus.

http://www.amazon.com/Vinyl-Records-Albums-LPs-Eps/b/ref=amb_link_354974502_5?ie=UTF8&node=372989011&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_s=center-1&pf_rd_r=0GTF20RGJXR73WG039PA&pf_rd_t=101&pf_rd_p=1467861422&pf_rd_i=5174
 
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
too expensive to buy every CD, album or song i would want to listen to

You are most certainly wrong. Apple is not the greedy one. The only thing on this planet that is greedier than a movie exec is a music exec.
Apple saved them. And they already forgot about it. It's why Steve won a Grammy. Thanks for keeping our business alive with iTunes, here's a ****ing metal. And to think that they want Apple to pay even more now than before for music infuriates me.

Dear god people, do you even understand how horrifically BAD streaming services are for everyone involved in music creation? Seriously, if you look at the "performance" rates - which ARE NOT what the label gets, but are instead distributed amongst all the rights holders - they are making no money on these models. The labels are not getting greedy - they are trying to stay above the water!

I'm not saying that they are well-run businesses - they are certainly not - but there is no way, under the current streaming model(s), for them to maintain themselves, much less make a profit, even if they were to clean up their collective financial acts.

To give you an idea of how stupidly unfair to the rights holders these performance rates are, I've got a friend (who shall remain anonymous) who was the songwriter - 25% of the gross - on a song with around 1,000,000 plays on Spotify. Do you know what his BMI check was, for that nominally great achievement? $111. So Spotify paid out a grand total of ~$400 for that million plays. Real numbers.

The truth is that the music "industry" (far too polite a term) is a total mess, stuck in between a number of old models and copyright legislation that has not kept up with either technology or social or business trends. The revenue just isn't there any more, and people are feeling more and more entitled because of the actions of these loss-leader companies (Spotify and Pandora are both losing money)...

To all those who want the service to be free:

How would you like to work for free?
That is what you're asking us, the content producers, to do.

To all those who think the "music industry" is a bunch of greedy executives:

Think about all the other people, other than execs (who are often greedy, no further comment), who work on music. Ask how they are going to get paid.

To all those who are complaining about these services:

C'mon - for $10 a month (Spotify/GMAA) you can get pretty much all the music released on major labels over the last 60 years, and most of the independent music that has survived into the digital age. Stop complaining about the quality of your golden toilets, people.

To all those who think music should be free, full stop:

[Facepalm]
Seriously, are we in a time where people are expected to do labor for no compensation? Because that is what you are advocating. It's not always about greed...
 
I'm really hoping Apple nails this. And at a very low (free?) price.

Because I'm not really super into music, so a radio-like functionality would mostly suit my needs, but Every once in a while I might like to hear a particular song, or listen to a particular artist/CD. So like a radio with a limited number of on-demands

And yes Apple could easily make this free as a bonus to the ecosystem. Plus it promotes music discovery and easy of purchase through iTunes.

That service is called rdio. It's $5 a month, and quite good.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.