this is really bad news. what this basically means is, apple lacks a vision/idea that they have confidence in that they can get people to pay a little more for than Spotify. Apple's best products never competed with price, i was interested in Beats Music before apple purchased it because its curation was an appealing feature over spotify.
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.
FTC Also Investigating Apple's Upcoming Music Streaming Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Really? I heard a rumor that viachicago22 kicks puppies. So, it has to have at least a portion of truth to it, because somebody wrote it on the internet.
--Eric
Slightly off-topic...
We always the the Beats "sentence" UI featured in screenshots.
Do you have to choose a sentence?
Or can you select individual artists, albums, songs, etc?
We always the the Beats "sentence" UI featured in screenshots.
Do you have to choose a sentence?
Or can you select individual artists, albums, songs, etc?
Every time I see that screenshot of Beats Music, I feel bad, because I don't have an "Entourage". I may have friends, mates, co-workers... but never an "entourage".
I really wish I could be cool enough to use this service, but it seems it's not for me.
I really wish I could be cool enough to use this service, but it seems it's not for me.
No you can select whatever you want. The sentence is kinda like a 'shuffle' mode almost for your current mood.
They have a free trial you can use. I used it for the 7 or 14 days (I forget which) and after that it just locked me out. Whatever, I just went back to listening to my iTunes content and shrugged my shoulders. Just another music streaming service that I will probably never sign up for.
Ah cool.
I think people might not want to experiment with Beats because they get scared off by the sentence
I don't support nuking ireland and that's not on the table at all. I don't support the idea of apple using their leverage to strongarm other companies. It's not that hard to understand.
So I can think anyone attempting to claim The Verge has made its story up is wrong. That's three different organisations all investigating Apple for the same market fixing and bullying... If this is true then I hope all three departments place massive fines on Apple because it is a practice that is purely designed so Apple and NOT the consumer wins.
Will be an interesting story to follow, especially after the iBooks case.
Will be an interesting story to follow, especially after the iBooks case.
Yep, I'm sure Tim Cook, Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine are sitting in a room somewhere thinking about how they can screw consumers. I'm sure that's the entire goal of this streaming music service - to screw consumers.
If all these government agencies are so concerned about what Apple might be doing why did they approve the beats deal in the first place?
Yep, I'm sure Tim Cook, Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine are sitting in a room somewhere thinking about how they can screw consumers. I'm sure that's the entire goal of this streaming music service - to screw consumers.
If all these government agencies are so concerned about what Apple might be doing why did they approve the beats deal in the first place?
Maybe not screw consumers, but you better believe they are figuring out ways to separate consumers from more of their dollars. That's what they are there for. Overall, this possible deal reeks badly and I don't see anyone benefitting except for the already filthy rich companies and superstar artists.
Speaking of artists.... Can we plea STOP with the "starving artists" quotes when discussing this stuff? It's quite apparent that Taylor Swift, Jay Beyoncé, and Katy Perry are doing just fine. Sure, a few start up musicians may be starving but don't try and play the "poor them" card with these heavily compensated artists. They crap money. Cmon.
Don't Get it.
I don't get why Apple bought beats, out of all the services I've tried before settling on spotify, Beats was by far the WORST. The interface is one of the worst UI's I've ever seen. It's completely obtuse and makes zero sense.
I don't get why Apple bought beats, out of all the services I've tried before settling on spotify, Beats was by far the WORST. The interface is one of the worst UI's I've ever seen. It's completely obtuse and makes zero sense.
Seriously...of course its not hard to understand but who goes around insisting they don't support negatives? I don't support bunnies as president. I don't support the idea of Apple using gnomes for labor. I don't support space travel with Martians aboard. While these are factually true, they bare very little substance.
It's a rumor. Every single article so far has pointed to "sources". You don't even have enough information available that this isn't merely meant as a way to put pressure on Apple before it makes its streaming release.
You really think that Apple isn't completely re-writing it ?
----------
I can almost guarantee that the "sources" are competitors (maybe even Spotify).
Not sure I understand your link between approval of the Beats deal and what is being investigated. Beats was a tiny music streaming service with some reasonable deals with the record labels. There was no reason to investigate or stop the agreement.Yep, I'm sure Tim Cook, Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine are sitting in a room somewhere thinking about how they can screw consumers. I'm sure that's the entire goal of this streaming music service - to screw consumers.
If all these government agencies are so concerned about what Apple might be doing why did they approve the beats deal in the first place?
If Apple is using unfair leaverage as they have been accused off and there is generally no Smoke without Fire. Then its right they should be investigated and either santioned or cleared. It is very unlikely that such major regulatory players would all be investigating the same issue unless they had some pretty good inside information to work with.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Lovely, seemingly blind support of a massive corporation doing anything it wants. Earlier in the process of bringing this product to market, Apple was trying to push a different strategy which would have them roll out at lower prices than established competitors: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1805176/. Were they entirely right in their thinking about that too? Would you completely agree with that one had they been able to pull that off? How would that want by Apple "improve the health of the music industry" and or help that industry "survive"?
That was what Apple wanted to do about 8 months ago. They couldn't get the industry to play ball. So then they shift to this new concept as their own backup. And this backup is ideal? A backup option is almost never an ideal (else, why is it the backup?).
Apple was very wrong in the iBooks debacle. The book industry is fine. It was fine before Apple tried to inject itself that way and it is fine after the justice department smacked Apple and the publishers who played ball with Apple. Books still sell. Profits are still made. If an Amazon ever flexes some kind of (perceived) monopolistic muscle to exploit book buyers by jacking up prices, other book sellers can be quickly born as new discount sources of books easily. Apple lost it's valiant effort to save the book industry. But the book industry is still here. And Amazon's lower prices doesn't seem to be hurting them or us consumers. By the way Amazon did not win that case. It was not Amazon vs. Apple. It was the GOV vs. Apple. Amazon was mostly a bystander (only a player because of how Apple's efforts forced them to change in such a way that THEY would then be charging higher prices to their customers).
The problem here and with iBooks is Apple is trying to profitably inject itself into well-established business models prioritizing it's own profits. As such, the existing suppliers need price hikes so that Apple can get theirs and thus Apple- and Apple fans- are already trying to spin price hikes in favorable ways to rationalize paying more for something already well-established at lower prices. The bigger lesson in this is probably "leave well enough alone" (Apple) and focus on new opportunities instead of trying to turn free & cheap into "premium" even if some Apple fans will help rationalize anything Apple wants to do.
Within this thread, there's implications that this is about paying artists more. No it's not, it's about paying Apple. Had Apple got the best pricing discount it was seeking months ago, one of the casualties was the peanuts Artists make from this now. Then you get posts like the above where the implications about improving the health of industries or even saving an industry... by Apple injecting itself in on top, raising prices to consumers and taking a cut for themselves. If anyone actually believes that, why doesn't Apple waive it's cut or pass it's cut along to that poor, ailing industry and/or those starving artists as part of saving it/them? It's not like Apple desperately needs it's cut out of this new venture to survive. Does a premium price need to be charged if Apple waives it's cut? Or is the premium pricing about being sure Apple gets paid (profitably)?
Personally, I keep thinking why is Apple even trying to get into this space or why doesn't Apple buy Spotify & Pandora if it wants an easier in? Everything I read about it says that there isn't that much money here (at least on an Apple "Billions in quarterly profits" plane). We're snowing ourselves into believing streaming is "the future" but that's mostly built atop a concept that renting is better than buying, which never lasts once consumers tire of the endless wallet drain of renting once they have the capability of buying. Especially in this case where one can accumulate a huge amount of desired music for dirt cheap (used CDs, 99 cent singles, all kinds of free music promotions running seemingly all the time, discount iTunes gift cards, etc), do the masses really want to rent access to their music collection? Or is this something spun and spun to try to make us believe it's "the future" because renting is certainly much more profitable than selling something once and having it last forever (at non-degrading quality)?
Last edited:
So, paying artist better is "strong arming", because obviously, there is not just Apple involved in all of this. But, that is conveniently forgotten here.
Are you protecting Spotify against those evil artists who currently get pittance? Funny how Apple is "bad" if their actions align against one's ability to pay next to nothing.
As for this, even if the rumor was true; I see it as a whine by low baller streamers to the FTC because suddenly artists don't want to be paid nothing and are leaving them in drove. Doesn't mean anything bad is actually occurring at all; except if you think capitalism is bad (sic) When you're about to get your ass kicked, it will hurt and those companies will resort to anything to prevent that.
With various agencies of the government stepping in and interfering with commercial contracts in the fields of book selling, music streaming (but not video steaming), bank lending, and a million other things including the formerly free internet, they may be impacting income inequality on the edges, especially by giving (or mandating) more free stuff to poor people, but rights holders are suffering.
Music artists go on various media channels and report they cannot make revenue off their own authored works and must resort to revenue from only live performances and merchandising. Music became a central part of our culture during an era when people had to purchase the recordings in a physical form thus supporting the artists and encouraging more content be created.
We need less government involvement not more. They are saving us from ourselves way too much.
Music artists go on various media channels and report they cannot make revenue off their own authored works and must resort to revenue from only live performances and merchandising. Music became a central part of our culture during an era when people had to purchase the recordings in a physical form thus supporting the artists and encouraging more content be created.
We need less government involvement not more. They are saving us from ourselves way too much.
I always find the the "if there is no smoke, there's no fire" expression a shorthand for : if the bias goes my way, I'm sure it must be true... Good thing court don't condemn on rumors (unlike on the Internet), or we'd all be trouble.
THe "inside info" is probably complaints from other streamers basically; their "unfair leverage" is probably a better distribution, and better money for artists and label... Yes, being rich is "unfair".
Another possibility is that they're accused of subsidizing the money they would pay for the streams from the rest of the company (essentially, they would be losing money on paying for the streams themselves).
This in itself is not illegal as long as your not paying those artists more money temporarily to crush the other firms, and then paying them the old rate afterward (that would be bad for competition and for the artists). Money crossing business units inside large companies is pretty normal.
That would be akin to a big market sport team that has a cable network attached, losing money on the team alone because their making more money (as a whole company) by having a better team.
If Apple bundles up Music and Video together (as rumored); making next to no money on the music itself would make sense (video, is not consumed like a quasi commodity, so I'd see them wanting to link back music to it as a kind of bonus offer to their video services).
Last edited: