Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Music Labels Hoping Apple Can Force Amazon and Google Into Cloud Licensing

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
68,754
39,702



itunes_player_10_screenshot-500x357.jpg



With Amazon and now Google having rolled out cloud-based music hosting services without the consent of music labels, CNET reports that the labels are reportedly now looking for Apple to become the driving force to bring those companies back to the negotiating table for broader licensing deals.
Since neither company was either able or willing to obtain licenses from the four major labels, neither of them could deliver the same range of options that Apple will be able to offer with its upcoming cloud service, according to multiple music industry sources.

Exactly what those options are, the sources wouldn't say. Nonetheless, the hope in the music industry is that Apple's music service will make the competing offerings look shabby by comparison and force Amazon and Google to pay the licensing rates the labels are asking.
Click to expand...
The major labels are reportedly hoping that Apple plans to unveil its licensed version of cloud-based music hosting at its Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) set for early next month, moving quickly to market with what many hope will be a superior offering before Amazon and Google's services can become entrenched.

Article Link: Music Labels Hoping Apple Can Force Amazon and Google Into Cloud Licensing
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/11/music-labels-hoping-apple-can-force-amazon-and-google-into-cloud-licensing/
hah. Surely more likely to let apple get away without licensing?

I assume apple will be following a more 'lala' model as they acquired them, so scanning/uploading metadata for your local collection and then letting you stream the equivalents from the itunes catalogue. Much quicker for you as a consumer to upload, lets you have larger 'virtual' collections online, less actual storage required by Apple.

The only thing I'm confused about is that both approaches (upload actual files and stream them back Vs upload metadata) amount to the same thing from a users point of view - I can stream my music from wherever I am. So why does one need licensing and one not? Assuming a metadata scan is proof enough that you have the track locally, then you have to also make the assumption thats its a legally purchased track (either download or CD rip), therefore the license should already be covered and no further licensing should be necessary by the service providers
 
Glad that the music labels are finally siding with Apple. It will be better for iOS users in the long run.
 
Apple shouldn't help force anyone to do what the labels want. It's not their business. Regardless, I am curious as to what these licensing terms are the labels may have given Apple. Hopefully there isn't a charge. Even then, I don't think I'd use it.
 
So empower Apple and loose even more control? So very short-sighted!

And 1 year later, they'll be giving Google and Amazon sweeter deals because Apple is too powerful.
 
umm nothing that the Music labels can do to force Google and Amazon do to anything.
Right now Google and Amazon are just story the files on people files on their servers and people are streaming those. A deal would save Google and Amazon money in theory because they only have to store 1 copy of the each song and stream it to multiple people. My guess is the record company want to much money and it is cheaper for Google and Amazon to just store multiple copy of said song than it is to pay them.

Record companies have been trying to kill internet radio for years.

I would not call this a rumor at all because last thing they want is to give Apple more power.
 
Oh how the worm has turned!!

It seems like just yesterday that the labels looked to Amazon as the savior to break Apple's dominance.

Now they are RELYING on Apple's dominance to break Amazon!

I bet this makes Apple twitch with happiness.
 
Mjmar said:
Glad that the music labels are finally siding with Apple. It will be better for iOS users in the long run.
Click to expand...

Get out of your iOS box and realize is even worse for music fans in the long run. Amazon/Google/<insert cloud service company here> should NOT have to pay licensing fees to labels to store user owned music. The music labels need to adapt and not hold on to old paradigms. Can't wait for the day when they (music labels) are completely irrelevant.

I'm interested in the deal (terms and conditions) Apple signs with the labels, however.
 
It seems like for a while the music industry has been trying to diminish their relationship with Apple and iTunes. Now with the way that Amazon and Google have implemented their cloud service things have reversed.

All of the sudden, iTunes may save the music industry... again.
 
This is actually great stuff to hear. It essentially means that Google and Amazon's services are making the music labels give concessions to Apple and let them do more. Wonders of competition.
 
So what are the record labels mad at? Last I checked no one is breaking the the law. All Google and Amazon is doing is allowing one to upload his or hers own music and they are not discriminating where the music comes from. The music industries need to accept they lost this battle. They should just get on their knees and start to beg google to start to sale their music.

I think this is a good chance for apple to take a leadership role and even help define the new decade in music. They need to follow Amazon and Google. A state man has to be made to the Music Labels that they can not sculpt the market to their liking and the providers have the end choice on what the industry looks like and not the Labels.
 
Last edited:
emuneee said:
Get out of your iOS box and realize is even worse for music fans in the long run. Amazon/Google/<insert cloud service company here> should NOT have to pay licensing fees to labels to store user owned music. The music labels need to adapt and not hold on to old paradigms. Can't wait for the day when they (music labels) are completely irrelevant.

I'm interested in the deal (terms and conditions) Apple signs with the labels, however.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

Good thing Amazon crunched those bastards.

If Apple licenses, then good. But they must be working on something else rather than giving ******** of storage to copy music and stream.

Apple had already done this long before Google and Amazon entered, through MobileMe playback.

I think, Apple is going to think different and act differently. ;)
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Why do they need Apple to push them for what they want? It is like asking your big brother to beat the guy who beat you.
 
emuneee said:
Get out of your iOS box and realize is even worse for music fans in the long run. Amazon/Google/<insert cloud service company here> should NOT have to pay licensing fees to labels to store user owned music.
Click to expand...

This is a complete strawman.

Amazon, Google, etc. DO NOT have to pay the labels to store user owned music. This has been the case for a long time (e.g., DropBox, or, even older, saving my Home folder, which included music, on my iDisk).

This is about additional features and integration, which will make life far easier for consumers.

A simple example is when a User purchases a song from iTunes, they don't need to go through the hassle of uploading it to the cloud. They can simply access iTunes' master copy. Similarly, when first joining the service, they don't need to upload 3000 songs. iTunes knows their purchase history and uses that to deliver the music instantly.

Additionally, Apple can stream music which hasn't been purchased, kind of like Pandora, and provide the option to purchase it instantly.

There are MANY more things than the basic stuff that Google and Amazon have provided.
 
Rodimus Prime said:
umm nothing that the Music labels can do to force Google and Amazon do to anything.
Right now Google and Amazon are just story the files on people files on their servers and people are streaming those. A deal would save Google and Amazon money in theory because they only have to store 1 copy of the each song and stream it to multiple people. My guess is the record company want to much money and it is cheaper for Google and Amazon to just store multiple copy of said song than it is to pay them.

Record companies have been trying to kill internet radio for years.

I would not call this a rumor at all because last thing they want is to give Apple more power.
Click to expand...

Some songs have umpteen live versions, they are gonna somehow detect that?
 
I think that, ironically, Amazon and Google's push into cloud based music will play to Apple's advantage. The music labels will want to get in the game, and Apple is now their best choice since it would send the wrong message to launch with Amazon or Google now. As a result, Apple will get a better service (one that doesn't require you to upload all your music and requires much less server space). I'm trying to sign up for the Google music service, but I hope Apple comes out with something soon that integrates with iTunes and doesn't require me to waste time uploading 20,000 songs.
 
Despite all that Apple has said about people want to own their music, I think that a reasonably priced subscription service would be a great way service to run in conjunction with a cloud storage system.

I spend about $10 - $15 per month on music, that is $180 per year. I would be willing to pay $240 per year for an unlimited music subscription service (If the terms were fair).

On a somewhat related note: I am hoping that when they do roll out the cloud service they increase the number of computers that can be authorized on one account. Five is getting a little tricky to manage.
 
ghostface147 said:
Apple shouldn't help force anyone to do what the labels want. It's not their business. Regardless, I am curious as to what these licensing terms are the labels may have given Apple. Hopefully there isn't a charge. Even then, I don't think I'd use it.
Click to expand...

I think they mean force in the sense that Google and Amazon start losing business to Apple because the label provide something "superior". Therefore, Amazon and Google would have to sign deals to compete.
 
My first response was to think "Hey, record labels, I thought Apple was the enemy!?" but I'm taking a more optomistic approach here, thinking maybe the record labels are finally starting to realize how technology is changing and it's NOT necessarily the enemy, and hopefully are more willing to play ball.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back