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.
Music Labels Not Yet On Board With Apple's Cloud-Based iTunes Strategy
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
whatever
I don't really care that much. It would be nice to have an *optional* streaming service to listen to 'unlimited' tracks for a fee, if for no other reason than to discover new tunes, but I'm one of those who prefers to own my music, and be able to put the tunes I've paid for on any computer/device I want, any time I want, and not have to be reliant on some network.
I don't really care that much. It would be nice to have an *optional* streaming service to listen to 'unlimited' tracks for a fee, if for no other reason than to discover new tunes, but I'm one of those who prefers to own my music, and be able to put the tunes I've paid for on any computer/device I want, any time I want, and not have to be reliant on some network.
This was my thought as well.
But I can see how the licenses wouldn't be transferable in an acquisition.
iTunes has a lot more users than Lala did, so the labels would want renegotiate.
I've all but stopped buying iTunes music and use Amazon MP3 whenever I can.
I got tired of buying the iTunes versions, burning it to a CD-RW, then re-ripping as MP3, so I could burn to MP3 discs for use in my car (ya I know I need a new car with iPod connectivity...yadda...yadda). Also I tried adding a music track using iMovie for iPhone and all of my iTunes content was protected and it wouldn't let me.......wtf. I had to go get the MP3 version of the song I wanted to use. I know I shouldn't be using songs for this, but the video was just a stupid thing I did for family and didn't see the point of calling the record label and artist and negotiating a fee to use their song, or trying to find some lame public domain alternative.
So I'm kinda done with iTunes for music as long as there are alternatives. BUT, if they add the ability to stream my purchases over the web while I'm at work, or to my iPhone, etc. Then maybe the non-MP3 format and extra $.30 per track makes it kind worth it???
I got tired of buying the iTunes versions, burning it to a CD-RW, then re-ripping as MP3, so I could burn to MP3 discs for use in my car (ya I know I need a new car with iPod connectivity...yadda...yadda). Also I tried adding a music track using iMovie for iPhone and all of my iTunes content was protected and it wouldn't let me.......wtf. I had to go get the MP3 version of the song I wanted to use. I know I shouldn't be using songs for this, but the video was just a stupid thing I did for family and didn't see the point of calling the record label and artist and negotiating a fee to use their song, or trying to find some lame public domain alternative.
So I'm kinda done with iTunes for music as long as there are alternatives. BUT, if they add the ability to stream my purchases over the web while I'm at work, or to my iPhone, etc. Then maybe the non-MP3 format and extra $.30 per track makes it kind worth it???
We're not even sure if Apple is pursuing this let alone what it might look like in the end, but the rumors so far indicate that the service would allow you to access the music in your library via the web. So, let's say you are at work and you want to listen to your music. Today, you have to copy your music from your home library to your work computer. With a cloud-based service, you could just access the same songs from any computer. Your music wouldn't only exist in the cloud - you still have your local copy - it just makes it more accessible.
they probably have a problem with music you ripped instead of buying from iTunes. 15 years ago there was a similar service called mp3.com that allowed you to put a CD in and they would give you access to the music. it was sued out of existence.
labels probably want higher royalties than apple is willing to pay. don't really care since i have slacker radio plus and like it
As long as they keep the option to download I'm fine with this idea.
I would still like to have a local copy of my media.
What's the point in purchasing if you don't actually own anything? To me this is why the subscription models always fail. Steve has never supported the idea I'm not sure why this would change now.
I would still like to have a local copy of my media.
What's the point in purchasing if you don't actually own anything? To me this is why the subscription models always fail. Steve has never supported the idea I'm not sure why this would change now.
Many contracts have clauses that affect things when a company is purchased outright or control changes significantly.
That wouldn't be necessary anymore since the record companies finally allowed Apple to sell music without DRM, like everyone else did.
Streaming from Mac to iPad, iPod Touch and iPhone would be a good start.
In my case, most of my music is ripped from CDs and LPs. I guess Apple doesn't like the idea of everyone uploading their ripped music (would be 80 GB for me; there are people who have lots more); if they had to store just _one_ copy of each song that would be much easier. Ten million different songs, times 8 MB at 256 kbit/sec, that's just 80 Terabyte, not that much. Just one thousand people uploading a song collection like mine would be the same amount.
Some service that only works with the music that I purchased from iTunes would be pointless for me. What the record companies _could_ do but there is no way they would: Let you enter in iTunes all the records that you own legitimately, pay a small fee (say $1) per record to be able to use 256 kbit/sec copies from the iTunes store, and trust you that you don't lie. Well, even if you lie and claim that you own 1000 records and pay $1 for each to access them, you got tons of music cheap, but they still get $1000.
Love the Cloud
My understanding has always been that the cloud (in this particular instance) was about accessing your own iTunes content wherever you were, not about an unlimited subscription service.
It would be like adding iTunes to MobileMe; iTunes would just back up to the cloud, and you could go to a website (or an app, or a widget, etc.) to access your MM/iTunes music (and perhaps video) content.
If that were so, you could also do the same thing via wifi should you have MM/iTunes compatible devices around your house.
Right?
My understanding has always been that the cloud (in this particular instance) was about accessing your own iTunes content wherever you were, not about an unlimited subscription service.
It would be like adding iTunes to MobileMe; iTunes would just back up to the cloud, and you could go to a website (or an app, or a widget, etc.) to access your MM/iTunes music (and perhaps video) content.
If that were so, you could also do the same thing via wifi should you have MM/iTunes compatible devices around your house.
Right?
Record companies
What? The record companies are not on board with something consumers would love?
They'd like to go back to selling us a crappy 85 cent cassette tape for $10 that would wear out in a 5 years so you'd have to buy it again. Seriously, you could make a better recording yourself using an LP, a decent turntable and a good quality cassette!
I've never seen an industry so happy to bite the hand that feeds them, then wonder why everyone would rather not deal with them.
What? The record companies are not on board with something consumers would love?
They'd like to go back to selling us a crappy 85 cent cassette tape for $10 that would wear out in a 5 years so you'd have to buy it again. Seriously, you could make a better recording yourself using an LP, a decent turntable and a good quality cassette!
I've never seen an industry so happy to bite the hand that feeds them, then wonder why everyone would rather not deal with them.
And this is why i use torrents and Grooveshark. Screw music labels. The only time i BUY music is with independent artists.
Yeah, well, screw the record labels. This would allow me to take my music anywhere, regardless of my devices' hw space. I have umpteen GB of music, and i can't keep my whole library on my iphone. This would be a great add-on to itunes.
How long o apple?!
1. Why doesn't apple become their own label?
2. F the studios. I can't believe artists don't record on their own and go through apple via indy. Oh wait, that's right. "artists" now days SUCK and their crap is forced down our throats by the big 4. There's a reason good bands start their own labels.
1. Why doesn't apple become their own label?
2. F the studios. I can't believe artists don't record on their own and go through apple via indy. Oh wait, that's right. "artists" now days SUCK and their crap is forced down our throats by the big 4. There's a reason good bands start their own labels.
Didn't the music labels already try to push Apple to start paying them for every 30-second song preview? Or was that just a negotiating tactic to get variable pricing from SJ?
I'd AT LEAST like to be able to re-download previously purchased content like I can with Audible.
I'd AT LEAST like to be able to re-download previously purchased content like I can with Audible.
Streaming services are AWFUL for musicians. Especially indie musicians. Right now iTunes is fantastic for indie musicians.. Make a CD, upload it to iTunes, make 70%, which is quite frankly better than you do selling a CD in the stores.
Streaming services pay sometimes less than a penny per play, the revenue is allocated primarily to the big 4 and the indies get checks for $.63.
The only reason the other streaming and download services exist, is because the big 4 have cut insane deals with them in an effort to undercut apple, because they want to own a piece of every ipod sale. There is no reason when I sell a song on amazon, I get nearly half of what I get for a similar sale on itunes, except that Universal is trying to give amazon some of apples marketshare to remove Steve's negotiating power.
As an artist, I'm perfectly fine with the idea of selling someone my song for $.99, and letting them keep it stored on the server, and stream to whatever devices they own.. But the Zune/Rhapsody model sucks.
Songwriters really get hosed on streaming models.. With pay per download, the songwriter makes $.091 per download, simple, fair, and government mandated. There aren't any rules for now to pay songwriters on streaming, it's a nightmare.
Streaming services pay sometimes less than a penny per play, the revenue is allocated primarily to the big 4 and the indies get checks for $.63.
The only reason the other streaming and download services exist, is because the big 4 have cut insane deals with them in an effort to undercut apple, because they want to own a piece of every ipod sale. There is no reason when I sell a song on amazon, I get nearly half of what I get for a similar sale on itunes, except that Universal is trying to give amazon some of apples marketshare to remove Steve's negotiating power.
As an artist, I'm perfectly fine with the idea of selling someone my song for $.99, and letting them keep it stored on the server, and stream to whatever devices they own.. But the Zune/Rhapsody model sucks.
Songwriters really get hosed on streaming models.. With pay per download, the songwriter makes $.091 per download, simple, fair, and government mandated. There aren't any rules for now to pay songwriters on streaming, it's a nightmare.
I think you've hit on something here. This is all speculation based on rumors at this point, but it wouldn't surprise me if the record labels were merely trying to reassert themselves once again, lest Apple become too powerful in the music distribution world. It might not be that they have an actual problem with this sort of cloud-based delivery system, but rather that they want to prevent themselves from being shut out of the system. It could also be that they want to play various competitors off of one another to prevent any single company from becoming dominant. Google Music is rumored to be getting ready to launch an iTMS-style service.
Remember when NBC pulled out of the iTMS for a while? Same thing.
It doesn't matter how indie you are, in a subscription model, the big 4 set the rules, do the negotiating, indies get table scraps.
This.
I can see "iTunes streaming is killing Music" propaganda being posted everywhere if this does get the go ahead without full permission.
Record labels are a joke, I hope they crash and burn.
EDIT: Poster incoming.
Agreed with JediZenMaster, and then there is this tidbit "CNET's well-connected Greg Sandoval reports"
Since when the Hell has CNET been Nice or even Expressed any Pro Apple reporting, All they do is bash Apple & Spin story's around to benefit the NON Apple Establishment.
CNET has Never been Kind to Apple and "Greg Sandoval" is a hack that acts like a Apple Supporter but is not, I have yet to see a Unbiased report from CNET about Apple that Has Not included Bashing of some Type.
This is a B.S. Story to angry the Masses and get Clicks to CNET's dwindling site.
This is it, the record labels will do whatever they can, including flat out lose money to give Steve's market share to someone else. They HATE apple. Apple cuts the fairest deal in the industry, but Doug Morris sees how much money apple makes on hardware and is infuriated that he doesn't get a piece of it. Grainge is just as dumb. Microsoft gave them a piece of the hardware sales, so they love zunes. If you're bored and want to make money, start a music service that isn't owned by apple, the big 4 will license their entire catalogue to you for dirt. Hell they might pay you to take it, anything to let them leverage against Steve.. Because all Doug really wants is $2 for every iphone and ipod sold.
I don't get it
Can someone explain to me why they want cloud service to listen to their music or watch a movie.
If the music or movie is on my iPhone, iPod or iPad, I just can consume the media. If I'm dependent on the cloud, then I need a constant internet connection, and as far as I can tell this doesn't exist. If I' m on the train or just walking to work, there is not a persistent WiFi connection. If the response is 3G, then you have to be kidding me. In Philadelphia, my connection to the 3G network is spotty at best. If I'm listening to the aol radio app or Pandora, the connection is lost about once every 5 to 10 minutes. I was in New York City the other day, and I had at least 10 dropped calls in a two hour time span, and there were several times I could not even place calls.
Also what about on a plane. I know it's not the best parenting, but a movie shown an iPhone, iPod or iPad keeps the kids quiet (and the passengers happy). Will I now have to depend on the airlines WiFi.
I like having my media on my device. It always works and don't want to be at the mercy of acres to the Internet whether it be WiFi or 3G.
Can someone explain to me why they want cloud service to listen to their music or watch a movie.
If the music or movie is on my iPhone, iPod or iPad, I just can consume the media. If I'm dependent on the cloud, then I need a constant internet connection, and as far as I can tell this doesn't exist. If I' m on the train or just walking to work, there is not a persistent WiFi connection. If the response is 3G, then you have to be kidding me. In Philadelphia, my connection to the 3G network is spotty at best. If I'm listening to the aol radio app or Pandora, the connection is lost about once every 5 to 10 minutes. I was in New York City the other day, and I had at least 10 dropped calls in a two hour time span, and there were several times I could not even place calls.
Also what about on a plane. I know it's not the best parenting, but a movie shown an iPhone, iPod or iPad keeps the kids quiet (and the passengers happy). Will I now have to depend on the airlines WiFi.
I like having my media on my device. It always works and don't want to be at the mercy of acres to the Internet whether it be WiFi or 3G.
According to the rumors, the service would work like this:
You have your music library stored on your computer(s). Apple would scan your library (much the way the Genius function works now) and see what songs you have and match that to the songs they have. These songs would then be available for you to stream to any internet-capable device (phone, computer, etc.). For the other songs not on the iTMS, who knows? Perhaps you will be able to upload them, or perhaps Apple will say "sorry, it only works for music currently in our music store."
But the point is, it wouldn't be cloud-only. Rather, it would augment your ability to play your music as it currently stands. That is, you would still have your local copy to sync however you do it now. The cloud-based streaming service would merely allow you to access your library from anywhere with a data connection. It's not a subscription service, and it's not a Pandora-like service. It's your music, just made available to you more easily.
At least according to the rumors thus far. Who knows what - if anything - will happen in the end.
