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

Sony Rolls Out 'Music Unlimited' in New Countries, Executive Denies Plans to Abandon

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
69,465
40,574



101129-music_unlimited_banner.jpg


As reported by Bloomberg, Sony today announced that it has launched its "Music Unlimited powered by Qriocity" streaming service in the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, building on debuts in a series of European countries over the past few months. The new service takes aim at Apple's iTunes Store with two tiers of service: a basic tier priced at $3.99 per month that offers music channels, similar to what Pandora currently offers for free; and a premium tier priced at $9.99 per month that offers on-demand access to the service's full catalog of over six million tracks.

Interestingly, All Things Digital notes that the new service offers no compatibility with mobile devices at launch, although Sony is working to add compatibility with Android and has an eye on bringing the service to iOS devices.

A Sony executive made waves last week with his suggestion that Sony could eventually pull its music from Apple's dominant iTunes Store if the Music Unlimited service takes off, but Business Insider reports that another executive has now refuted that idea.
But Sony Network Entertainment COO Brandon Layden says no way:

"Sony Music as I understand it has no intention of withdrawing from iTunes, they're one of our biggest partners in the digital domain. I think those words were either taken out of context or the person who spoke them was unclear on the circumstances."
Click to expand...
Whether or not Music Unlimited ever comes to iOS devices may of course be determined by how Sony feels about Apple's new policies requiring App Store developers offering subscription content to utilize Apple's in-app subscription functionality and limit links to external purchasing methods, driving subscription traffic through Apple's channels where the company takes a 30% cut of revenue. Rhapsody, which has long offered a streaming music service similar to the premium tier of Music Unlimited, has noted that the model is "economically untenable" for such services and that it is exploring its legal and business options for responding to Apple's move.

Article Link: Sony Rolls Out 'Music Unlimited' in New Countries, Executive Denies Plans to Abandon iTunes
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2011/02/17/sony-rolls-out-music-unlimited-in-new-countries-executive-denies-plans-to-abandon-itunes/
No Sense

The new rules make no sense, if they are literally stopping apps from being approved just because the app uses a subscription to get content. So Netflix could get removed too? I like Apple's products, but if they lock to this kind of policy, that would piss me off as a customer of Apple's as people do like choice. If iTunes stays "ahead of the curve", they should not have a problem with subscription based services.
 
Apple has no more business taking a 30% cut just because the content is on iOS than Microsoft has taking a 30% cut of items I purchase online just because I used a Windows machine to do so. My TV manufacturer Samsung can not demand they get a 30% cut of any pay-per-view movies I order since I did it via the TV I paid for.

Apple made their profit, a hefty one too, by selling the hardware. Quit nickel and diming the consumer.
 
thetexan said:
Apple has no more business taking a 30% cut just because the content is on iOS than Microsoft has taking a 30% cut of items I purchase online just because I used a Windows machine to do so. My TV manufacturer Samsung can not demand they get a 30% cut of any pay-per-view movies I order since I did it via the TV I paid for.

Apple made their profit, a hefty one too, by selling the hardware. Quit nickel and diming the consumer.
Click to expand...

Ahm... That is EXACTLY the direction that Samsung, Sony, etc. are trying to go with their Internet connected televisions.
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

Can I download the music too?
 
goobot, it doesn't appear to be possible.

The issue I have is that you cannot listen to it on your smartphone. I don't care what platform, it's just not available. I'll stick with Pandora and my annual sub @ < $40 USD.
 
That comment never made sense. It would be like pulling their music from FYE. Why?

iTunes is the largest digital music store, would be stupid (and possibly a major violation of agreements with their artists) to intentionally withdraw their catalogue from the largest (digital) store. If I were on their label, I would go elsewhere in that case.
 
If they were going to pull out of iTunes they would do it once they have established their own service. That way if their service flops they don't lose all their revenue.

And that doesn't even factor in agreements with artists and Apple themselves.
 
ten-oak-druid said:
I had a talk with them and straightened them out.
Click to expand...

Thank goodness! Someone needed to talk some sense into them! LOL!

Obviously, rumors are just that... rumors. :) Didn't make sense that Sony would look to cut out what is probably one of their largest channel partners... iTunes.
 
I guess I am missing the point. Basically Apple says that if you offer it online on your site then you have to offer it as an in app purchase at the same price.

1) This does not keep you from going to Sony or Netflix and subscribing on their site where apple does not take a cut. In that case Sony and Netflix do all the billing and track your subscriptions and you as the consumer have to personally track all the different subscriptions on different sites. But you are free to do that.

2) Apple is only asking for a cut if the consumer chooses to subscribe through the app and track all their subscriptions through one source. Kinda like paypal takes a cut of every transaction when you us them as your billing company.

3) So basically, Apple is just asking that the companies pay for the access to the customer base and billing system, Apple created with all their R&D money. Sony has not invested one cent into developing, building, advertising or creating the iOS eco-system. Why should they get a free ride? Maybe if they had spent more money updating their Walkman line when they had the lock instead of trying to keep CDs forever, they would not be in this mess. And I refuse to pay $4 a month just to listen to the music I already own or want to own.

4) Sony charges a royalty to every Blu Disc or player that is sold. I do not hear them complaining about that cut. Sony charges Radio stations a percentage every time they play the music the distribute for Artist. I do not hear Sony complaining. And while Samung does not charge BlockBuster, Sony movies sure the heck does. So everyone else in the industry can charge a "royalty", and do not get me started in how much Sony Labels takes a cut from music Artist for just distributing music, kinda like Apple distributing their stuff. It is really amazing how ignorant people can be in business.
 
thetexan said:
Apple has no more business taking a 30% cut just because the content is on iOS than Microsoft has taking a 30% cut of items I purchase online just because I used a Windows machine to do so. My TV manufacturer Samsung can not demand they get a 30% cut of any pay-per-view movies I order since I did it via the TV I paid for.

Apple made their profit, a hefty one too, by selling the hardware. Quit nickel and diming the consumer.
Click to expand...

Sorry Tex.... you don't understand how distribution works. iTunes is a store... it's a digital distribution service and Apple has every right to make some money from providing this service.
 
I personally love my physical media, but this might be a good deal for those who prefer streaming their music (but it would also depend if other music labels were to offer their artists as well-from the intial post it doesn't appear so right now-so maybe it is not a good deal at the present moment).
 
Last edited:
Interesting, with some people interpreting the current MobileMe rumours as being a move to do away with local storage of music on iOS devices in favour of a cloud-based solution, this actually changes the game for products like this, especially those offering a wider range of streaming on-demand music than just one catalogue. After all, why buy individual songs from iTunes that you'll stream when you want to listen to, when for a flat rate you can have unlimited streaming access to a whole catalogue?

Personally I don't think iTunes/iOS music libraries will ever go totally cloud-based but I have been wrong before. Once.
 
Popeye206 said:
Sorry Tex.... you don't understand how distribution works. iTunes is a store... it's a digital distribution service and Apple has every right to make some money from providing this service.
Click to expand...

so i'm supposed to pay apple $3 a month just for hosting the 10-20MB netflix app in the itunes store? just allow iphones to install non-store apps and netflix can do it's own distribution of the app. and when you add everything else apple wants money for it seems they want people to pay them $10-$20 a month just because it's Apple
 
thetexan said:
Apple has no more business taking a 30% cut just because the content is on iOS than Microsoft has taking a 30% cut of items I purchase online just because I used a Windows machine to do so. My TV manufacturer Samsung can not demand they get a 30% cut of any pay-per-view movies I order since I did it via the TV I paid for.

Apple made their profit, a hefty one too, by selling the hardware. Quit nickel and diming the consumer.
Click to expand...

The companies you mentioned are just the portal to which you actuall view the content. Those companies don't own the actual streaming services you speak of. Companies like comcast or fios BOTH take cuts of pie just like apple does. Apple isn't taking 30% of the music you have on your iPod that you didn't buy off iTunes, but iTunes is the largest digital music store in the world, and that's the price that the music companies will pay to have their music on there. Itunes is great for new artists. Its free to list their songs, and they get 70% of the cut? With a music label that's unheard of....

Itunes is fair with their pricing, and you're misinterpreting why they are taking 30%. They are a business, why would the create a music store and let all these billion dollar music label post their music for free?
 
It's not as good as a native app, but Sony could and probably will release a web app. On that note, does streaming stop if you leave Safari?
 
mikelegacy said:
The companies you mentioned are just the portal to which you actuall view the content. Those companies don't own the actual streaming services you speak of. Companies like comcast or fios BOTH take cuts of pie just like apple does. Apple isn't taking 30% of the music you have on your iPod that you didn't buy off iTunes, but iTunes is the largest digital music store in the world, and that's the price that the music companies will pay to have their music on there. Itunes is great for new artists. Its free to list their songs, and they get 70% of the cut? With a music label that's unheard of....

Itunes is fair with their pricing, and you're misinterpreting why they are taking 30%. They are a business, why would the create a music store and let all these billion dollar music label post their music for free?
Click to expand...

The iOS is just a portal to NF or a Sony streaming service. In those cases Apple would not be providing any of the content yet they still want their 30%.
 
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