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

[mdatwood]

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?

I was thinking about this as Apple is moving to extort their 30% from companies but then realized they would just change their TOS to block websites or something else equally stupid. I also don't think websites can get access to the run in background services and if they can now, I'm sure that will get removed.

I used to think it was far fetched that Apple would eventually try to get 30% from every app for sale for OSX, but now I'm not so sure. The app store is their beachhead and I'm almost certain that one day in the future they will lock out apps not sold through the app store.

 

[ten-oak-druid]

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'm trying to decide how much to bill for a consulting fee.

 

[John.B]

So this is just the Sony catalog?

 

[paradox00]

I was thinking about this as Apple is moving to extort their 30% from companies but then realized they would just change their TOS to block websites or something else equally stupid. I also don't think websites can get access to the run in background services and if they can now, I'm sure that will get removed.

They've always said that there's a closed option (the app store) and an open option (Web Apps) so they won't block them but I think you're right about background services.

I used to think it was far fetched that Apple would eventually try to get 30% from every app for sale for OSX, but now I'm not so sure. The app store is their beachhead and I'm almost certain that one day in the future they will lock out apps not sold through the app store.

At least with the app store they are hosting the apps and providing updates. They aren't doing that with subscriptions and streaming. I think a lot of companies will balk at paying 30% to have Apple process their transactions for them.

 

[UnSainted]

I'm trying to decide how much to bill for a consulting fee.

30% of course.

 

[Consultant]

Anyone who would pay a monthly fee for access to only one catalog is a complete moron.

Exactly. The only reason they are offering it is because they get more money charging for songs perpetually.

Also, most of these services go down quickly, taking up all the revenue and don't have to give its buyers anything.

 

[blondepianist]

Is 'Music Unlimited' limited to Sony music or does it also carry music from other labels?

"Other labels?" - Sony

 

[thetexan]

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 know exactly how distribution works..

I have no problem with iTunes taking a cut of anything sold in their store. Music, video, or apps purchased directly through iTunes and Apple deserves a cut.

I do have a problem with Apple forcing apps like Rhapsody, Netflix, or Pandora to give them a cut of their business just because they put a free app on iOS to access their (not Apple's) content.

 

[thetexan]

So this is just the Sony catalog?

No.

Music Unlimited, which has more than 6 million songs, lets Sony Music Entertainment and partners Universal Music Group, EMI Music and Warner Music Group Corp. sell directly to customers, giving them increased control over revenue as the industry battles piracy and declining CD sales.

 

[spazzcat]

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

You're not paying Apple anything, the supplier would be paying, just like if they were in mall paying rent. Your iPad (aka your car) gets you to the store, the Mall (Apple) wants their rent from the store for creating a place that makes it really easy for people to shop and buy, which they do a lot of...

They've always said that there's a closed option (the app store) and an open option (Web Apps) so they won't block them but I think you're right about background services.

At least with the app store they are hosting the apps and providing updates. They aren't doing that with subscriptions and streaming. I think a lot of companies will balk at paying 30% to have Apple process their transactions for them.

Businesses always balk at anything that cost them money, the question is will they lose more buiness and money by not selling at the Apple Mall then they pay to Apple...

 

[JGowan]

I always love the announcements with COMING SOON. It's like a kid with too big a secret. What's the big secret? They own music. They want to sell the music. There's this internet thing. I'm surprised that they haven't done this sooner.

However, there's this part of the story: "... the new service offers no compatibility with mobile devices at launch..."

WHAT!!!!!

So this is just for people who drag a laptop around with them or still are tethered to their desk?! Are you kidding me! You want people to buy a subscription to music but you don't have a way for them to actually be able to use it except when they're HOME! Are you crazy, SONY?! That is STUPID! I hope this fails and fails big with stupidity like that.

And I have a problem with ANDROID first and then iOS -- not a fanboy but why not just work for both when you start the whole service?!

I tell you what... Sony has got a huge NDA going right now with Apple and it has something to do with the new SERVER FARM over in NC. This announcement is their (weak sauce) preemptive strike to pour a little rain on the Apple parade. I guarantee you we're going to see some Cloud Music action subscription from Apple and Sony hates this.

 

[thetexan]

You're not paying Apple anything, the supplier would be paying, just like if they were in mall paying rent. Your iPad (aka your car) gets you to the store, the Mall (Apple) wants their rent from the store for creating a place that makes it really easy for people to shop and buy, which they do a lot of...

Using your analogy I drive my iPad ("car") to the Mall (iTunes) and picked up a Pandora application. Now I left the mall (iTunes) and I want to use the Pandora application, but the mall (iTunes) is demanding 30% of everything I do in Pandora.

Turning it around it's like if I drive my real car to the mall and purchased an iPad at the Apple store. Now the mall is demanding Apple pay them 30% of everything I purchase on the iPad once I take it home because the mall believes I never would of purchased the iPad in the first place if it weren't for the mall.

 

[spazzcat]

Using your analogy I drive my iPad ("car") to the Mall (iTunes) and picked up a Pandora application. Now I left the mall (iTunes) and I want to use the Pandora application, but the mall (iTunes) is demanding 30% of everything I do in Pandora.

Turning it around it's like if I drive my real car to the mall and purchased an iPad at the Apple store. Now the mall is demanding Apple pay them 30% of everything I purchase on the iPad once I take it home because the mall believes I never would of purchased the iPad in the first place if it weren't for the mall.

It would be like you buying a magazine every month from the same store.

 

[paradox00]

Businesses always balk at anything that cost them money, the question is will they lose more buiness and money by not selling at the Apple Mall then they pay to Apple...

I doubt Amazon will keep the Kindle app on the App store:

70% to the publisher, 30% to Apple, Amazon pays for hosting the books...

 

[rmwebs]

Hopefully this will give Apple's iTunes dept the kick in the ass its needed for around 4 years now. Bloated crudware in need of a complete rewrite!

(I use iTunes heavily, but I hate it - slow, buggy, bloated)

 

[spazzcat]

I doubt Amazon will keep the Kindle app on the App store:

70% to the publisher, 30% to Apple, Amazon pays for hosting the books...

They will just remove the link to amazon.com. You will have to have your books already paid for when you go in to Kindle and Apple isn't stupid, they are not going to remove the Kindle app.

 

[Popeye206]

I know exactly how distribution works..

I have no problem with iTunes taking a cut of anything sold in their store. Music, video, or apps purchased directly through iTunes and Apple deserves a cut.

I do have a problem with Apple forcing apps like Rhapsody, Netflix, or Pandora to give them a cut of their business just because they put a free app on iOS to access their (not Apple's) content.

I hear what you're saying. I have mixed thoughts on this issue. I personally don't have a problem with the "requirement" but I do think publishers should be able to charge more if going through iTunes.

Obviously, Apple knows the value of their eco system and what easy access to customers is all about. If I was a publisher like Netflix, I'd love this... yes, potentially less revenue, but 30% is cheap advertising when you instantly can get at millions of customers that just have to click once to buy your service.

But again... I think the publisher should have the option to price their iTunes version of their service at what they want, even if it's higher to cover the distribution costs.

Honestly, I don't know why so many people get wound up about this. It will find it's own level... it's what free enterprise is all about. If Apple see's publishers don't like it and don't buy into it... I'm sure they will change their policies to match the market needs.

 

[Sir Cecil]

so i'm supposed to pay apple $3 a month just for hosting the 10-20MB netflix app in the itunes store?

Why not? Whatever music, on whichever label you buy, you pay a royalty to the developers of CD, Sony and Philips.

 

[spazzcat]

I hear what you're saying. I have mixed thoughts on this issue. I personally don't have a problem with the "requirement" but I do think publishers should be able to charge more if going through iTunes.

Obviously, Apple knows the value of their eco system and what easy access to customers is all about. If I was a publisher like Netflix, I'd love this... yes, potentially less revenue, but 30% is cheap advertising when you instantly can get at millions of customers that just have to click once to buy your service.

But again... I think the publisher should have the option to price their iTunes version of their service at what they want, even if it's higher to cover the distribution costs.

Honestly, I don't know why so many people get wound up about this. It will find it's own level... it's what free enterprise is all about. If Apple see's publishers don't like it and don't buy into it... I'm sure they will change their policies to match the market needs.

They can't charge more but nor do have to offer the same level of service. If I was Netflix, I would come out with a new $5 month plan that only works on iOS. If you have this plan you can not watch movies on other hardware. They now meet all the requriments Apple has and they will not lose any money.

 

[newtonrj]

Using your analogy I drive my iPad ("car") to the Mall (iTunes) and picked up a Pandora application. Now I left the mall (iTunes) and I want to use the Pandora application, but the mall (iTunes) is demanding 30% of everything I do in Pandora.

Turning it around it's like if I drive my real car to the mall and purchased an iPad at the Apple store. Now the mall is demanding Apple pay them 30% of everything I purchase on the iPad once I take it home because the mall believes I never would of purchased the iPad in the first place if it weren't for the mall.

If you work it the other way, Apple gets nothing for hosting the free app download, nothing for allowing out-of-iTunes payment, and nothing for updates. Where is the bite of Apple there? No issues with iDevelopers paying Apple 30% for a pay app. Apple is just saying that if iUsers buy a payola inside the app, iDevelopers need to understand it is 30% there too.

It is estimated that iTunes is a $1Bn with near nothing profits for Apple.http://www.asymco.com/2010/10/25/visualizing-apples-profitability/

 

[Cander]

It would be like you buying a magazine every month from the same store.

No. It would be like going to that store and buying an issue of the magazine then sending in the subscription card in it and the store demanding they get a cut.

Also by your logic Blizzard should be giving Apple a cut of subcriptions from World of Warcraft becuase the game is sold in the Apple store.

 

[spazzcat]

No. It would be like going to that store and buying an issue of the magazine then sending in the subscription card in it and the store demanding they get a cut.

Also by your logic Blizzard should be giving Apple a cut of subcriptions from World of Warcraft becuase the game is sold in the Apple store.

It's not free to send out all those magazines every month....You have to pay people and pay the post office...

 

[mdatwood]

If you work it the other way, Apple gets nothing for hosting the free app download, nothing for allowing out-of-iTunes payment, and nothing for updates. Where is the bite of Apple there?

Nothing? The developers pay the $100 Apple fee. The users paid hundreds of dollars for the device. Apple needs to remember that their nifty devices are useless without content. The 'ecosystem' that Apple and everyone likes to refer to is made of up a lot of non-apple content. If Apple pushes this content away then people will stop buying iOS devices.

Also, if Apple is so worried about hosting costs for free apps then they should let people easily install apps from other sources. NF or Amazon would have no problem hosting their apps or their respective websites.

 

[osx11]

"No compatibility for mobile devices"

um.........ok.......that might be a turn off.

 

[Daschund]

Using your analogy I drive my iPad ("car") to the Mall (iTunes) and picked up a Pandora application. Now I left the mall (iTunes) and I want to use the Pandora application, but the mall (iTunes) is demanding 30% of everything I do in Pandora.

Turning it around it's like if I drive my real car to the mall and purchased an iPad at the Apple store. Now the mall is demanding Apple pay them 30% of everything I purchase on the iPad once I take it home because the mall believes I never would of purchased the iPad in the first place if it weren't for the mall.

Not really. The analogy would be:

I drive my car to the Mall and buy, say, a Playstation 3. After a while, I decide that I want more content to use on the PS3. Say, I want a new game. All that Apple is saying is that if the game is available to be bought OUTSIDE the Mall store, it should be available to be bought INSIDE the Mall store. Simple. Apple is not DEMANDING 30% of everything, it's just making sure that, once again, the experience is right. If Apple doesn't do that, probably all sorts of subscriptions/selling methods will pop and that will lessen the user end experience. The other thing is, if they allow to be only off-iTunes purchase, I, as a user, will have to enter my credit card info into dozens of websites, and be more vunerable. I'd much rather do everything at the iTunes store, with one password/one login/no hassle.

If Apple doesn't have that restriction (if it's available off-iTunes it should be available at iTunes, most companies will try to do everything off-iTunes just so that they don't have to pay Apple anything, and that will make the user end experience much less pleasant. Apple worries about that, most other companies don't.