Exactly... there are ways around this. The publishers and service providers will be creative.
But, I still think Apple will have to back down on the "Same price or lower" requirement. That's the ONLY part that I see that's unreasonable.
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.
Sony Rolls Out 'Music Unlimited' in New Countries, Executive Denies Plans to Abandon
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Exactly... there are ways around this. The publishers and service providers will be creative.
But, I still think Apple will have to back down on the "Same price or lower" requirement. That's the ONLY part that I see that's unreasonable.
no it's not. In the case of kindle it would be like you driving to a store which pays for rent, storage, wages, etc. and picking up free magazines, and then sending the subscription in. What does the store get for hosting the original magazine and all the associated costs? Nothing. So the only way for them to get money in that case is to take a cut of the subscription. Apple doesn't want to be a free conduit for others to make money.
I have a feeling what the answer to that is--and why this is not a very viable option to waste ones money on.
Why sell copies of an asset when you can just charge rent for it?
The new economy is subscription-based distribution of mature assets with copyrights held in perpetuity. Awesome.
The new economy is subscription-based distribution of mature assets with copyrights held in perpetuity. Awesome.
If you really want to follow your analogy then why is Apple forcing the same price or lower for the in-app version? The mall near my house is way more expensive than any other nearby store I guess for the 'experience.' If Apple wants to force the in-app subscription option then they need to allow price differentiation. Let the consumer decide if they want a cheaper price and more hassle or a higher price and and less hassle.
Consumers should also decide if they will/will not sign up at multiple websites, not Apple.
Except you missed the part that the free magazines had to pay Apple to get listed to start with. You also missed the part where people buy really expensive items from Apple in part to read these 'free' magazines. Don't act like Apple isn't getting paid here, they are getting paid a lot and simply want to extort more money from those who make their platform compelling.
I'm happy Apple is playing this out now before the next iPad because if content starts pulling out of the iOS or it becomes more expensive just to work on iOS I will look elsewhere for my tablet device.
Sony is idiotic to think this will take off. Why would you launch something that has no device compatibility yet? Especially when their goal is to remove their content from iTunes? Sony needs to realize that the music industry is six feet under, they're just digging that hole deeper. I'm not going to use two different places to download music compatible with my 
iPod. I'll just no longer listen to music produced by Sony.
Sony has a big head and it's ego apparently is the size of north america.
iPod. I'll just no longer listen to music produced by Sony. Sony has a big head and it's ego apparently is the size of north america.
Sony Bono
Exactly. There must be more to Sony's plan. As presented, it make no sense.
Sony is idiotic to think this will take off. Why would you launch something that has no device compatibility yet? Especially when their goal is to remove their content from iTunes? Sony needs to realize that the music industry is six feet under, they're just digging that hole deeper. I'm not going to use two different places to download music compatible with my
Exactly. There must be more to Sony's plan. As presented, it make no sense.
They're still basking in the afterglow of the windfall they got when Michael Jackson passed away and half the U.S. bought another copy of his music on iTunes and elsewhere.
It's oh-so-nice of Sony (
) to let Warner, EMI and Universal in on the fun ( again) too. Time to grab some popcorn and see how this develops...
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Indeed, it would be very interesting to compare the selection in sonys new service to spotify.
Sonys new service: 10$/month
-on demand streaming
ONLY computer access
ONLY Sony music
Spotify ~10$/month equivalent:
-on demand streaming
HUGE Catalogue
Mobile acces and 3333 offline songs per device
I would certainly be much more inclined to pay for a spotify premium account as things are now, but then again Spotify is not available in the US yet so a straight comparison might not be relevant, but time will tell. I really think the future Lies with some kind of streaming service(granted there's mobile acces and offline songs for when there's no internet acces) how many there's room for in the market I do not know.
DrFreeman said:
Indeed, it would be very interesting to compare the selection in sonys new service to spotify.
Sonys new service: 10$/month
-on demand streaming
ONLY computer access
ONLY Sony music
Spotify ~10$/month equivalent:
-on demand streaming
HUGE Catalogue
Mobile acces and 3333 offline songs per device
I would certainly be much more inclined to pay for a spotify premium account as things are now, but then again Spotify is not available in the US yet so a straight comparison might not be relevant, but time will tell. I really think the future Lies with some kind of streaming service(granted there's mobile acces and offline songs for when there's no internet acces) how many there's room for in the market I do not know.
All they are saying is that if they offer the service outside of the app, they need to offer it inside the app via in-app purchases so that they could get SOME cut of the money.
Example, you need to renew your netflix account for next month, you can either log into the netflix site and send payment via credit card (assuming you don't have it automatically doing it) or you can do it in the netflix app. If you chose the latter, Apple gets a 30% cut. If you chose the former they get nothing.
They are doing this because there are a lot of apps out there now that are "free" to download but then you have to go to their website and "buy" additional content -- in other words, screwing Apple out of everything. The rule now is that if you offer it on your website (and you can and still screw Apple out of the money) you have to offer it inapp as well so that those who chose to pay that way will feed something back to Apple.
NOTHING says that you can't offer it on your website and pay Apple NOTHING. BTW, this is **ONLY** for content to the application, not for tangible products that are shipped to the consumer.
apparently Google is demanding 10% cut.
It's less than 30%, but still they feel like they have the right to get a cut.
But that's exactly what I've been wondering - surely Apple has to host or at least offer to host DLC that's sold through the App store? I really don't see them wanting to host a mirror of the entire Kindle store. And if I was Amazon I'd insist they did if only out of principal.
This will never work - people aren't going to pay $9.99 just to access Sony content. That leaves out the other 80% of the music catalog, and people want access to everything, not just a small slice of the pie.
Napster is $9.99 a month and has almost the entire catalog for all the major labels, and also works on iPhone and other mobile devices. I love Napster, it gives me on demand access to music any time, any where, works on PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc...
I just hope that Sony doesn't pull their content from Napster to try and plug their own service. If they do, I'll just give them the finger.
Napster is $9.99 a month and has almost the entire catalog for all the major labels, and also works on iPhone and other mobile devices. I love Napster, it gives me on demand access to music any time, any where, works on PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, etc...
I just hope that Sony doesn't pull their content from Napster to try and plug their own service. If they do, I'll just give them the finger.
exactly - with Apple's logic Microsoft can ask for 30% of iTunes App/music sales if iTunes is installed on a Windows machine
Microsoft built the Platform, they made it the most popular OS - why should Apple get to put a store and have the benefit with out paying microsoft?
Sounds good? NO! its idiotic
Google isn't forcing companies to use their service though. Apple is.
I guess we'll see on July 1st what applications are in the iTunes app store. Apple might have built the ecosystem but the ecosystem is sustained by third party developers and content providers. If people can't download Kindle, Netflix, Pandora, Slacker, Sirius XM, Napster, Rhapsody, or other various applications on iOS they'll move onto another platform.
I like the idea of one fee for ulimited access it is a step in the right direction. As for me, I already have access to unlimited music for free so this doesn't apply to me.
Except its the publisher sending you the magazine from their own warehouse, but the old store wanting a cut.
haha..Sony sucks
+1
Finally the thing I've been waiting for Sony! All this time I've been holding on to my 8-Track player waiting for the perfect way to consume music...and now you've released it! WOW!
Congratulations Sony... what's next???... "THE DIGITAL WALKMAN"
+1
Finally the thing I've been waiting for Sony! All this time I've been holding on to my 8-Track player waiting for the perfect way to consume music...and now you've released it! WOW!
The rules make a lot of sense. When you sign to be a developer you agree to give Apple 30%. but with outside sales of 'in app' materials you cut Apple out of that money. Basically getting a free ride and creating a breach of contract. Because of that agreement, that you willingly entered into, Apple could demand that all purchases go through their store so they get their cut.
But instead they are willingly to give up some money so that consumers can choose. Folks that have setup a service like Netflix don't have to deal with the hassle of changing over. But new folks coming in because of the app will do so via Apple. If for some reason they don't want to pay via Apple they are welcome to go research if there is another method and use that. The rule against not giving a better offer on the outside form is both to be fair to those that want to stay in the store and to not falsely entice folks to go with the outside and further cheat Apple out of the share they were contractually promised.
i'm already thinking about getting rid of my 3GS for a HTC Inspire 4G. $70 from Amazon, faster than an iPhone 4 and will run all the apps that may be banned by Apple
unless you're playing games a 3GS level phone that i can get free with a 2 year contract is just fine
As I read it, yes you can download tracks for offline play. HOWEVER, the tracks will only play so long as you are paying. In other words, from time to time the system will have to call out to confirm you are still subscribing and if you stop, the tracks won't work.
Interesting that you bring up malls. Because Apple is doing exactly what malls do. When you have any kind of store in a mall you pay a base rent and you have to pay a cut of your sales to the mall. Some malls will only take a cut over a preset amount others off first dollar gross.
Magazine distributors, same game. You pay a sign up for access to the client list and a cut of successful sales. Be they to end users, newsstands or bookstores.
They already have a streaming only plan. And that is likely the only option they would be required to offer via the store since it is the only service that works under iOS.
On the contrary it is very reasonable. For reasons that are consumer based.
Some folks are uber paranoid about spreading their bank info all over the Internet. They love the idea that they can pop into the local Apple store, Walgreens, grocery store and buy a gift card to use in ITunes. Their credit cards never have to be on the service. So they want to be able to pay that way. It is not fair to them that they have to pay more to use that option rather than go to an outside site that demands their credit card, address etc.
Last edited: