Why didn't Apple just purchase Spotify?

Discussion in 'Apple Music, Apple Pay, iCloud, Apple Services' started by SDAVE, Jul 27, 2015.

  1. SDAVE macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #1
    I would think this would be a better solution for them. They could have easily purchased it. Maybe they've tried to no avail?

    I don't think FCC would butt in for this since there were also other competitors on the market.

    Spotify is feature rich and has at least 5 years of a headstart. Their desktop and web player are top notch and light weight. Sure maybe the "curation" service isn't as good as Apple's algorithm, but for very picky users such as myself, the "What friends are playing" is a great way to discover music through friends who have similar taste in music.
     
  2. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #2
    Many reason but the European Trade Union would block (Spotify is a Swedish company), hamper and launch countless investigations and fines on Apple.
     
  3. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #3
    Isn't tidal owned by Aspiro which is also a Swedish company?
     
  4. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #4
    It was bought by Jay-Z consortium (Project Panther).
     
  5. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #5
    I don't think this is the only reason. Do you have a source?
     
  6. Julien macrumors G4

    Julien

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta
    #6
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_(service)

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/14/b...uys-the-music-streaming-firm-aspiro.html?_r=0

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/1/30/7950317/Jay-z-buys-tidal-wimp-aspiro-to-take-on-spotify

    http://www.billboard.com/articles/business/6457952/jay-z-streaming-aspiro-wimp-tidal-purchase-price
     
  7. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #7
    No I know that, I am talking about this comment:

     
  8. flur macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #8
    Honestly I'm pretty thankful they didn't buy Spotify, because they still would have tried to integrate it with iCloud Music Library, so we'd still have all those awful bugs but we wouldn't have the current incarnation of Spotify to use instead.
     
  9. CaTOAGU macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #9
    Perhaps Spotify didn't want to sell.
     
  10. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #10
    Haha, good one.

    I just don't get it, though. The iCloud "Merge" function is not great. The App is funky, it's too cumbersome. Too many buttons to click through.

    I just want to make simple playlists
    Maybe. But Apple is known to do things themselves when they wanted. Ie, when google maps contract ran out they didn't want to renew and they just did it themselves through TomTom. They failed miserably at first, but it's fairly ok now. Still not as good as Google Maps though.
     
  11. whsbuss macrumors 68040

    whsbuss

    Joined:
    May 4, 2010
    Location:
    SE Penna.
    #11
    Perhaps Apple didn't want to buy them.
     
  12. flur macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #12
    LOL, that's the question. Why didn't Apple buy them?
     
  13. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
  14. CaTOAGU macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #14
    No I don't really think they did.

    For a start Spotify although established isnt profitable, it's also a tenth the size of iTunes and that's if you include free subscribers, if you only include paid its far less than that. From a business perspective it doesn't make all that much sense.

    From a technological perspective I'm not convinced either. Spotify is being held up now as a paragon of virtue but it's not without its problems either and then Apple would have to integrate it into their ecosystem.

    Finally there's licensing, are Spotify's streaming licenses transferable, probably not, they usually aren't AFAIK. And if they aren't Apple would have to start from Stratch negotiating them, which they had to anyway.
     
  15. flur macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2012
    #15
    From a business perspective, buying your biggest competitor, especially if they're still small (aka affordable) and they have tech you have not yet built yourself, pretty much always makes sense.
     
  16. CaTOAGU macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #16
    If they're small yes, not necessarily if they're consistently loss making. And they don't really have any tech that Apple doesn't have or couldn't build itself. As I said its not like their service is without its own problems.
     
  17. skwood macrumors 6502a

    skwood

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2013
    Location:
    Tonbridge, UK
    #17
    What's more likely is that they will try to poach staff away from Spotify, Deezer etc. to get the service running better
     
  18. navaira macrumors 68040

    navaira

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    #18
    That all makes sense except Apple bought Beats instead. Was that profitable? Did it have more users than Spotify? Was it easier to integrate into iTunes than Spotify would be? (Serious questions, I don't have a clue.)
     
  19. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #19
    The Beats purchase added more prestige for Apple. It was a smart purchase.
     
  20. navaira macrumors 68040

    navaira

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    #20
    As in street cred?

    (I'm not being sarcastic, I don't get it.)
     
  21. Tech198, Jul 28, 2015
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2015

    Tech198 macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Location:
    Australia, Perth
    #21
    The sky is blue :D


    Perhaps Apple knew they could do better, as one reason why they acquitted Beats.

    If Apple did purchase Spotify, they would have changed how it operated, just like any businesses buy-out. so Probably starting from the ground up seemed better.
     
  22. SDAVE thread starter macrumors 68040

    SDAVE

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2007
    Location:
    Nowhere
    #22
    Yeah - also access to a large "urban" market with sponsors like basketball stars, rappers, etc. which is more important than something like an audiophile market. It's a marketing gimmick. Beats' products are extremely average technically, it's more of an image.

    The Beats curation service Apple brought over to Music is not bad at all actually. I just don't use it because I have my own sources where I discover new music.
     
  23. zhenya macrumors 603

    zhenya

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2005
    #23
    Beats seemed to be a more natural cultural fit with Apple, and frankly, there is nothing that Spotify offers that they didn't get from the Beats acquisition, plus they got all of Beats' high-margin hardware sales essentially gratis. The music suggestion methods that Beats had developed, and Apple has now integrated into Apple Music were far better on Beats than anything Spotify has ever had.

    And it's not like Spotify's UI is anything to write home about. It has been a mishmash of design choices different on every platform for years. It has gotten incrementally better over years, but partially we've also just gotten used to it. What people like now is how simple it is - but on the other hand, Spotify only needs to do a tiny portion of what Apple Music is attempting. FWIW, I've been a Spotify, Beats, and now Apple Music subscriber since nearly day 1 of each service.
     
  24. navaira macrumors 68040

    navaira

    Joined:
    May 28, 2015
    Location:
    Amsterdam, Netherlands
    #24
    That's why I am still giving Apple Music benefit of the doubt -- they have until September 30 to fix all the problems as far as I am concerned. If they manage, my Spotify Premium subscription might bite the dust. If they don't, I'll stick with a service that had years to iron the kinks. I've only been a paid Spotify member for, what, two years maybe? So, indeed, they had about five years of development before I first used it. But I am not going to pay 9.99 a month for five years hoping Apple fix everything.

    Indeed, Spotify doesn't do all that AM is *trying* to do. But I don't know whether that's a bad thing. I'd rather have a limited service that works than something that tries to be everything for everyone and fails.

    I do agree on Beats as a brand giving certain cred, except I am not sure whether the urban crowd proudly displaying their Beats gear is even aware of the fact that Apple own Beats. I never used the streaming service so I have no clue whether Apple improved on it, made it worse or actually even used it at all.
     
  25. CaTOAGU macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Location:
    Manchester, UK
    #25
    Beats was definitely profitable yes. It may or may not have been easier to integrate but I think Beats overall was a more worthwhile purchase.
     

Share This Page