Apple again pushes iTunes subscriptions, attempts to block Spotify
Apple is said to again be talking with major music labels about offering a subscription music service for a monthly fee, while the company is also reportedly attempting to prevent the launch of streaming service Spotify in the U.S.
According to the New York Post, Apple is again in talks with major record labels about a service that would allow unlimited access to iTunes music for a monthly fee. It was said that iTunes boss Eddy Cue was personally calling labels in recent weeks, trying to push a deal forward.
"One source said the service could have tiered pricing ranging from $10 to $15, although there are issues to be ironed out, including how much music would be included in each tier and how long customers would be able to access that content," author Claire Atkinson wrote.
Unlike in the past, when the labels have outright rejected Apple's offer, it is said that executives in the music industry are "supportive of the idea and believe it could re-energize digital music sales."
Music executives are also looking to the U.S. launch of European streaming music service Spotify, but another report from CNet claims that Apple has said to the record labels it fears the launch of Spotify could reduce album sales.
"In meetings in Los Angeles recently, Apple executives told their music industry counterparts that they had serious doubts about whether Spotify's business model could ever generate significant revenues or profits, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions," the report said.
Apple's position is said to be that it's tough to sell something that's given away by someone else. Author Greg Sandoval also said that Apple is working on a cloud-based music service that could be tied in to a subscription plan.
Spotify has been pushing hard for a 2010 launch of its service in the U.S., but its ability to arrive stateside depends on deals with record labels. Music sales have been flat in 2010, and executives are concerned that a Spotify launch may only compound the issue.
Rumors of a cloud-based iTunes streaming service have existed for some time, and reports have indicated that Apple has long pushed for one, but lacks the necessary agreements to launch it. Evidence of Apple's future plans came with the company's late-2009 purchase of streaming music service Lala.
According to the New York Post, Apple is again in talks with major record labels about a service that would allow unlimited access to iTunes music for a monthly fee. It was said that iTunes boss Eddy Cue was personally calling labels in recent weeks, trying to push a deal forward.
"One source said the service could have tiered pricing ranging from $10 to $15, although there are issues to be ironed out, including how much music would be included in each tier and how long customers would be able to access that content," author Claire Atkinson wrote.
Unlike in the past, when the labels have outright rejected Apple's offer, it is said that executives in the music industry are "supportive of the idea and believe it could re-energize digital music sales."
Music executives are also looking to the U.S. launch of European streaming music service Spotify, but another report from CNet claims that Apple has said to the record labels it fears the launch of Spotify could reduce album sales.
"In meetings in Los Angeles recently, Apple executives told their music industry counterparts that they had serious doubts about whether Spotify's business model could ever generate significant revenues or profits, according to two sources with knowledge of the discussions," the report said.
Apple's position is said to be that it's tough to sell something that's given away by someone else. Author Greg Sandoval also said that Apple is working on a cloud-based music service that could be tied in to a subscription plan.
Spotify has been pushing hard for a 2010 launch of its service in the U.S., but its ability to arrive stateside depends on deals with record labels. Music sales have been flat in 2010, and executives are concerned that a Spotify launch may only compound the issue.
Rumors of a cloud-based iTunes streaming service have existed for some time, and reports have indicated that Apple has long pushed for one, but lacks the necessary agreements to launch it. Evidence of Apple's future plans came with the company's late-2009 purchase of streaming music service Lala.
Comments
There is a free option, but the quality is lower, it doesn't work with the Spotify iPhone/Windows Phone app, and you can only listen for a limited period of time per month before it kicks you off. Plus there are ads between songs.
the company is also reportedly attempting to prevent the launch of streaming service Spotify in the U.S.
What if they outcompete them instead? Did Apple learn nothing from its recent brushes with the law?
Apple needs to launch a BETTER service, not prevent a good service from entering into competition.
Apple needs to launch a BETTER service, not prevent a good service from entering into competition.
Problem is, it's not a level playing field. Spotify can get deals from the labels that Apple struggles with. Which I don't think is too fair.
What if they outcompete them instead? Did Apple learn nothing from its recent brushes with the law?
Apple needs to launch a BETTER service, not prevent a good service from entering into competition.
i agree. resorting to MS tactics just shows how scared they are.
The music industry is so dense. The reason digital music sales need rejuvenating is the $1.29 per song pricing. Take it back to 99¢ and sales will recover. I want to own my music, not rent it.
Exactly. No one who truly appreciates music would ever go for a subscription service.
It's just for the folks who want some kind of noise laying in the background to soothe their paranoia/nerves like having the radio on so you don't fell lonely. Sadly however, this is a very large number of people.
What I don't get is that Apple always used to be about simple offerings and not giving people too many stupid choices. They still do this with their products in that one can't customise ... well anything at all, yet when it comes to the media offerings now it's all tiered pricing, variable rentals and sliding prices based on artificial availability constraints etc.
They are just caving on all fronts to the f*cking media idiots.
Exactly. No one who truly appreciates music would ever go for a subscription service.
It's just for the folks who want some kind of noise laying in the background to soothe their paranoia/nerves like having the radio on so you don't fell lonely. Sadly however, this is a very large number of people.
What I don't get is that Apple always used to be about simple offerings and not giving people too many stupid choices. They still do this with their products in that one can't customise ... well anything at all, yet when it comes to the media offerings now it's all tiered pricing, variable rentals and sliding prices based on artificial availability constraints etc.
They are just caving on all fronts to the f*cking media idiots.
I don't get what you are talking about... Generally, most people want subscriptions to content. They don't want to buy everything they consume....
I subscribe to Netflix to rent the movies I just want to see once, I buy DVDs of movies I want to own...
Why should music be any different?
I don't get what you are talking about... Generally, most people want subscriptions to content. They don't want to buy everything they consume....
I subscribe to Netflix to rent the movies I just want to see once, I buy DVDs of movies I want to own...
Why should music be any different?
Exactly. Subscription for music is what I want. The music I want to listen to changes almost every other day, so being able to pick from anything I want is perfect.
This is also one place where the Zune Pass is awesome. For the $15 a month, you get to also keep 10 tracks a month as mp3s...so it pretty much pays for itself.
The music industry is so dense. The reason digital music sales need rejuvenating is the $1.29 per song pricing. Take it back to 99¢ and sales will recover. I want to own my music, not rent it.
True, they still try to sell lossy files at lossless prices.
way to have people actually pay for stuff.
Things kinda settled down when iTunes started offering music at a low price, (supposedly most
people are honest).
Now, with the new AppleTV, same thing all over again. Apple is trying to give them a model that will actually PAY them for their content. But all the Networks are very suspicious. They will proba-
bly work hand in hand with Google and the other guys before Apple gets a decent offer. Don't know how legally they can offer that exclusively to only the competition, but.
No one who truly appreciates music would ever go for a subscription service.
I suspect Apple's market studies say otherwise, or they wouldn't be pursuing it.
A subscription would be a win-win with consumers like me. I average $5-$7 a month on music tracks, but I would spend $10-$12 on a subscription service to get access to a much bigger selection of music. It would be great for sampling full albums or new artists that I wouldn't otherwise check out and classical/jazz albums that I would like to have access to but wouldn't necessarily listen to very often.
I get a better consumer experience for a small additional cost, and Apple/music labels make $60 a year in additional revenue. If you still can still purchase tracks for $.99-$1.29 -- and I don't see Apple requiring you to opt into a subscription plan -- there's no downside.
I don't get what you are talking about... Generally, most people want subscriptions to content. They don't want to buy everything they consume ....
I suspect Apple's market studies say otherwise, or they wouldn't be pursuing it ...
You both misunderstand what I wrote.
I said "anyone who really appreciates music," by which I mean people who care about it a lot or are audiophiles etc. I also said that the majority would probably want the streaming thingie.
The average person is okay with AM radio. That doesn't mean they are really into music, it means they like to have music (or something) playing in the background of their lives sometimes.
In the same way that anyone really into cinema has a movie collection and worries about quality and owning the best copy etc., someone who is really into music has a music collection, owns a lot of music and has the same general concerns.
I don't think this is a majority of folks at all, but the people in this group includes myself so I was commiserating with the previous poster (who also seems to be in this group), about how it seems crazy (to people like me or them), that anyone would want the bulk streaming of content, (sometimes with commercial interruptions), that Spotify offers or the bulk licensing of content that iTunes is presumably going to offer.
What if they outcompete them instead? Did Apple learn nothing from its recent brushes with the law?
Apple needs to launch a BETTER service, not prevent a good service from entering into competition.
The labels wouldn't allow Apple to sell music on the same terms as Spotify even if they wanted to.
Spotify is more expensive than Napster but you do get a desktop client which is useful. I hope you get it over in the US as it's just another great feature to use with your iPhone/iPad for those who have Sonos.
What's the market share for Sonos in the US? I imagine it's more popular than here in the UK. Maybe the recent Spotify integration with Sonos has something to do with it. If Spotify gets the go ahead in the US then there's going to be a lot of happy iPhone/iPad users with Sonos players.
Maybe Apple are close to something themselves. Some hardware/software integration with big companies like Sonos?
You both misunderstand what I wrote.
I said "anyone who really appreciates music," by which I mean people who care about it a lot or are audiophiles etc. I also said that the majority would probably want the streaming thingie.
The average person is okay with AM radio. That doesn't mean they are really into music, it means they like to have music (or something) playing in the background of their lives sometimes.
In the same way that anyone really into cinema has a movie collection and worries about quality and owning the best copy etc., someone who is really into music has a music collection, owns a lot of music and has the same general concerns.
I don't think this is a majority of folks at all, but the people in this group includes myself so I was commiserating with the previous poster (who also seems to be in this group), about how it seems crazy (to people like me or them), that anyone would want the bulk streaming of content, (sometimes with commercial interruptions), that Spotify offers or the bulk licensing of content that iTunes is presumably going to offer.
I agree with you, and I'm under the impression Apple has a way to convince the average person that they need this service, while at the same time convincing the music labels they will make gobs of cash by letting Apple control how it is marketed (including the price.)
In my mind, it is the same hangups that plague SIRI/XM, that people already have a way to listen to radio, why pay for it? Especially given that there are still commercials. However, Apple has the brainpower to market it properly and crush the skeptical arguments. Now they just have to convince the labels they will make money, and more money than trying to stick to the CD/brick-and-mortar model.
Some hardware/software integration with big companies like Sonos?
I believe the term you are looking for is AirPlay.
Problem is, it's not a level playing field. Spotify can get deals from the labels that Apple struggles with. Which I don't think is too fair.
Maybe, maybe not. This is a rumor on a rumor. There are several parties here, and it's hard to gauge the truth, if there is any.
I don't get what you are talking about... Generally, most people want subscriptions to content. They don't want to buy everything they consume....
I subscribe to Netflix to rent the movies I just want to see once, I buy DVDs of movies I want to own...
Why should music be any different?
Subscription we already have , it is called radio. I pay by listening to ads.