Beats CEO tried to push Steve Jobs toward subscription music service
In an interview with All Things D on Thursday, Beats Audio CEO Jimmy Iovine said that he spent three years trying to persuade late Apple cofounder Steve Jobs to start a subscription-based streaming music service over a decade ago.
Beats Audio CEO Jimmy Iovine. | Source: All Things D
According to the All Things D report, Iovine tried to push Jobs into launching a subscription service while working with the tech guru in 2002 and 2003 as head of record label Interscope Geffen.
"So I met [Jobs] and we hit it off right away. We were really close," Iovine said. "We did some great marketing stuff together: 50 Cent, Bono, Jagger, stuff for the iPod ? we did a lot of stuff together.
But I was always trying to push Steve into subscription. And he wasn?t keen on it right away."
He went on to say that while Jobs was interested in the concept, "he didn't want to pay record companies enough," believing that the economics would eventually become more favorable.
Iovine didn't discuss Apple's current efforts, but did mention in passing that he would be meeting with the company's chief of media Eddy Cue "soon." He was not pressed for more details and
the interview moved to Iovine's upcoming subscription product called Project Daisy, a collaboration with Beats that looks to outdo existing services like Rhapsody, MOG and Rdio. The CEO will leverage his substantial backing as a high-ranking executive at Universal Music Group, which owns Interscope Geffen, to drive curated content to users.
It was reported in September and again in October that Apple was looking to create an internet radio service similar to Pandora, but no such product has been announced.
Beats Audio CEO Jimmy Iovine. | Source: All Things D
According to the All Things D report, Iovine tried to push Jobs into launching a subscription service while working with the tech guru in 2002 and 2003 as head of record label Interscope Geffen.
"So I met [Jobs] and we hit it off right away. We were really close," Iovine said. "We did some great marketing stuff together: 50 Cent, Bono, Jagger, stuff for the iPod ? we did a lot of stuff together.
But I was always trying to push Steve into subscription. And he wasn?t keen on it right away."
He went on to say that while Jobs was interested in the concept, "he didn't want to pay record companies enough," believing that the economics would eventually become more favorable.
Iovine didn't discuss Apple's current efforts, but did mention in passing that he would be meeting with the company's chief of media Eddy Cue "soon." He was not pressed for more details and
the interview moved to Iovine's upcoming subscription product called Project Daisy, a collaboration with Beats that looks to outdo existing services like Rhapsody, MOG and Rdio. The CEO will leverage his substantial backing as a high-ranking executive at Universal Music Group, which owns Interscope Geffen, to drive curated content to users.
It was reported in September and again in October that Apple was looking to create an internet radio service similar to Pandora, but no such product has been announced.
Comments
Talk about marketing reality distortion fields. He sells an overpriced, poor quality headphone that doesn't even sound that great. Why in the world would Apple pay attention to him?
Why doesn't he spend his time making headphones that don't break in just a few months of light use instead of sticking his nose where it doesn't belong?
I'd say Steve made the right call, based on the track record of subscription services. You have to give it away to get market traction.
Nope. From a daily quote calendar I received:
The subscription model of buying music is bankrupt. I think you could make available the Second Coming in a subscription model and it might not be successful.
Guess who said it.
Mind sharing the name of that Calendar? Sounds like a good one.
Originally Posted by emig647
Mind sharing the name of that Calendar? Sounds like a good one.
I, Steve: Steve Jobs in His Own Words. Link's just so you know what it looks like if you see it in a store or something.
And that's fine. Better they do that than pirate and the artists get nothing at all.
But some folks want to have no ads, total control etc. They want to 'own' their music, TV, etc.
I think Apple is more likely to stick with that latter groups needs. Yes they might put in methods of streaming what you bought in the store or have in your Match. But that's likely basically it. A return of lala.com's discovery tools maybe to go with it. But they aren't likely to try to kill the other services with one of their own.
Apple doesn't want to be an ISP, cable company, etc. I suspect a radio company is in there also. There is a quote, I believe from Steve himself, that goes something like 'Apple willing doesn't mean everyone else must lose.' It was his way of saying this isn't a zero sum game. He was talking, as I recall, about the issue of Apple lacking in market share. But to me that applies to this issue as well. Apple can 'wIn' without killing off or even trying to kill off every other company. Pandora etc filled a need for those that Apple didn't, let them keep fills THAT need while Apple fills the other side
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why would anyone care what this guy has to say?
Talk about marketing reality distortion fields. He sells an overpriced, poor quality headphone that doesn't even sound that great. Why in the world would Apple pay attention to him?
Why doesn't he spend his time making headphones that don't break in just a few months of light use instead of sticking his nose where it doesn't belong?
Why would anyone care what this guy has to say? Why would Apple listen to him? You think selling headphones is his main gig?
You don't know much about music.
I don't buy it. Nor do I want to buy a subscription service to listen to music that I already own. Music I paid for multiple times through records, tapes, and CDs. Now through digital services like iTunes. I compare it to owning your own home. Then deciding to just pay rent so you don't have to worry about maintenance. Just doesn't sound right to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Golddragon
I don't buy it. Nor do I want to buy a subscription service to listen to music that I already own. Music I paid for multiple times through records, tapes, and CDs. Now through digital services like iTunes. I compare it to owning your own home. Then deciding to just pay rent so you don't have to worry about maintenance. Just doesn't sound right to me.
Doesn't sound right?
I get that that's not what you prefer. Nor is it what I prefer. But there are millions of people who do like that model. So to say it doesn't sound right is like saying millions of people don't sound right to you. Now that doesn't sound right.
Originally Posted by stelligent
But there are millions of people who do like that model. So to say it doesn't sound right is like millions of people don't sound right to you. Now that doesn't sound right.
No, what doesn't sound right is demanding Apple cater to these people.
And yeah, they're just a little bit outright wrong, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
No, what doesn't sound right is demanding Apple cater to these people.
And yeah, they're just a little bit outright wrong, anyway.
But who is demanding anything? This story is about an important player in the music world suggesting something to Apple. Is it ok (by you) to pitch business models to other people?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why would anyone care what this guy has to say?
He sells an overpriced, poor quality headphone that doesn't even sound that great.
You answered your own question. I, too, would listen to someone who repeatedly sells 50 cents (no pun intended) for a dollar. Must be doing something right.
Where are these millions? You'd think that would be enough to buoy the Zune brand, but it didn't. MS staked a major portion of their Zune business model on subscriptions. The same goes for Rhapsody and other services. The current popular models involve ad-based streaming models to garner popularity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Why would anyone care what this guy has to say? Why would Apple listen to him? You think selling headphones is his main gig?
You don't know much about music.
"He is credited with having given Eminem's demo tape to Dr. Dre, who signed him to his Aftermath label."
That right there qualifies him for an award for setting back music ten years.
I think I saw both the reason in your argument and its flaw at the same time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msimpson
"He is credited with having given Eminem's demo tape to Dr. Dre, who signed him to his Aftermath label."
That right there qualifies him for an award for setting back music ten years.
Yes, he hooked up Eminem, and also Lady Gaga. But there's more:
"Iovine began his career as a recording engineer in the mid-1970s, working with Raspberries, John Lennon, Bruce Springsteen and Jonathan Liberato. He went on to produce albums for U2 (Rattle & Hum), Tom Petty & The Heartbreakers, Stevie Nicks, Golden Earring, Simple Minds, Dire Straits, The Motors, Flame and Patti Smith."
And for fun: "Bruce Springsteen's song "Ain't Good Enough For You" referenced Iovine: "And babe I tried to make the latest scene, Hip and cool, just like Jimmy Iovine.""
As for subscription services, I know people who love Pandora and use it constantly - one person listens to Kirtan music all day long, another to jazz music. I've never used it myself, and I have no idea how a subscription service for Apple would be profitable, other than letting people listen to music (whole songs and albums) that they could then one-click buy in iTunes. Good idea? I don't know.
Subscription works for me. As long as I pay my 10 bucks a month, I have access to more tracks than could ever have bought. I haven't really bought or listened to music in years and the subscription model has changed that. I hear something's that catchy and I go my service and listen to it. It's great.
Nothing against individual purchases, but my preference right now is for subs.