AC/DC to join subscription streaming bandwagon in time for Apple Music debut
According to a report on Monday, rock legends and longtime streaming music holdouts AC/DC are primed to offer their tracks through subscription services, including Apple Music, as early as Tuesday.
An anonymous source informed The New York Times that the band has embraced subscription-based streaming services and will make an undisclosed number of tracks available on Apple Music, Spotify and Rdio.
AC/DC first agreed to sell its classic library on iTunes in 2012, including a special edition collection featuring demo tracks, live albums and other digital exclusives. At the time, the Australian rockers were one of the last bands to join the digital music revolution.
The news comes after it was announced that Apple Music nabbed first streaming rights to Dr. Dre's seminal release The Chronic. Along with Dr. Dre, Apple has managed to line up a decent list of exclusive offerings for its Apple Music launch on Tuesday, including Taylor Swift's much ballyhooed 1989 (after a public kerfuffle over streaming royalty rates) and Pharrell Williams' single "Freedom."
Apple Music is scheduled for release tomorrow at 8 a.m. Pacific as part of Apple's iOS 8.4 update.
An anonymous source informed The New York Times that the band has embraced subscription-based streaming services and will make an undisclosed number of tracks available on Apple Music, Spotify and Rdio.
AC/DC first agreed to sell its classic library on iTunes in 2012, including a special edition collection featuring demo tracks, live albums and other digital exclusives. At the time, the Australian rockers were one of the last bands to join the digital music revolution.
The news comes after it was announced that Apple Music nabbed first streaming rights to Dr. Dre's seminal release The Chronic. Along with Dr. Dre, Apple has managed to line up a decent list of exclusive offerings for its Apple Music launch on Tuesday, including Taylor Swift's much ballyhooed 1989 (after a public kerfuffle over streaming royalty rates) and Pharrell Williams' single "Freedom."
Apple Music is scheduled for release tomorrow at 8 a.m. Pacific as part of Apple's iOS 8.4 update.
Comments
Apple could make $100B from Beats hardware and music and there'll still be people trying to argue it was a waste of $3B.
Apple could make $100B from Beats hardware and music and there'll still be people trying to argue it was a waste of $3B.
Actually, I've warmed up to the idea of Apple having more freedom to experiment and make fun and wild products under the Beats brand.
Who is Spotify talking to now? Apple just helped that "afraid of competition/sneak behind closed doors to spew FUD to government agencies around the world about Apple being a monopoly" streaming music company land a major music group and probably more once Apple Music starts tomorrow at 9:00 AM PST/12:00 PM EST!
I'm say you're right and I'd guess the common argument will be that Apple could have saved the $3B by building up their own service, or perhaps paying a lot less for Rdio, Spotfiy, Pandora, or possibly even Tidal as I'm sure the "they stream lossless ALAC at 1411kibps to Apple devices" crowd will think that means that it's somehow a good fit for Apple based on that criteria alone.
Sure, but that's what competition, as well as being scared shitless your company is going to lose all their clients and their customers. My guess is that Spotify is paying them at a rate that they feel is fair, especially after T-Swizzle made it clear how little Spotify pays artists. That isn't to say Spotify is paying AC/DC the same amount per play as other artists (I'd assume a lot more) and I'd guess the contract is for balloon payments and rates at first to help compete against Apple Music; we'll see in a year where everyone stands.
Well then!
I'm thunderstruck.
You workin' in bars ridin' in cars
Never gonna give it for free
Your apartment with a view on the finest avenue
Lookin' at your beat on the street
You're always pushin', shovin', satisfied with nothing
You bitch you must be gettin' old
So stop your life on the road
All your diggin' for gold
You make me wonder
Yes I wonder
I wonder
Honey, what do you do for money
Oh boy ACDC, it was fun when I was a teenager, but these lyrics are misogynist garbage.
/s
Doesn't look like it. Possibly Apple forced their hand; or the better rate means they went to other services and said "Apple pays us this; if you want our music you'll do the same"
How do you know that Honey's first name wasn't Tom, Dick, Harry or possibly Bob?:p
On feminist issues and female empowerment they were almost 40 years(!) ahead of the trend that put Tess Holliday on the cover of People magazine.
Yes... I'm talkin' about that big badass *[S]Ginger[/S] Streaked Blonde, (Whole Lotta) Rosie
* No idea what I was thinking... or what I thought I saw many many years ago...?! :smokey:
Apple could make $100B from Beats hardware and music and there'll still be people trying to argue it was a waste of $3B.
I still think 3 billion was a waste! I think Apple shouldn't have paid more then 1 billion at most. Just by going from what Apple paid for other company's in the millions and what all Apple got from them, what did Apple get with Beats? The Name? Other then the Headphones, the streaming service is called Apple Music and not Beats anymore. Apple couldn't just make their own streaming service? Oh wait, they for the most part did. What Beats was, and what Apple did after is not the same any longer.
As for the hardware, the headsets. They don't have the best reputation for sound quality. The marketing has really worked and people are buying them them up anyway. How long is that going to last? Now they aren't even associated with the streaming service anymore. Really, what did Apple get for 3 Billion? To me, even 100 million seems to much.
And? NexTSTEP is now Mac OS X (Next is now Apple), SoundJam is now iTunes, AuthenTec is now TouchID, and on and on. The only that kept its name after a full assimilation is Siri, that's very unusual, so I don't know why changing the name from Beats Music to Apple Music is an argument that they didn't need the underlying technology and IP developed by Beats Electronics.
They got Jimmy Iovine, Dre and the most popular premium headphone market. There's no way that Jay Z would be calling Tim Cook to go easy on Tidal if Iovine and Dre weren't in with them. Once big names get on board with Apple Music, the other artists will do the same.
The hardware might not be all that profitable, the figures don't stand out. The iPod line is falling fast but even with Beats hardware sales included, their 'other' revenue still fell so Beats sales didn't help offset the loss from iPods. The revenue was $1.69b last quarter vs $1.88b last year. iPod sales were around $461m so if they'd dropped 40% ($184m), the Beats hardware has offset that drop by close to zero. They were making over $1b in accessory sales before Beats - about $1.4b. Apple sells about 2 million Apple TVs per quarter, these were $99 at the time of the accounts so that makes up $200m of the revenue. iPods make up less than $400m, say ~$300m.
Before Beats, it was something like:
(2m aTVs @$99 = $200m) + (iPods at $461m) + (displays, cables, covers, peripherals etc) = $1.88b
After Beats, it's more like:
(2m aTVs @$99 = $200m) + (iPods at ~$300m) + (displays, cables, covers, peripherals etc) + Beats = $1.69b
It can't be making zero but I can't see it being more than $200m revenue per quarter. Their estimated revenues before Apple got involved suggested about $250m/q. If it's ~$150m and the ASP is ~$200, that's 750k units per quarter. Some reports said they had over 60% of the premium headphone market but this will depend on where you draw the line on the price point. There are over 300 million headphones sold per year (75m/q) so the premium segment where Beats has a large share is a small portion of overall units. I would expect the vast majority of headphones sold would be under $100.
Sennheiser makes 300 million euros from consumer sales per year and overall about 590m euros, roughly the same amounts in dollars. They said they had 16% marketshare. If Beats had 65% marketshare with similar ASP and markets then I'd expect them to be making ~$600m revenue per quarter so they must have lower ASPs (which would be surprising as Beats aren't cheap) or they have comparable marketshare to Sennheiser and Bose.
There's a lot of room to grow that side of the business though. 300 million headphones sold every year and they have direct marketing to 250-300m iOS customers as well as Mac customers and Apple Music can market to other phone users and PC users. The margins are good on accessories and they can slip discount cards into iPhone/iPad boxes to save on Beats or bundle them at the point of sale. If they make a smaller less expensive pair at $99, they can get a much larger volume of sales. It can be absorbed into a phone contract as they can say $40m for the iPhone for 24 months or $45 with Beats.
$150m/q with 70% margin = $420m gross profit per year so the $3b purchase is paid off somewhere between 5-10 years and more towards the early side if they manage to grow the business.
I think the headphones and other hardware would lose some cachet with buyers if they rebranded to Apple. It makes sense with Apple Music but not the hardware.
I've been listening to ACDC on Pandora for years. I am not sure where this report is coming from....
Not conclusive, but archive.org does seem to support your statement.
I guess I'd have to find a major band that isn't on Pandora or a well known date in which they were added so we see what info archive.org has on them.