or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple signs licensing deal with EMI for iTunes cloud service
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple signs licensing deal with EMI for iTunes cloud service

post #1 of 12
Thread Starter 
Music industry sources claim that Apple has signed a cloud-music licensing agreement with music label EMI and is "very near" to completing deals with Universal and Sony, according to a new report.

Apple appears to be putting the final pieces in place for the long-rumored cloud-based iTunes music service. CNet's Greg Sandoval reports that Apple's negotiations with Sony Music Group and Universal could wrap up as early as next week, according to music industry sources.

Last month, Sandoval reported that Apple and Warner Music Group had reached an agreement for an unannounced iTunes cloud service. A separate report suggested last month that Apple had already procured deals from at least two of the four major music labels.

Finalizing licensing deals appears to be the final step for Apple, as a recent report suggested that Apple had completed work on a cloud-based iTunes music streaming service. Sandoval's industry sources have said that Apple's cloud solution is expected to be vastly superior to competing services from Google and Amazon.

Both Google and Amazon decided to launch their "digital locker" music services without renegotiating licenses with the labels. As such, Google's service is unable to sell music and Amazon faces a potential backlash from rights holders.

Mounting evidence suggests that Apple will use the name 'iCloud' for the new service, though AppleInsider has heard that iCloud will be more than just music. Sources said the new service will also serve as a revamp of the company's existing MobileMe service, allowing storage of contacts, calendars, photos and video.

According to one report, Apple purchased the iCloud.com domain for an estimated $4.5 million from the Swedish company Xcerion.

post #2 of 12
Why would a company not think licensing would be an important first step? Wish I could ask the execs at Google and Amazon.

Otherwise this bodes well for "icloud". Should be a good service.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #3 of 12
What should we expect from this service?


Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Why would a company not think licensing would be an important first step? Wish I could ask the execs at Google and Amazon.

Otherwise this bodes well for "icloud". Should be a good service.

Amazon did previously received favour from the record labels to help weaken the hold iTunes Store. Google might think they are the labels last hope to bring down iTunes Store.

Plus both Amazon and Google have done very little to make their media lockers any different than a place to store content. Amazon allowed a folder to be a playlist and Google took that and allowed your content to be automatically created like iTunes Genius Playlists.

I have to think what Apple is doing is much more in-depth.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #4 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Why would a company not think licensing would be an important first step? Wish I could ask the execs at Google and Amazon.

Otherwise this bodes well for "icloud". Should be a good service.

Because they are arrogant. In Google's case, they want everything to be free undermining the value of anything delivered over the web. In Amazon's case, they think price is the best way to compete thus their deep discounts on music, and trying to give the service away for free. Both are destroying the true value and the perceived value in other people's products.

Apple on the other hand... ROCK AND ROLL!
post #5 of 12
My sources haven't been given any details but they suspect that this Sunday AM meeting stuff is related to whatever this service is. They believe that it will be announced at WWDC or released during that week or the one just after.

And they believe that they will be given advance details under threat of immediate termination so that the staff can learn the service inside and out to push it on customers.

Either that or Apple could pull a fast one and actually release it on Sunday. 3 out of 5 major labels signed onto the music side of it isn't a shabby opener, especially if the other two are 'this close' to joining in.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #6 of 12
Zune Pass for iTunes?
post #7 of 12
I sense the RIAA is biding their time with Google's music 'sharing' service and that it will become like YouTube, with ads added to the streaming content people are uploading and can download and save to other people's Android devices by logging into their Google accounts.

Does an android device require the device to be logged in to the account of the person who uploaded the content in order to play it?

You could set up fake Google accounts specifically for the purpose of sharing pirated music.

How else will Google pay the licensing fees?
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #8 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post

Because they are arrogant. In Google's case, they want everything to be free undermining the value of anything delivered over the web. In Amazon's case, they think price is the best way to compete thus their deep discounts on music, and trying to give the service away for free. Both are destroying the true value and the perceived value in other people's products.

Apple on the other hand...

...has been doing to same thing with music and mobile apps. The iTunes Store and App Store exist to encourage hardware sales. How many iOS apps sell for more than $1 or $2? Developers are pretty much forced to offer apps at bargain prices or they have no real hope of selling and have to hope for volume to make up the difference.

If Nintendo bows out of the mobile game market, it will be because Apple made the mobile gaming market toxic by destroying the perceived value of game software. Rovio's Angry Birds is one of those iOS success stories people talk about, but how successful would they have been if their app had sold for $5 or $10? The game is a fun time waster but it's no Super Mario Bros when it comes to depth. People talk about Android owners being cheap, but how many iOS owners would spend $50 on a game? Precious few I imagine since Apple has already trained them that prices should be much lower than that.
post #9 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Amazon did previously received favour from the record labels to help weaken the hold iTunes Store. Google might think they are the labels last hope to bring down iTunes Store.

Plus both Amazon and Google have done very little to make their media lockers any different than a place to store content. Amazon allowed a folder to be a playlist and Google took that and allowed your content to be automatically created like iTunes Genius Playlists.


I see thanks for the info.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

...has been doing to same thing with music and mobile apps. The iTunes Store and App Store exist to encourage hardware sales. How many iOS apps sell for more than $1 or $2? Developers are pretty much forced to offer apps at bargain prices or they have no real hope of selling and have to hope for volume to make up the difference.

People talk about Android owners being cheap, but how many iOS owners would spend $50 on a game? Precious few I imagine since Apple has already trained them that prices should be much lower than that.

I'm not sure that perspective is 100% accurate. Sure prices are low, but the games/ apps at $1 or $2 are very simple. Even at $6 or $12 you only get a few levels from a game. You make the point that games on iOS don't have the depth which is true and the prices are set accordingly, but undeniably developers are making money. With Millions of iOS users out there I'm not sure how they have no hope for volume to make up the difference. That's exactly how they are doing it.

Further, as I'm considering the subject I wonder if this isn't going to turn out to be a good way to get developers of $50 games to make better (more) ports for the Mac. Especially since they can (as they already do) entice the user with a $6 or $12 game on iOS and hopefully up sell the user to the $50 the platform version. Deadspace for example had an ~ $12 price tag early on. It was fairly short and intended to promote the console version, but what if now with the Mac App store we see the full version for MacOS?

Point is Apple isn't ruining anyone, if there was a better model out there movie and music studios, game and software devs would be using it. They aren't forced to develop for iOS or strike deals with iTunes, but the simple fact of the matter is that Apple has best model and one that works.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #10 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

What should we expect from this service?

Amazon did previously received favour from the record labels to help weaken the hold iTunes Store. Google might think they are the labels last hope to bring down iTunes Store.

Plus both Amazon and Google have done very little to make their media lockers any different than a place to store content. Amazon allowed a folder to be a playlist and Google took that and allowed your content to be automatically created like iTunes Genius Playlists.

I have to think what Apple is doing is much more in-depth.

If the labels are willing to license streaming use and/or give the consumer the license right re-download a track, the digital locker makes no sense.

Why would Apple want to store thousands of copies of a single track on its servers that are assigned to individual iTunes users if it could simply allow you to re-download or stream the track whenever you want to?
post #11 of 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by Porchland View Post

If the labels are willing to license streaming use and/or give the consumer the license right re-download a track, the digital locker makes no sense.

Why would Apple want to store thousands of copies of a single track on its servers that are assigned to individual iTunes users if it could simply allow you to re-download or stream the track whenever you want to?

I think youre mixing a few things here.

Amazon and Google are digital lockers in that you upload your tracks tot them so you can then stream back to your devices. Each track is uploaded as a separate file without any consideration for that track already existing on their network.

What I think Apple is doing is more akin to Dropbox and their Time Machine sparsebundles. I dont Apple will have you upload to their iCloud songs youve already downloaded from iTunes. I think it will be like Dropbox and iTunes Genius where it reads the file and metadata and then send this small file to Apples iCloud, which in turn gives you streaming access to any and all files youve previously purchased on the iTS.

That is how it could be very different from the simplistic and rushed offerings by Amazon and Google, and why Apple would need to get the labels supporting them.

This begs the question, if I have all my music on my soon to be 64GB iPhone or on my Mac/PC running iTunes then why would I need this? Maybe you wont have all your music on those devices or perhaps youre on a work PC and you only have access to icloud.com where you can then stream your content all day at work.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #12 of 12
One more way to access media... this the world needs?"

I just popped up iTunes and note I have over 1,400 hours of music - nearly half a million tracks. Anyone I trust, anywhere in the world, has access to all of it, along with a few thousand movies, a library of print books that grows daily, and (full disclosure - I'm red faced) an embarrassing amount of trash television.

I already have access to all of it everywhere I go. I have trouble imagining a digital service I need less, personally, professionally, or aesthetically. At this point, more media is to me the equivalent of an elderly woman woman being offered more tchotchkes. Please, no.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple signs licensing deal with EMI for iTunes cloud service