or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Brains behind subscription Beats Music to also oversee Apple's iTunes Radio
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Brains behind subscription Beats Music to also oversee Apple's iTunes Radio - Page 2

post #41 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Google didn't need to spend $3B to develop a Spotify competitor. Does music "curation" really cost $3B?

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

 

In any case, Apple did not pay $3B for music curation. If I recall correctly. Apple assigned a valuation of $2.5B for Beats Electronics (the hardware side of the business) and $500M for the Beats Music streaming service side of the business.

 

Note that Pandora Media has a current market capitalization of over $5 billion. Their stock (NYSE:P) is well off their 52-week high of over $40/share; at the time, their market cap was $8.25B.

 

The hardware side of Beats is quite profitable.


Edited by mpantone - 8/1/14 at 7:38pm
post #42 of 65
I am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

But iTunes' problem is that while it has the Apple Juggernaut behind it it really is not perceived as the cool place to get music.  It's just there, and as noted in your face when you buy a Mac.  A company like Pandora, Spotify, et al making the headway they did in the time they did would have been unheard of 5 years previously.  From what I see all around me I simply do not see iTunes currently as the big gorilla in the room anymore, and that's how Apple functions best, and they know it.  The numbers telling the tale of what was happening last months exactly what Apple has never used as evidence of anything as what they care about is aiming at a target 5 years from now that no one can even see is there.

Actually, this is why Rogers is spot on what they need.  He is actually credited as literally being the one of the first to enable mp3s to be downloaded from an artist's website in the mid '90s, as well as constantly updated new audio and visual media for Beastie Boys fans.  No one else had ever thought anyone would care or go to a site daily to see what music and images had shown up since 24 hours ago and download content every day.    He's Apple's type of forward thinker.

I'm not disputing Ian Rogers' qualifications per se. Truth be told, it was likely Eddy Cue's idea to give him iTunes Radio responsibility since Cue had completed his mission. Let's not start making uneducated assumptions when Eddy Cue is actually responsible for 20 million new active listeners every 4 months in the USA & Australia. He also deserves all credit for any future active iTunes Radio listener expansions in new countries. iTunes Radio sells itself because of Eddy Cue so Ian Roger's should not receive credit for this completed mission. iTunes is still the 800lbs gorilla based on music revenues... no other company comes close to it. Don't know how you can make claims distant from reality.

I am leery of Ian Rogers handling iTunes Radio since he could be a major record label stooge thereby tinkering with the service that could prove more beneficial to these labels at the expense of independent artists trying to earn an honest living in the music industry. As a result, I have more faith in Eddy Cue treating independent artists with fairness but that could change from bad to worse.
post #43 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

How about this. iTunes Radio would have been a success for Apple if they didn't have to buy in another company to replace the service.

Do you seriously think that you would be making this argument if Samsung tried their hand at a radio service and then spent $3B buying another?

Give over. Cue failed to deliver.

You do realize under Steve Jobs is stewardship, iTunes was purchased?

Does this mean Steve Jobs failed?
post #44 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by mpantone View Post

Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't.

In any case, Apple did not pay $3B for music curation. If I recall correctly. Apple assigned a valuation of $2.5B for Beats Electronics (the hardware side of the business) and $500M for the Beats Music streaming service side of the business.

Note that Pandora Media has a current market capitalization of over $5 billion. Their stock (NYSE:P) is well off their 52-week high of over $40/share; at the time, their market cap was $8.25B.

The hardware side of Beats is quite profitable.
But I think we all know Apple didn't buy Beats for the headphones. I'm not surprised they're profitable considering the price you pay for what you get.
post #45 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

You do realize under Steve Jobs is stewardship, iTunes was purchased?

Does this mean Steve Jobs failed?
Who did Apple Apple purchase iTunes music store from?
post #46 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Would you not agree that Cue has a lot on his plate and perhaps splitting up content from backend/maps/Siri might be a good idea? I think iTunes/AppStore/Apple TV could easily be a full time job. Same with iCloud/Maps/Siri.

Riddle me this… Where would I to radio be without Eddie Cue?

All of the executives at Apple right now have a lot on their plates.

Nearly all of the companies that Apple has purchased over the last 2 to 3 years have provided Apple with leadership it needed to move forward.

People complain that Apple maps suck when it first came out, but who is complaining about the leadership that Apple has purchased with other mapping companies?

Who is complaining about microprocessors ,flash memory, cameras and more technology companies that Apple has purchased and used those people to lead existing products?

Why is Eddie Cue held to a different standard?

With this new guy taking over Eddie's responsibilities on iTunes Radio, Eddie is telling Tim Cook he does not have the skills to take iTunes radio where it needs to go to be better than competitors. What is wrong with that?

I do not think Apple had anyone more qualified than Eddie to lead iTunes radio when iTunes radio needed to have a leader. That is just my opinion.
post #47 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

But I think we all know Apple didn't buy Beats for the headphones. I'm not surprised they're profitable considering the price you pay for what you get.

Well, Apple's the one who assigned a $2.5B valuation to Beats Electronics (the hardware side), not the readership here.

 

Anyhow, today Apple is now the leader in the consumer-grade headphone market space.

 

Without a doubt, Apple is likely hopeful that the Beats brand will help drive adoption of the Beats Music streaming service, but that's probably a ways off. 

 

But even if the Beats Music service isn't a wild success, Apple has a popular, profitable headphone hardware business. Apple makes good margins off of many of their accessories (like $20 iPhone 4 bumpers), so a $100 pair of trendy, over-valued mediocre-sounding headphones works well for their bottom line. Knowing Apple, they will likely be motivated to improve the product quality. 

 

They paid a premium for the Beats product image, that was the hard thing to acquire. Throwing better components at Beats headphones and taking a thinner margin is easy.


Edited by mpantone - 8/1/14 at 8:31pm
post #48 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by leavingthebigG View Post

You do realize under Steve Jobs is stewardship, iTunes was purchased?

Does this mean Steve Jobs failed?

It took you about two hours to come up with that incredibly crap argument. iTunes was purchased to create something new, not replace a different internal service.

What's with the Cue loving around here. I know some people refuse to countenance any criticism of Apple, but why get upset when a manager is criticised.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #49 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post

I am
I'm not disputing Ian Rogers' qualifications per se. Truth be told, it was likely Eddy Cue's idea to give him iTunes Radio responsibility since Cue had completed his mission. Let's not start making uneducated assumptions when Eddy Cue is actually responsible for 20 million new active listeners every 4 months in the USA & Australia. He also deserves all credit for any future active iTunes Radio listener expansions in new countries. iTunes Radio sells itself because of Eddy Cue so Ian Roger's should not receive credit for this completed mission. iTunes is still the 800lbs gorilla based on music revenues... no other company comes close to it. Don't know how you can make claims distant from reality.

I am leery of Ian Rogers handling iTunes Radio since he could be a major record label stooge thereby tinkering with the service that could prove more beneficial to these labels at the expense of independent artists trying to earn an honest living in the music industry. As a result, I have more faith in Eddy Cue treating independent artists with fairness but that could change from bad to worse.

Are there any reliable figures on the number of active monthly users? Has Apple ever provided that information? I've used iTunes Radio a few times mostly when they have new music exclusives that you can't get anywhere else. But I still have my Spotify membership because 1) the sound quality is better than iTunes Radio and 2) iTunes Radio would repeat a lot and I'd create a station and get songs that had absolutely nothing to do with that station. Of course the biggest reason I stick with Spotify is the ability to play whatever song I want on demand. That's what iTunes Radio needs.
post #50 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Are there any reliable figures on the number of active monthly users? Has Apple ever provided that information? I've used iTunes Radio a few times mostly when they have new music exclusives that you can't get anywhere else. But I still have my Spotify membership because 1) the sound quality is better than iTunes Radio and 2) iTunes Radio would repeat a lot and I'd create a station and get songs that had absolutely nothing to do with that station. Of course the biggest reason I stick with Spotify is the ability to play whatever song I want on demand. That's what iTunes Radio needs.

If it played what you needed on demand it wouldn't be a radio.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #51 of 65
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
…replace a different internal service.

 

So where’s your evidence of this? Beats will be supplementing existing services, not creating new ones. Apple didn’t rewrite iTunes to create the platform; it just modified what was already there.

 

These are two sides of the same coin.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #52 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Spending $3B on Beats? No new Apple TV?

acquiring the most profitable headphone company in the industry, whoch they helped start, and which literally plugs into multiple facets of their business..only a total maroon could obsessively complain about it being a bad idea. get over it and yourself.
post #53 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Craig's predominance at the WWDC is probably also bad news for big Phil.

er, you do realize WWDC is for programmers (Craig), while product launches are for consumers (Phil), right??

they're a team. they like helping each other succeed.
post #54 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

It took you about two hours to come up with that incredibly crap argument. iTunes was purchased to create something new, not replace a different internal service.

What's with the Cue loving around here. I know some people refuse to countenance any criticism of Apple, but why get upset when a manager is criticised.

because none of you critics work at apple corporate and thusly have no friggin idea what you're talking about -- you're speculating and pretending it's fact, when really it's just navel gazing.
post #55 of 65
The thing is Apples shares have increased tremendously since the beats deal, way more than the $3bn they spent. They have therefore virtually got Beats for nothing. I know there are other factors as well, but I am sure that Beats played a part in the increase in value and will continue to add value in the future.
post #56 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

because none of you critics work at apple corporate and thusly have no friggin idea what you're talking about -- you're speculating and pretending it's fact, when really it's just navel gazing.

We are speculating. We aren't pretending it's fact. We are no more "navel gazing" than anybody else commentating here.

I don't even dislike Cue that much but clearly, since he has been replaced by Apple as head of iTunes Radio he wasn't seen internally doing a good job. At that particular job.

Why this statement upsets people I don't particularly know.

Most of the world can't even judge the success or not of iTunes Radio because it's only available in two countries. Apple said they hoped to get to 100. Since they seem to have stalled the roll out they are probably not happy with it. Ive never even seen it.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #57 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Are there any reliable figures on the number of active monthly users? Has Apple ever provided that information? I've used iTunes Radio a few times mostly when they have new music exclusives that you can't get anywhere else. But I still have my Spotify membership because 1) the sound quality is better than iTunes Radio and 2) iTunes Radio would repeat a lot and I'd create a station and get songs that had absolutely nothing to do with that station. Of course the biggest reason I stick with Spotify is the ability to play whatever song I want on demand. That's what iTunes Radio needs.
You can find that information on this site or you can do the math from Comscore by comparing Pandora and iTunes Radio active user data while using Pandora's reported active listeners as a basis.

In January 2014, it was reported here at AI that iTunes Radio had 20 million active listeners as revealed by Tim Cook I think. In May 2014, AI reported that iTunes Radio had 40 million actives listeners as revealed by Eddy Cue. You can search the Comscore media release page to confirm those numbers; I think there was a release in May and possibly July as well. I don't have photographic memory and currently in a rush to do something.
post #58 of 65
Rogifan, here are some links:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/29/eddy-cue-and-jimmy-iovine-go-in-depth-on-apples-beats-acquisition-and-future-plans

http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Reports-May-2014-U.S.-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share

I tried searching the net for a Tim Cook quote made in January 2014. I now assume to have read the 20 million active user stat through a live blog feed of the Apple earnings call in January. AI reports 20 million users in October 2013, but at the time I believe Apple actually said 20 million have "tried" the iTunes Radio service. Maybe Apple was not confident enough yet to brand them active users. If so, that would cut projections of new USA & AUS subscribers to 10 million every 4 or more months.

I assume ComScore will publicly release a new market ranking table in early September for the month of July.

Beats Music would be an equivalent on-demand service to Spotify. I hear Spotify Radio is not well received by Spotify users either. Spotify on-demand and iTunes Radio are apples and oranges.
post #59 of 65
This is conjecture but Apple may have stalled the rollout because iTunes Radio activity exceeded expectations thus need time to build more infrastructure to handle the next rollout phase... Or maybe they decided to launch in every country in one fell swoop but for that to happen they needed to expand infrastructure first. I can only speculate when the next rollout or final ceremonial launch will take place.
post #60 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

If it played what you needed on demand it wouldn't be a radio.
Good. Is rather listen to what I want than repeating tracks or stuff I don't want.
post #61 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post

Rogifan, here are some links:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/05/29/eddy-cue-and-jimmy-iovine-go-in-depth-on-apples-beats-acquisition-and-future-plans

http://www.comscore.com/Insights/Market-Rankings/comScore-Reports-May-2014-U.S.-Smartphone-Subscriber-Market-Share

I tried searching the net for a Tim Cook quote made in January 2014. I now assume to have read the 20 million active user stat through a live blog feed of the Apple earnings call in January. AI reports 20 million users in October 2013, but at the time I believe Apple actually said 20 million have "tried" the iTunes Radio service. Maybe Apple was not confident enough yet to brand them active users. If so, that would cut projections of new USA & AUS subscribers to 10 million every 4 or more months.

I assume ComScore will publicly release a new market ranking table in early September for the month of July.

Beats Music would be an equivalent on-demand service to Spotify. I hear Spotify Radio is not well received by Spotify users either. Spotify on-demand and iTunes Radio are apples and oranges.
thanks for this.
post #62 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by NolaMacGuy View Post

acquiring the most profitable headphone company in the industry, whoch they helped start, and which literally plugs into multiple facets of their business..only a total maroon could obsessively complain about it being a bad idea. get over it and yourself.
I find this so amusing. If Samsung had acquired Beats people here would be laughing their asses off over Samsung spending $3B on crappy overpriced headphones.
post #63 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post
 

 

But iTunes' problem is that while it has the Apple Juggernaut behind it it really is not perceived as the cool place to get music.  It's just there, and as noted in your face when you buy a Mac.  A company like Pandora, Spotify, et al making the headway they did in the time they did would have been unheard of 5 years previously.  From what I see all around me I simply do not see iTunes currently as the big gorilla in the room anymore, and that's how Apple functions best, and they know it.  The numbers telling the tale of what was happening last months exactly what Apple has never used as evidence of anything as what they care about is aiming at a target 5 years from now that no one can even see is there.

 

Actually, this is why Rogers is spot on what they need.  He is actually credited as literally being the one of the first to enable mp3s to be downloaded from an artist's website in the mid '90s, as well as constantly updated new audio and visual media for Beastie Boys fans.  No one else had ever thought anyone would care or go to a site daily to see what music and images had shown up since 24 hours ago and download content every day.    He's Apple's type of forward thinker.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by YvesVilleneuve View Post

I am
I'm not disputing Ian Rogers' qualifications per se. Truth be told, it was likely Eddy Cue's idea to give him iTunes Radio responsibility since Cue had completed his mission. Let's not start making uneducated assumptions when Eddy Cue is actually responsible for 20 million new active listeners every 4 months in the USA & Australia. He also deserves all credit for any future active iTunes Radio listener expansions in new countries. iTunes Radio sells itself because of Eddy Cue so Ian Roger's should not receive credit for this completed mission. iTunes is still the 800lbs gorilla based on music revenues... no other company comes close to it. Don't know how you can make claims distant from reality.

I am leery of Ian Rogers handling iTunes Radio since he could be a major record label stooge thereby tinkering with the service that could prove more beneficial to these labels at the expense of independent artists trying to earn an honest living in the music industry. As a result, I have more faith in Eddy Cue treating independent artists with fairness but that could change from bad to worse.

 

  I'm basing iTunes not being the same big gorilla in the room based on the factors I mention, not its revenues.  I think if Apple thought it was still in the same "gorilla" position it was ten years ago they wouldn't have made any purchases at all nor hired any outsiders to come in.  iTunes' revenue has grown tremendously since then but so has everything else's revenue that has been a part of the transition completely away from physical media.  What iTunes has lacked is the hipness factor that makes something a go to destination for the 10 to 20 year olds for whom music is a huge part of their lives.  As a purely unscientific observation I just don't see it around me.  I have 16 and 22 year daughters and they and pretty much all of their friends use whatever the latest, coolest services are and sometimes fall back to Pandora and Spotify for what they like about them, and then do iTunes if there's something they have to do there.   I know it's not true, but for all they're concerned iTunes may as well be GooglePlay or Amazon.  It just doesn't occur to them to go there, at least first.  This was unheard of in the years when the only competition was Amazon and whatever other similar, and I'm not referencing the current status but what might lay ahead a few years.  In this regard I see the Beats acquisition almost as much for eliminating a much "hipper" service in the marketplace as buying themselves whatever Beats had to offer.  

 

   When these little unheard of services started showing up I was amazed at the devoted followings they had already acquired by the time I found out about them.   There seemed to be something that was allowing these services to flourish, and in my mind it was coming down to Apple uncharacteristically not having the foresight to target and keep these (mostly young) people who simply didn't want to use their parents' music services.   Again, no figures, just casual observation.   They want Macs and iDevices because they mean something to them.   iTunes not so much.  That needs to change.

 

As far as Rogers favoring labels, I don't feel that, given how he came to recognition as the web designer for The Beastie Boys and was pretty antiestablishment.   He even angered the labels by offering ongoing Beastie Boys live shows for download.  But twenty years (and a stint at Yahoo) can cause plenty of changes  :  )    But from his interviews at Beats over the past year he comes off as pretty in-stooge like.

post #64 of 65
jlandd, yeah agree, Apple does have more competition in music (and other areas) and they don't have high market share like they do when they launch a new service or product. Market share may not be their initial or primary focus. Focus is likely increasing sales, profits and customer loyalty... Like you pretty much explained, not easy to do when there are many strong competitors.
post #65 of 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

Good. Is rather listen to what I want than repeating tracks or stuff I don't want.

But under discussion is iTunes Radio. Which is a radio - not On Demand - service. On Demand costs the vendor lots more. Ten times as much.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Brains behind subscription Beats Music to also oversee Apple's iTunes Radio