Apple's advantage is one of scale. They would bring so many new users to the streaming model they want lower rates. In the end they will probably bring in lots more cash from streaming than from sales. My kids do buy music but it doesn't add up to 8 bucks per month. Their music habits are fickle - their favourites don't stay favourites for long. They listen via YouTube half the time it seems.
Apple's advantage is one of scale. They would bring so many new users to the streaming model they want lower rates. In the end they will probably bring in lots more cash from streaming than from sales. My kids do buy music but it doesn't add up to 8 bucks per month. Their music habits are fickle - their favourites don't stay favourites for long. They listen via YouTube half the time it seems.
Sad, it seems that everything Apple does these days is tantamount to shooting itself in the foot - over and over again! And who pays the price - the investors! But as Cook has said on a number of occasions (paraphrasing), We don't look at the stock price (yeah, right!), we just concentrate on making the best user experience for our customers. After 25 years of all Apple, I am losing my patience with the ineptitude with which they seem to be carrying on after SJ's death.
Sad, it seems that everything Apple does these days is tantamount to shooting itself in the foot - over and over again! And who pays the price - the investors! But as Cook has said on a number of occasions (paraphrasing), We don't look at the stock price (yeah, right!), we just concentrate on making the best user experience for our customers. After 25 years of all Apple, I am losing my patience with the ineptitude with which they seem to be carrying on after SJ's death.
I would say that the true investors are the people that routinely buy Apple products and services. They are the ones that have taken the company to where it is and not the stockholders.
without howard there would be no point in paying for something you can get for free
Maybe for you.
OTOH, I don't have any local stations that play the endless variety of music or comedy available on XM - without commercials. If I listened to sports, it would be an even bigger advantage for XM.
Isn't this what all the music companies said when Apple came out with iTunes, anyway? Yet iTunes probably saved the industry.
It seems the record companies have short memories of just what an impact Apple has had. Or how much money they're getting from "pirates" who decided to pop $25 a year for iTunes Match to upgrade all their "legally obtained" music.
Why should they pay less? Apple got it's way with iTunes because they were setting a market. They're late to the streaming market and want better deals than the current players. People aren't fond of getting screwed over twice.
Apple doesn't want to launch a service that is an eternal money loser from day one. Look what is happening to Pandora.
Except that it's different. If a listener ends up buying a song through the streaming service (which is the only method of generating revenue these two might have in common), Pandora will send you to the iTunes store to buy the song, where Apple takes their cut, and then the label turns around and pays Pandora a percentage. Apple could in theory use the revenue from Pandora-sourced purchases (and other similar services) to subsidize the cost of their streaming service, which strengthens the iTunes store.
The other difference is that Apple can negotiate from a position of strength being the top music retailer, where Pandora is more beholden to the labels because they don't "sell" anything, per se. Put it this way, Apple NOT having a streaming service isn't hurting them.
Who'd be loosing money if Apple gets a better deal than the competition? The only way they'll get a better deal is because they have a massive user base and as such write larger cheques than anybody. The calculation is more complicated, obviously but I imagine that is what Apple is gunning for - a deal based on volume.
Who'd be loosing money if Apple gets a better deal than the competition? The only way they'll get a better deal is because they have a massive user base and as such write larger cheques than anybody. The calculation is more complicated, obviously but I imagine that is what Apple is gunning for - a deal based on volume.
The music industry of course, but I forget that many here believe that only Apple should make money. Pandora can be used across different platforms so they have a much bigger user base than Apple.
Why should they pay less? Apple got it's way with iTunes because they were setting a market. They're late to the streaming market and want better deals than the current players. People aren't fond of getting screwed over twice.
Volume. Apple would immediately bring more users than Pandora could possibly dream of.
Not to mention, of course, that Apple users have more money to spend than their competitors' customers in most cases.
Volume. Apple would immediately bring more users than Pandora could possibly dream of.
But what if those users stop paying for songs off iTunes (99c per song) and start streaming instead (0.06c per play)? The music industry only offers such low rates to Apple's competitors to counteract iTunes' dominance.
Apple's problems with settling licensing for a streaming music service still wasn't enough to keep Pandora's CEO in the saddle. Record revenues but record losses too led to his resignation today.
I bet all the existing Online streaming revenue added together wouldn't even come close to one tenth of Apple's would be generated revenue at even 6 cents per 100 tracks.
You need HUGE scale for streaming to work. As have been reported earlier the current money flowing from streaming services to artist are dismal.
This would also help to stop the rampant music pirates. Which is good for the industry.
With so much choice available for streaming music (Xbox Music, Pandora, Spotify, etc), why would anyone take such a deal? Any new customers that this new service would bring, would just be existing customers from those other services, there would be no real net gain in consumers.
Comments
Apple's advantage is one of scale. They would bring so many new users to the streaming model they want lower rates. In the end they will probably bring in lots more cash from streaming than from sales. My kids do buy music but it doesn't add up to 8 bucks per month. Their music habits are fickle - their favourites don't stay favourites for long. They listen via YouTube half the time it seems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Who says you need Howard Stern? Apple could buy Sirius and dump the hate channels like Stern's and still come out ahead.
howard is what keep the money flowing
without howard there would be no point in paying for something you can get for free
So lose money and make it up in volume?
Originally Posted by [email protected]
We don't look at the stock price (yeah, right!)…
Why are you contesting this? It plays right into your fallacious argument in the first place.
…we just concentrate on making the best user experience for our customers.
You should have put the "(yeah, right!)" after this part. It makes more sense from a trolling standpoint.
I am losing my patience with the ineptitude with which they seem to be carrying on after SJ's death.
Then sell and forget about Apple entirely. If you're too blind to what they're actually doing, I'm sure they don't care that you'll leave.
I would say that the true investors are the people that routinely buy Apple products and services. They are the ones that have taken the company to where it is and not the stockholders.
Maybe for you.
OTOH, I don't have any local stations that play the endless variety of music or comedy available on XM - without commercials. If I listened to sports, it would be an even bigger advantage for XM.
In the real world, Stern only accounts for a tiny fraction of XM listeners:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-10262493-47.html
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Isn't this what all the music companies said when Apple came out with iTunes, anyway? Yet iTunes probably saved the industry.
It seems the record companies have short memories of just what an impact Apple has had. Or how much money they're getting from "pirates" who decided to pop $25 a year for iTunes Match to upgrade all their "legally obtained" music.
Why should they pay less? Apple got it's way with iTunes because they were setting a market. They're late to the streaming market and want better deals than the current players. People aren't fond of getting screwed over twice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
Apple doesn't want to launch a service that is an eternal money loser from day one. Look what is happening to Pandora.
Except that it's different. If a listener ends up buying a song through the streaming service (which is the only method of generating revenue these two might have in common), Pandora will send you to the iTunes store to buy the song, where Apple takes their cut, and then the label turns around and pays Pandora a percentage. Apple could in theory use the revenue from Pandora-sourced purchases (and other similar services) to subsidize the cost of their streaming service, which strengthens the iTunes store.
The other difference is that Apple can negotiate from a position of strength being the top music retailer, where Pandora is more beholden to the labels because they don't "sell" anything, per se. Put it this way, Apple NOT having a streaming service isn't hurting them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
So lose money and make it up in volume?
Who'd be loosing money if Apple gets a better deal than the competition? The only way they'll get a better deal is because they have a massive user base and as such write larger cheques than anybody. The calculation is more complicated, obviously but I imagine that is what Apple is gunning for - a deal based on volume.
The music industry of course, but I forget that many here believe that only Apple should make money. Pandora can be used across different platforms so they have a much bigger user base than Apple.
So how were they screwed the first time? Apple actually showed them how to do it right AND made them money. Pirating was what was screwing them.
Volume. Apple would immediately bring more users than Pandora could possibly dream of.
Not to mention, of course, that Apple users have more money to spend than their competitors' customers in most cases.
But what if those users stop paying for songs off iTunes (99c per song) and start streaming instead (0.06c per play)? The music industry only offers such low rates to Apple's competitors to counteract iTunes' dominance.
How if every iOS user, every Android user, every Windows user, etc can use Pandora?
Apple's problems with settling licensing for a streaming music service still wasn't enough to keep Pandora's CEO in the saddle. Record revenues but record losses too led to his resignation today.
http://www.theverge.com/2013/3/7/4076582/pandora-ceo-to-resign-following-tough-quarterly-loss
You need HUGE scale for streaming to work. As have been reported earlier the current money flowing from streaming services to artist are dismal.
This would also help to stop the rampant music pirates. Which is good for the industry.
I just hope Apple strike a good deal.
With so much choice available for streaming music (Xbox Music, Pandora, Spotify, etc), why would anyone take such a deal? Any new customers that this new service would bring, would just be existing customers from those other services, there would be no real net gain in consumers.