Beats Music rebranding may not be imminent, as Apple still doesn't have necessary licenses
Despite rumors that Apple could rebrand and relaunch Beats Music as soon as next month's Worldwide Developers Conference, a new report suggests that's unlikely, as the company apparently does not have the licensing deals finalized for such a change.
Citing sources within the music industry, Billboard reported on Tuesday that while a June launch remains "attainable," some at record labels believe it simply won't get done in time. Apple's WWDC will kick off with a keynote presentation announcing new products and the next-generation versions of iOS and OS X June 8.
Apple is said to have been able to secure necessary deals at the last minute in the past. But with just over a month to go until WWDC starts, it seems less and less likely to some in the industry that the Beats Music rebranding is imminent.
The comments would seem to suggest that the licenses Apple obtained for Beats Music are not transferrable. It's believed that Apple wants to rebrand the service to bring it under the company's hugely successful iTunes umbrella, which includes the iTunes Store and iTunes Radio.
Apple is widely rumored to be working on a subscription-based streaming music service built on the Beats Music framework. Recent reports put Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor at the helm of Apple's unannounced project, which could feature artist exclusives and launch with a price tag of at least $9.99 per month.
The current Beats Music service is similar to Spotify, charging users a monthly fee to access unlimited streaming music. Features that differentiate Beats Music include a "humanized" playlist function that allows for sharing and promoting of user-curated content.
Citing sources within the music industry, Billboard reported on Tuesday that while a June launch remains "attainable," some at record labels believe it simply won't get done in time. Apple's WWDC will kick off with a keynote presentation announcing new products and the next-generation versions of iOS and OS X June 8.
Apple is said to have been able to secure necessary deals at the last minute in the past. But with just over a month to go until WWDC starts, it seems less and less likely to some in the industry that the Beats Music rebranding is imminent.
The comments would seem to suggest that the licenses Apple obtained for Beats Music are not transferrable. It's believed that Apple wants to rebrand the service to bring it under the company's hugely successful iTunes umbrella, which includes the iTunes Store and iTunes Radio.
Apple is widely rumored to be working on a subscription-based streaming music service built on the Beats Music framework. Recent reports put Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor at the helm of Apple's unannounced project, which could feature artist exclusives and launch with a price tag of at least $9.99 per month.
The current Beats Music service is similar to Spotify, charging users a monthly fee to access unlimited streaming music. Features that differentiate Beats Music include a "humanized" playlist function that allows for sharing and promoting of user-curated content.
Comments
Work as hard as you want. I'll never buy a subscription service that is tied to one company's hardware. Let me use it on what ever device I have and I'll buy in.
Beats is on multiple devices, as is iTunes...
Blame your own countries and the license holders, not Apple. There's only so much they can do.
PS: iTunes Radio is available in Australia too.
Beats is on multiple devices, as is iTunes...
Sure, it is now. If they keep it that way and it's better than what I use now, I'll gladly switch over.
Hurry up and get it done. I Want to get out of Spotify and into this new vehicle to support Apple.
EDIT: These are the countries with available music subscriptions from a particular competitor:
Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Others companies seem to have managed to do so. I've no doubt Apple could too if they really wanted to. IMO it's a simple business decision thy made to hold off on it.
EDIT: These are the countries with available music subscriptions from a particular competitor:
Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
I agree - Apple are moving too slowly on this front. Amazon, Spotify and others have managed to 'negotiate' suitable terms or just forced the industry to accept their rules. Surely Apple is in a much stronger position given the history to do the same - just push it out and sort out the agreements once you have a critical mass - with over a billion iOS devices sold they are in an unstoppable position. Stop pandering to the industry and force them to adapt to your new model.
Hurry up and get it done. I Want to get out of Spotify and into this new vehicle to support Apple.
Same here.
For what ??
Hurry up and get it done. I Want to get out of Spotify and into this new vehicle to support Apple.
I'd rather support what ever is the best service regardless of the company.
I'd rather support what ever is the best service regardless of the company.
SCAB!!! just kidding... well outside of the User Interface, the services (content) will be pretty much the same. I mean
how different can you get outside of music artist exclusives, etc.
SCAB!!! just kidding... well outside of the User Interface, the services (content) will be pretty much the same. I mean
how different can you get outside of music artist exclusives, etc.
Haha! Correct. The content will be about the same with most services. My requirements are: Able to use it on what ever platform I want (iOS/Android), have a web based interface that I don't have to download a program to run it, and a good enough UI. The first two are a must.
So for me, right now I use Google Play Music. I got in early when it started so I only pay $7.99 a month. I logged into my girlfriends iPhone and she can listen to it as well. No ads ever, unlimited skips, any song/album at any time, YouTube videos built in, web interface, plays on my iPhone 6 Plus and Note 4 and iPad Air 2, or any one of the many devices I have which also includes my Chromecast, ATV, Roku. For me it's perfect right now.
Blame your own countries and the license holders, not Apple. There's only so much they can do.
PS: iTunes Radio is available in Australia too.
How do you really know that Apple Inc doesn't care to deal with smaller markets? I can see them ignoring many countries because the bang for the buck is not there.
not really, they've had 12 months.
Agreed.
Blame your own countries and the license holders, not Apple. There's only so much they can do.
PS: iTunes Radio is available in Australia too.
I think others have already responded to you with roughly the same I would tell you as well, but there's one more thing I don't understand - why are there no legal issues to have iTunes in all countries in first place? How much is iTunes Radio different from iTunes that it suddenly can't be everywhere, when in fact it's essentially only an extension to the existing iTunes service? Something tells me Beats Music will unfortunately be the very same story.
Worse yet, Beats Music won't be available internationally anyway, just like iTunes Radio or Apple Pay. I know I'll get a lot of hate for these comments, but I'm just stating the facts, Apple has essentially become a US-centric company over the last few years and as a result of that their own ecosystem now starts to become fragmented. Honestly I don't care what legal issues prevent them from overcoming these obstacles (not sure they even try), but either they come up with solutions that work all around the world or people will start looking elsewhere, unless they only care about the US market now.
Think about it... Wouldn't Apple desperately want to extend their products and service as widely as possible? The likely obstacles are the music and movie industries, and perhaps European regulatory agencies.
Others companies seem to have managed to do so. I've no doubt Apple could too if they really wanted to. IMO it's a simple business decision thy made to hold off on it.
EDIT: These are the countries with available music subscriptions from a particular competitor:
Australia, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bolivia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Mexico, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela.
Why all the mystery surrounding the name of the competitor?
I'd rather support what ever is the best service regardless of the company.
I agree with you in principle, but when it comes to computers, smartphones, and tablets I'm not the least bit tempted when an Apple competitor comes out with some new feature first. So the term "best" is somewhat subjective, and should consider criteria beyond price and number of songs.