Apple to give the first hit free with its new streaming service - report

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited May 2015
Apple is reportedly planning to entice consumers to sign up for its new streaming music service by offering a number of try-before-you-buy options, including a lengthy trial period and revamped iTunes Radio stations.




Potential customers could try the new service --?which is thought to be based largely on Beats Music -- for free for as many as three months, according to Re/code. Beats currently offers a two-week free trial.

Additionally, labels and artists could make some portion of their catalogs available for non-subscribers. One song from an album might be available to stream for free, for instance, while a subscription would be required to listen to the rest.

Finally, iTunes Radio could play a larger role with more human-curated stations.

Apple is still negotiating with record labels for new streaming licenses, a process which could delay the service's launch. Many believe that Apple prefers to introduce the service during next month's Worldwide Developers Conference.

Recent reports suggest that Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, who previously served as Beats Music's creative director, is in charge of the project. Beats co-founder and music industry luminary Jimmy Iovine is said to be working to secure exclusive content for the service's launch, which has proven to be a successful strategy for iTunes in the past.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 25
    jakebjakeb Posts: 557member
    This actually sounds pretty nice. And the fact that Trent Reznor oversaw the Beats app and is now overseeing development of this gives me confidence that's it's not going to turn into the soulless UIkit assemblage that Apple's native apps have tended to gravitate towards in recent years.
  • Reply 2 of 25
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jakeb wrote: »
    This actually sounds pretty nice. And the fact that Trent Reznor oversaw the Beats app and is now overseeing development of this gives me confidence that's it's not going to turn into the soulless UIkit assemblage that Apple's native apps have tended to gravitate towards in recent years.

    Hmm...somehow I doubt Trent Reznor will be overseeing user interface design. That's not his responsibility.
  • Reply 3 of 25
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member

    Ad-supported can work. It has worked for terrestrial radio for decades.

     

    If they are not making money now, then there are not enough ads.

  • Reply 4 of 25
    jakebjakeb Posts: 557member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Hmm...somehow I doubt Trent Reznor will be overseeing user interface design. That's not his responsibility.

    Depends on how the team is structured, but if he was essentially the product director at Beats, I think there's hope that a little of that UI flair will make it into the new product.
  • Reply 5 of 25
    xixoxixo Posts: 414member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Hmm...somehow I doubt Trent Reznor will be overseeing user interface design. That's not his responsibility.

     

    he actually knows quite a bit about software

  • Reply 6 of 25
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,264member
    sog35 wrote: »
    ads are the scourge of the earth.

    I hate, hate, hate ads.

    I and hundreds of millions are willing to pay extra for GREAT content without ads.
    Even one of the world's largest search engines understands that and is experimenting with paid search to deliver ad-free sites. Whether people REALLY are willing to pay for services previously ad-supported isn't clear. I'll guess they won't in general. Their words won't match their actions.
  • Reply 7 of 25
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by pfisher View Post

     

    Ad-supported can work. It has worked for terrestrial radio for decades.

     

    If they are not making money now, then there are not enough ads.


     

    ads are the scourge of the earth.

     

    I hate, hate, hate ads.

     

    I and hundreds of millions are willing to pay extra for GREAT content without ads.


     

    That is why music services give people the options. I don't mind an ad every once in awhile to break up the constant music. And terrestrial radio as well: most are ad-supported and some are sponsor-supported.

     

    If hundreds of millions were willing to pay, why are they not paying Spotify or the others? That would be a lot of money. Most people don't pay and don't want to and are willing (and do) put up with commercials on streaming radio.

  • Reply 8 of 25
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jakeb wrote: »
    Depends on how the team is structured, but if he was essentially the product director at Beats, I think there's hope that a little of that UI flair will make it into the new product.

    I don't know exactly how things work inside Apple but the Human Interface team, which I believe is responsible for UI design, actually report into Jony Ive. A guy by the name of Alan Dye oversees that team. He was featured in that Wired story on the Watch. Another reason I don't expect much Beats UI flair is the music app in 8.4 pretty much follows the UI of iOS 8. Of course they could be holding back a new design for this streaming music launch but I won't be surprised if it looks a lot like the rest of iOS 8.
  • Reply 9 of 25
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    xixo wrote: »
    he actually knows quite a bit about software

    But does his role at Apple involve user interface design? I'm guessing not, unless the iTunes team has their own set of UI designers. Even if they do the music and iTunes apps look just like the rest of iOS 8 so I'm not expecting this new app to have a completely different look.
  • Reply 10 of 25
    kkerstkkerst Posts: 330member

    I guess I'm old but I will never ever pay for radio. It astounds me kids:

     


    • Don't want to own music

    • Would rather pay for something that is free already. It's called broadcast radio.

  • Reply 11 of 25
    jkmutahjkmutah Posts: 1member

    I'm looking forward to this new streaming service.  I've really loved Beats Music but it could definitely use some tweaks including easier ways to see newly released albums, etc.  I'm hoping to see it soon but I'm guessing OS 9.

  • Reply 12 of 25
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kkerst View Post

     

    I guess I'm old but I will never ever pay for radio. It astounds me kids:

     


    • Don't want to own music

    • Would rather pay for something that is free already. It's called broadcast radio.




    There are terrestrial stations now that don't have DJs and mostly only play music. They are fine to listen to. The fewer the better.

  • Reply 13 of 25
    konqerrorkonqerror Posts: 685member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kkerst View Post

     

    I guess I'm old but I will never ever pay for radio. It astounds me kids:

     


    • Don't want to own music

    • Would rather pay for something that is free already. It's called broadcast radio.


     

    Ah, the baby boomer generation... This is why my parents will die with crap like jewelry and "antiques" that serve no purpose.



    1. If you're only going to use something for a limited period, renting makes more fiscal sense.

    2. You're being sold by broadcast radio stations. It's called ads.

  • Reply 14 of 25
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,963member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Good news.

    Those free music services are killing the music industry.

    Then why did they agree to it?
  • Reply 15 of 25
    kkerstkkerst Posts: 330member
    I'm not a baby boomer. I guess I'm a gen-X'r.

    If you give money for something equivalent, that money is lost. I understand curation, but it better really good before I'd pay for it. Even then, I doubt it.
  • Reply 16 of 25
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

    Good news.

     

    Those free music services are killing the music industry.


    Those "free" music services are "free" only in the sense that Google services are "free." Just like with Google services, you have a choice of paying for those music services either through direct subscriptions (like with the paid tier of Google apps) or by being targeted for ads. Make no mistake, all the relevant players are getting paid one way or another, if not through user subscription fees, then through ad revenue. 

  • Reply 17 of 25
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,751member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by d4NjvRzf View Post

     

    Those "free" music services are "free" only in the sense that Google services are "free." Just like with Google services, you have a choice of paying for those music services either through direct subscriptions (like with the paid tier of Google apps) or by being targeted for ads. Make no mistake, all the relevant players are getting paid one way or another, if not through user subscription fees, then through ad revenue. 


     

     

    Right... That's why Spotify is losing money (despite the crappy ads) and the label and artists revenues are in the toilet, because everyone is "making money". Seemingly they're not. Maybe that's why Spotify is playing down the ad supported services these days.

     

    Unlike radio, that effectively promotes the sale of artists work and doesn't affect their sales, the ads on streaming service have a tendency to not promote new artists (streaming charts says people just play what they like already, logic since it's replacing sales) and killing their future sales too if someone does get interested. So, it is a nasty combo.

  • Reply 18 of 25
    d4njvrzfd4njvrzf Posts: 797member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by foggyhill View Post

     

     

     

    Right... That's why Spotify is losing money (despite the crappy ads) and the label and artists revenues are in the toilet, because everyone is "making money". Seemingly they're not. Maybe that's why Spotify is playing down the ad supported services these days.

     

    Unlike radio, that effectively promotes the sale of artists work and doesn't affect their sales, the ads on streaming service have a tendency to not promote new artists (streaming charts says people just play what they like already, logic since it's replacing sales) and killing their future sales too if someone does get interested. So, it is a nasty combo.


    Spotify wouldn't be bleeding money if the artists weren't getting paid. Licensing costs form the bulk of Spotify's operating expenses.

  • Reply 19 of 25
    conrailconrail Posts: 489member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pfisher View Post

     

    Ad-supported can work. It has worked for terrestrial radio for decades.

     

    If they are not making money now, then there are not enough ads.




    Ads on traditional radio paid the radio station's bills.  The records played translated into albums sold for the record companies.

     

    People aren't buying albums anymore.

  • Reply 20 of 25
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,963member
    conrail wrote: »

    Ads on traditional radio paid the radio station's bills.  The records played translated into albums sold for the record companies.

    People aren't buying albums anymore.

    And whose fault is that?
Sign In or Register to comment.