Song skipping feature in Apple's 'iRadio' reportedly holding up Sony deal
Adding to an earlier report regarding Apple's much rumored "iRadio" streaming music service, another potential stumbling block has been detailed regarding Sony's unwillingness to agree to "skip song" terms.
Citing sources familiar with the ongoing negotiations, CNET reports Apple and the world's second-largest music label Sony are working to finalize terms pertaining to the supposed streaming service's song skipping feature.
While it appears Sony is open to the idea of allowing users to skip over tracks, the two companies have yet to reach an agreement as to how much Apple should pay for the functionality. The publication notes iRadio's feature set closely resembles that of popular Internet radio option Pandora, including the ability to rewind songs and skip to the next selected track.
The details come after a report published earlier on Friday outlined the many challenges Apple faces in attempting to get its music streaming service off the ground. While Universal Music Group is said to have already signed a contract with Apple, Sony and Warner are holding out for more.
Meanwhile, Google announced its own Internet radio service on Wednesday. Dubbed "All Access," the search giant's solution is more akin to existing offerings from Spotify and Rdio than Pandora in that it has a premium subscription tier.
Apple's iRadio is believed to be a hybrid of sorts, combining free music discovery with possibly for-pay on demand features, as well as the ability to purchase songs from iTunes. As with any music streamer, content owners are concerned about royalty rates, and Apple's supposedly low-ball initial offer likely set back proceedings, which in turn pushed back a quick. launch.
Citing sources familiar with the ongoing negotiations, CNET reports Apple and the world's second-largest music label Sony are working to finalize terms pertaining to the supposed streaming service's song skipping feature.
While it appears Sony is open to the idea of allowing users to skip over tracks, the two companies have yet to reach an agreement as to how much Apple should pay for the functionality. The publication notes iRadio's feature set closely resembles that of popular Internet radio option Pandora, including the ability to rewind songs and skip to the next selected track.
The details come after a report published earlier on Friday outlined the many challenges Apple faces in attempting to get its music streaming service off the ground. While Universal Music Group is said to have already signed a contract with Apple, Sony and Warner are holding out for more.
Meanwhile, Google announced its own Internet radio service on Wednesday. Dubbed "All Access," the search giant's solution is more akin to existing offerings from Spotify and Rdio than Pandora in that it has a premium subscription tier.
Apple's iRadio is believed to be a hybrid of sorts, combining free music discovery with possibly for-pay on demand features, as well as the ability to purchase songs from iTunes. As with any music streamer, content owners are concerned about royalty rates, and Apple's supposedly low-ball initial offer likely set back proceedings, which in turn pushed back a quick. launch.
Comments
When something comes on the radio that you don't like, you jump to a different channel, Sony should know that skipping songs has been around for decades.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
When something comes on the radio that you don't like, you jump to a different channel, Sony should know that skipping songs has been around for decades.
Assuming any of this is even true, it may be an issue of time and payment. To the labels there's a vast difference in someone listening to say 15 seconds and someone listening to 1.5 minutes. Especially when many songs are between 3-4 minutes long. In the latter case you've listened to a good half or close of the song. So Sony may feel like that means they should get a count for a play. But Apple might be saying no on the grounds that really it's no different than when someone plays a preview in the iTunes store and that rule should apply (ie it's only a 'play' if they go over 90 seconds or 30 for the songs under 2 minutes or whatever that whole system is)
"Sources familiar with the matter"... LOL
It's simple. Sony gets a special alert in iRadio:
"I'm sorry but Sony Entertainment restricts your ability to listen to their music. Please send them an email asking for this ability at [email protected]. In the meantime, use our filters to exclude them from your playlist."
Solved.
Good I don't own a single Sony product and I do not need one!
Squeeze him (Sony) Apple Squeeze lol
I am also looking forward to see Apple dominate that Samdung in a huge huge way in coming months and years
No Sony products? So no movies by Sony, no Music by Sony? I have no interest in this story, then why comment?
What happens when people don't want to buy music anymore? Where does that leave iTunes?
Or the Sony camera in his/her iDevice?
I was just wondering, from what it seems like, Apple is making more of a Pandora type service rather than Spotify. Now I tend to like all things Apple and was excited they would provide streaming services. That was until, however, I found out its more of a radio than Spotify. I know Pandora has dominated streaming music for many years, but I think people are jumping the Spotify boat, big time. I did and almost all my friends have. Just being able to listen to exactly what you want, when you want has the most appeal. Being able to hear the newest albums in their entirety is amazing. You can also make playlists, favorite songs, albums, even custom radio streaming.
I really hope Apple goes the Spotify route, if they do, I'm so on board with them. But I think Pandora has lost most of its appeal and Spotify is growing and the future of streaming music. It seems odd that Apple would choose the archaic Pandora route. Maybe they were planning it when Spotify wasn't dominating and Pandora was almost the "giant". I know they're still popular in the streaming world, but I strongly think that will die out in a few years. Hope Apple doesn't follow this route.
Quote:
Originally Posted by marvinmeraz
Hello everyone, this is my first post. Been a "voyeur" for years though (:
I was just wondering, from what it seems like, Apple is making more of a Pandora type service rather than Spotify. Now I tend to like all things Apple and was excited they would provide streaming services. That was until, however, I found out its more of a radio than Spotify. I know Pandora has dominated streaming music for many years, but I think people are jumping the Spotify boat, big time. I did and almost all my friends have. Just being able to listen to exactly what you want, when you want has the most appeal. Being able to hear the newest albums in their entirety is amazing. You can also make playlists, favorite songs, albums, even custom radio streaming.
I really hope Apple goes the Spotify route, if they do, I'm so on board with them. But I think Pandora has lost most of its appeal and Spotify is growing and the future of streaming music. It seems odd that Apple would choose the archaic Pandora route. Maybe they were planning it when Spotify wasn't dominating and Pandora was almost the "giant". I know they're still popular in the streaming world, but I strongly think that will die out in a few years. Hope Apple doesn't follow this route.
The business model isn't clear here - nor how Apple will differentiate itself enough to keep its current franchise and grab a meaningful chunk of the streaming market. Gonna take some kind of special sauce though. Apple doesn't need another "Ping" level success in its music biz - where there's growing competition - to keep its luster.
They've had years to prepare though, so I'd expect and love to see something that's a clear value add to and innovation over existing offerings (including their own).....
When something comes on the radio that you don't like, you jump to a different channel, Sony should know that skipping songs has been around for decades.
But the radio station that you switch from still pays royalties for airing the music, regardless or whether you switch stations of not.@dasanman69
You really believe people will stop buying music.
I am tempted many times to buy one when I heard a song I like. What stopped me is I search for a free one first and if I can't find one I passed.
I use the iTunes radio feature for my listening pleasure. Believe they don't need iRadio and everything is there and if I hear a song I like I use 'SoundHound' to find its name and iTunes is featured there if I want to buy that tune.
With iTunes I can buy and download apps and whatever and not just for buying music, now you know why iTunes is so important to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nairb
But the radio station that you switch from still pays royalties for airing the music, regardless or whether you switch stations of not.This.
The music industry grew up mirroring the value of the audience like 'ad impressions' even if you don't read/listen the ad, the size of the audience determines the 'value' to the music being broadcast. Every set of 'potential' ears and partial plays count to Sony. So if you hear 1 second of the sony, they want a 'full cut,' just like if 1milion people are staring out the window while listening to their local radio station, not paying attention.
iTunes is a huge audience. I'm sure Sony would charge for cover art viewing if there had been admission fees to musics stores in the 70s.;-)
Sony is number 2 in the music business... they have some weight to swing around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jrogowsk
Will some one please clue me in why Apple needs a streaming music service. I could see Apple moving the desktop iTunes Radio service over to the iOS iTunes app. However why does Apple need to be joining the competition to have streaming music when there is Pandora, Spotify, Slacker Radio, iRadio, Lastfm, Rhapsody, and now Google? I apologize for not naming your favorite. Perhaps the future of music is streaming services, but people will still want to purchase music, and Apple has this market. iTunes on iOS should have a music identifying ability such as Shazam, and ensuring the most convenient, and most pleasurable music service is through iTunes. Apple seems wise by encouraging a healthy app ecosystem, not trying to out compete others such as Google too often seems to be doing.
I've been thinking about why Apple's service would reportedly be ad-supported and why they even need one in the first place. This is just an off-the-cuff guess.
I believe it comes down to user data and iAds. A "free" ad-supported Apple music service would tear a page from Google's palybook: trade a little information about yourself and your world in return for a service or feature you'd like to have. Pour a little sugar on it in effect.
So far Apple's ad revenue efforts haven't been as successful as they expected, with potential billions being left on the table. I expect that millions of iDevice owners who otherwise may not be contributing much in the way of personal and location data would need to "opt-in" to sharing search and location in order to receive Apple's music streaming service. When combined with the data they're collecting from users of Apple's new maps along with iTunes user financial data it creates a richer "anonymized" demographic database, the kind of detailed marketing help that advertisers expect. It would also give those advertising customers a lot more exposure with millions of new eyes, thus making iAd a much more valuable resource. How better to give iAds and the resulting revenue a big ol' kick?
If the rumors are true, and they likely are IMHO, a high-profile and widely used Apple service supported by advertising would be a big change in tactics. It won't be done unless the revenues make it worthwhile, especially with potential blow-back from some hard-core Apple fans who may have a (irrational) fear of ad targeting.
If it's not hard cash from the users then Apple is going to get it from the advertisers 'cause it ain't gonna be free. Those ad customers will expect the same type of value they get from companies like Google and to do that Apple is going to need to know and deliver the same kinds of information about their users.
It might also help explain why Google was willing to go all-cash their music streaming. With the Google agreement in hand the music companies can pressure Apple for cash too rather than a split of ad-revenue, which would be be in Google's best interests too. I'm sure they'd love for iAds to remain a bit player.
Just my opinion.
I'm sure negotiations will be concluded in time with the release of IOS 7.