It's not like Apple found the iTunes services and infrastructure and an army of support staff laying on the side of the road like magic beans. Apple invested huge amounts of capital and resources creating and building out the services and infrastructure, not to mention keeping it going 24x7x365 all the while trying to satiate a huge and infinitely demanding customer base always looking for more and more and more. Then we could talk about all the naysayers and roadblockers that tried to kill iTunes and the 99 cent model before it even got to the runway.
It gets rather tiresome to listen to the whiners who assume that Apple got everything they currently have without having paid a huge price or taken on tremendous risk. There is always some luck involved with random success but repeated and purposeful success that spans across different product domains is always earned. Nobody is that lucky.
The pro-Apple zealots can fry me for all I care, but this sort of scrutiny is par for the course given Apple's size and influence today. The problem is that success and size have come so quickly and so dramatically for Apple that it has not-- and we have not -- grown out of its "small, beleaguered" company mentality.
Apple, like the proverbial Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion, whether it likes it or (and its fans like it or not). There will be more and more of this type of unwarranted, obtrusive scrutiny. Either allow in all sorts of competition, or, Apple has to simply get out of these types of businesses -- ebooks, streaming, etc. Much to our frustration, it means giving up some principles so that Apple can keep its larger profits.
It is no wonder that the stock is taking such a beating despite the incredible financial performance.
Indeed. Apple's new music service doesn't even exist yet (Beats is not the final product, thank God) and the other players are already crying foul.
Spotify has been the only game in town for too long, and although it was a welcome idea when it arrived, it's long overdue for some competition. Plus, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Spotify is paying almost nothing to artists while reaping huge profits, so frankly I'll be happy to see it go for options that are better designed and hopefully more profitable for artists.
Indeed. Apple's new music service doesn't even exist yet (Beats is not the final product, thank God) and the other players are already crying foul.
Spotify has been the only game in town for too long, and although it was a welcome idea when it arrived, it's long overdue for some competition. Plus, as mentioned earlier in this thread, Spotify is paying almost nothing to artists while reaping huge profits, so frankly I'll be happy to see it go for options that are better designed and hopefully more profitable for artists.
Unfortunately, many authors and writers said the same thing about Amazon and iBooks. Look where it got them (and Apple).
< Regardless, they should all be paying the same royalty rate as terrestrial radio, cause its the same damn thing... a business broadcasting a song. If anything the internet streaming rates should be higher, since their reach exceeds a radio stations broadcast's range....>
I think that the royalty rate should be higher than radio. Traditional radio was totally random music coming at you, loosely arranged by different stations into categories that were extremely broad. Services like Spotify allow you to request a specific artist(s) and unlimited songs and albums by name; this has got to be worth more to the listener, and certainly to the artist. They could track when the specific tracks are requested by name and pay a higher rate for that while paying a lower (radio style) rate for streaming music that fits a general mood request.
I don't see yet how Apple is abusing any power to negotiate better deals for themselves and the artist behind the music. However what bugs me is this niggling feeling that Spotify will try to have Apple indicted because the consumer will have to pay a bit more. If their business model is predicated on paying artist essentially pocket money, I don't think that that is worth consumer protection in the least. Music is free everyday on the radio, 24/7; no one is being harmed by artists getting more fair compensation for the highly risky work that they take on.
Anyone else think Spotify sees the bullet headed for their head? I love how everybody tries to play that anti-competitive trump card when they feel threatened.
Them and their investors do. They know that if you have a service that you can easily use and across all devices and Apple TV that they will really hurt them. You add in the fact that most labels are used to Apple and to be clear Apple really helped the music industry when CD's died..
The real problem with Spotify and other streaming services (as recently pointed out by Jason Calacanis when he visited This Week in Tech) is that they are not making money now and will soon have to pay much, much higher licensing fees. Their original agreements contained low music licensing fees and those low rates will expire, essentially putting them into bankruptcy.
There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with Apple's App Store policies. The problem is these streaming services are bad businesses and cannot make money!
but they all strive to be like Netflix, look up Netflix's stock price, please.
Reminds me a little bit of when Microsoft included internet explorer with windows. Microsoft got put through the ringer because they were so large. If they hadn't been that large at the time, they wouldn't have gotten the lawsuit.
I love Apple products as much as anyone, but as Apple gets in the streaming game it is going to HAVE to change. These are serious anti-competitive issues that will not go away. We do not want to see happen to Spotify what happened to EVERYONE under Windows. If Apple doesn't address this, they should get their asses sued big time.
Spotify has a great service, and if the only way Apple can compete with them is the Walmart or Microsoft way, where by nothing but sheer virtue of size, and keys to the store, then it makes competition impossible, and that's fucked up and always has been. That's why anti monopoly laws were created in the first place.
Reminds me a little bit of when Microsoft included internet explorer with windows. Microsoft got put through the ringer because they were so large. If they hadn't been that large at the time, they wouldn't have gotten the lawsuit.
Apple doesn't have a majority in smart phones. Google reminds us that Android is "winning" the market share battle.
Somebody call the Waaaahmbulance. Apple was selling music before Spotify even existed. Hell, I'm pretty sure the iOS App Store itself predates Spotify.
The ironic thing is that all this publicity is just exposing the fact that spotify doesn't pay artists a fair price, a fact that hasn't necessarily been in the forefront of the publics' consciousness until now. This may just end up hurting spotify in the long run.
The thing is, it's not the early 2000's anymore and public sentiment has turned towards making sure artists get their fair share of the pie. I don't know what apple has planned with regards to this aspect of the business but spotify may not be the victim it hopes to be in this narrative.
No Spotify, you don't HAVE to charge $13, you choose to. How about charging the same $10 and make up the difference in the volume sales through the internet's biggest music store affords. Boo-hoo.
Block all you want. Cover your eyes ears and mouth. That is the reality and what WILL happen. It would be unthinkable for regulatory arms to not take action, besides being unethical.
If you compared Apple to Sony Playstation online store. They are at least cheaper. Subscribing to playstation vue with only 25 channels cost $50 per month once u reached 65 channels u pay $80. If you buy dlc contents for your games online. The developers can decided how much it costs which means some DLC contents can charge up to any prices they want which is purely unfair to the consumers.
Anyone else think Spotify sees the bullet headed for their head? I love how everybody tries to play that anti-competitive trump card when they feel threatened.
Yeah, this is just Spotify, using the easily tapped 'Apple hate vein', to pressure Apple. All Spotify are saying as far as I understand it is that they want Apple to sell their product in Apple's store for free? Who does that?
Spotify is a leech, gonna have to agree with the artists on this one. i will and do pay for tons of CD's and converted any "pirated mp3's" i could replace with actual lossless files taken from cd's that I purchased.
The piece of crap sound quality of youtube and spotify, etc. is not the experience I want. The spotify's of the world also have limited internation music tracks that are important to my family.
Spotify is pretty high quality. Just set the "Extreme" quality in the "Music Quality" settings menu...
I love Apple products as much as anyone, but as Apple gets in the streaming game it is going to HAVE to change. These are serious anti-competitive issues that will not go away. We do not want to see happen to Spotify what happened to EVERYONE under Windows. If Apple doesn't address this, they should get their asses sued big time.
Spotify has a great service, and if the only way Apple can compete with them is the Walmart or Microsoft way, where by nothing but sheer virtue of size, and keys to the store, then it makes competition impossible, and that's fucked up and always has been. That's why anti monopoly laws were created in the first place.
While I can sympathize, and am disappointed but no surprised at the people insulting other companies for voicing a valid complaint, Apple had to institute this policy so as not to lose significant revenue from "free" apps that were chock full of in app purchase functionality such as many games and dating/social apps such as POF and Skout. Not only that, but expecting Apple to host the distribution of your app through its service while not charging you a dime, isn't very realistic. Now if Apple would relax its restrictions on how users install apps to their devices, this wouldn't be an issue, but I don't see that ever happening. Basically, if you have to charge an extra three dollars just to break even, do so and call it a convenience fee or find a work around.
Comments
It gets rather tiresome to listen to the whiners who assume that Apple got everything they currently have without having paid a huge price or taken on tremendous risk. There is always some luck involved with random success but repeated and purposeful success that spans across different product domains is always earned. Nobody is that lucky.
The pro-Apple zealots can fry me for all I care, but this sort of scrutiny is par for the course given Apple's size and influence today. The problem is that success and size have come so quickly and so dramatically for Apple that it has not-- and we have not -- grown out of its "small, beleaguered" company mentality.
Apple, like the proverbial Caesar's wife, must be above suspicion, whether it likes it or (and its fans like it or not). There will be more and more of this type of unwarranted, obtrusive scrutiny. Either allow in all sorts of competition, or, Apple has to simply get out of these types of businesses -- ebooks, streaming, etc. Much to our frustration, it means giving up some principles so that Apple can keep its larger profits.
It is no wonder that the stock is taking such a beating despite the incredible financial performance.
Unfortunately, many authors and writers said the same thing about Amazon and iBooks. Look where it got them (and Apple).
< Regardless, they should all be paying the same royalty rate as terrestrial radio, cause its the same damn thing... a business broadcasting a song. If anything the internet streaming rates should be higher, since their reach exceeds a radio stations broadcast's range....>
I think that the royalty rate should be higher than radio. Traditional radio was totally random music coming at you, loosely arranged by different stations into categories that were extremely broad. Services like Spotify allow you to request a specific artist(s) and unlimited songs and albums by name; this has got to be worth more to the listener, and certainly to the artist. They could track when the specific tracks are requested by name and pay a higher rate for that while paying a lower (radio style) rate for streaming music that fits a general mood request.
I don't see yet how Apple is abusing any power to negotiate better deals for themselves and the artist behind the music. However what bugs me is this niggling feeling that Spotify will try to have Apple indicted because the consumer will have to pay a bit more. If their business model is predicated on paying artist essentially pocket money, I don't think that that is worth consumer protection in the least. Music is free everyday on the radio, 24/7; no one is being harmed by artists getting more fair compensation for the highly risky work that they take on.
Anyone else think Spotify sees the bullet headed for their head? I love how everybody tries to play that anti-competitive trump card when they feel threatened.
Them and their investors do. They know that if you have a service that you can easily use and across all devices and Apple TV that they will really hurt them. You add in the fact that most labels are used to Apple and to be clear Apple really helped the music industry when CD's died..
but they all strive to be like Netflix, look up Netflix's stock price, please.
There is no money to be made in streaming audio at the price point Spotify has established.
Apple doesn't have a majority in smart phones. Google reminds us that Android is "winning" the market share battle.
Apple isn't Microsoft.
The thing is, it's not the early 2000's anymore and public sentiment has turned towards making sure artists get their fair share of the pie. I don't know what apple has planned with regards to this aspect of the business but spotify may not be the victim it hopes to be in this narrative.
Block all you want. Cover your eyes ears and mouth. That is the reality and what WILL happen. It would be unthinkable for regulatory arms to not take action, besides being unethical.
If you compared Apple to Sony Playstation online store. They are at least cheaper. Subscribing to playstation vue with only 25 channels cost $50 per month once u reached 65 channels u pay $80. If you buy dlc contents for your games online. The developers can decided how much it costs which means some DLC contents can charge up to any prices they want which is purely unfair to the consumers.
Anyone else think Spotify sees the bullet headed for their head? I love how everybody tries to play that anti-competitive trump card when they feel threatened.
Yeah, this is just Spotify, using the easily tapped 'Apple hate vein', to pressure Apple. All Spotify are saying as far as I understand it is that they want Apple to sell their product in Apple's store for free? Who does that?
Spotify is a leech, gonna have to agree with the artists on this one. i will and do pay for tons of CD's and converted any "pirated mp3's" i could replace with actual lossless files taken from cd's that I purchased.
The piece of crap sound quality of youtube and spotify, etc. is not the experience I want. The spotify's of the world also have limited internation music tracks that are important to my family.
Spotify is pretty high quality. Just set the "Extreme" quality in the "Music Quality" settings menu...