It was previously reported that Apple was driving hard bargains with record labels and content owners in hopes of offering consumers a cheaper alternative, but today's report suggests those talks were fruitless.
How much did Apple pay for Lovine and Dre's contacts and abilities to negotiate, again?
I think the same $10/mo, but they also have a free trial period (60 days maybe?) just as Apple is rumored to include. You're probably right about the time-restricted exclusives since they already do that with iTunes. No reason for the subscription service to be any different is there?
I don't think the basics are different. But from a company culture standpoint, music is a Steve Jobs legacy, and Apple treats it very seriously. So much so that the FTC is concerned that Apple carries too much weight and many advantages in online music distribution that are barriers to entry for competition. It isn't monopoly behavior, per se, but a culture that overshadows all others, and is perceived and acknowledged by musicians, industry, and listeners as the premier player.
I don't think the basics are different. But from a company culture standpoint, music is a Steve Jobs legacy, and Apple treats it very seriously. So much so that the FTC is concerned that Apple carries too much weight and many advantages in online music distribution that are barriers to entry for competition.
I don't think that was the rumored reason for the FTC and EU competition authorities looking into it. I t was just a tad more than that, and I'm not saying an investigation is validation either. But I get the point you wish to make.
I don't think that was the rumored reason for the FTC and EU competition authorities looking into it. I t was just a tad more than that, and I'm not saying an investigation is validation either. But I get the point you wish to make.
Apple has pushed the meme that free should die, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is the labels that have control over that, and they agree with Apple. The FTC an EU would be out of line to punish Apple for stating the obvious.
Google and Amazon are working together to cut prices for streaming by reducing the cut to the labels and musicians.
Apple has pushed the meme that free should die, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is the labels that have control over that, and they agree with Apple. The FTC an EU would be out of line to punish Apple for stating the obvious.
Google and Amazon are working together to cut prices for streaming by reducing the cut to the labels and musicians.
And for this reason alone the labels should be anxious to do a deal with Apple.
Apple has pushed the meme that free should die, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is the labels that have control over that, and they agree with Apple. The FTC an EU would be out of line to punish Apple for stating the obvious.
Google and Amazon are working together to cut prices for streaming by reducing the cut to the labels and musicians.
They are? I'd not seen that tho it wouldn't be any surprise. The only thing I've seen rumors of is Apple trying to do so, hoping they could get the subscription down to as little as $6 or so by cutting what the musicians and labels would get.
EDIT: The AI article alludes to the pressure Apple is putting on the labels/performers/writers to accept lower royalties. " It was previously reported that Apple was driving hard bargains with record labels and content owners in hopes of offering consumers a cheaper alternative..."
As the big dog maybe Apple can get them to do so too, sharing less with them percentage-wise than the smaller Google or Amazon was able to wrangle.
They are? I'd not seen that tho it wouldn't be any surprise. The only thing I've seen rumors of is Apple trying to do so, hoping they could get the subscription down to as little as $6 or so by cutting what the musicians and labels would get.
EDIT: The AI article alludes to the pressure Apple is putting on the labels/performers/writers to accept lower royalties. " It was previously reported that Apple was driving hard bargains with record labels and content owners in hopes of offering consumers a cheaper alternative..."
As the big dog maybe Apple can get them to do so too, sharing less with them percentage-wise than the smaller Google or Amazon was able to wrangle.
As far as streaming music goes, I can't imagine them doing it any other way. What sort of options/tiers can they put in with streaming music anyway? [disclaimer: I'm not all that imaginative with marketing]
1. Ads vs. no ads (why pay for ads? -- seems to work for ESPN though)
2. Radio style vs. playlist (choose the channel vs. choose the songs)
3. For radio style limited/no skipping vs. unlimited skipping
4. Expanded catalogue for higher priced tiers -- can't fathom them doing this
They are? I'd not seen that tho it wouldn't be any surprise. The only thing I've seen rumors of is Apple trying to do so, hoping they could get the subscription down to as little as $6 or so by cutting what the musicians and labels would get.
EDIT: The AI article alludes to the pressure Apple is putting on the labels/performers/writers to accept lower royalties. " It was previously reported that Apple was driving hard bargains with record labels and content owners in hopes of offering consumers a cheaper alternative..."
As the big dog maybe Apple can get them to do so too, sharing less with them percentage-wise than the smaller Google or Amazon was able to wrangle.
Apple negotiates only with the labels, and the rumor I heard is that they wanted a $7.99 a month service.
Your concern is noted for the writers and performers, but in fact, any negotiation with the labels will impact what they make. This applies to Google and Amazon as well. Unfortunately for the artists, neither Google nor Amazon is anywhere close to generating the revenues for them that Apple does.
FWIW I think you can download playlists to over your smartphone over wifi on Google Music to avoid streaming costs. Download now, listen later.
What confuses me is how GOOG was able to get the licenses in place a year ago (and in dozens of countries) but Apple is having trouble doing so. They are both subscription and they'll be in the same price range too if the Apple rumored price is correct.. Anyone got an idea why the negotiations are a problem? Is Apple low-balling the content owners? Is it something else? Maybe there's no problem anyway and this is just a bogus rumor.
This sounds like the time the record labels authorized Amazon to go DRM-free while withholding the authorization from Apple.
On the Google front, for some reason my memory has focused on ad-sharing revenue being apart of the Google deal.
Thanks for the link. So they're doing the same as Apple then?
It was noted that Apple was specifically not part of that group, so no, not close to the same. That group, MIC, is attempting to change the royalty rates for musicians. MusicFirst, which is the artists, is fighting the MIC group which includes Google and Amazon.
This is not in anyway the same situation as negotiations with the labels for streaming rights or music download rights. In that, Google and Amazon will be in exactly the same situation as Apple.
If anything, MIC is a much more egregious play against musicians.
It was noted that Apple was specifically not part of that group, so no, not close to the same. That group, MIC, is attempting to change the royalty rates for musicians. MusicFirst, which is the artists, is fighting the MIC group which includes Google and Amazon.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">This is not in anyway the same situation as negotiations with the labels for streaming rights or music download rights. In that, Google and Amazon will be in exactly the same situation as Apple.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">If anything, MIC is a much more egregious play against musicians.</span>
HUH? Did you read it?
"... mission to drive down the royalties it pays artists/labels and songwriters/publishers" How is that different again?
You mentioned musicians. What they want is "the establishment of a sound recording royalty for AM/FM radio, removing satellite radio’s below-market-rate exemption, and treating pre-1972 recordings with the same level of respect as those made after February of 1972". That would have very little to do with anything Google offers outside potentially the pre-72 recordings. It's not Google Music.
"... mission to drive down the royalties it pays artists/labels and songwriters/publishers" How is that different again?
This is for digital performance royalties, the equivalent of per song royalties that terrestrial radio pays, and only songwriters and publishers, not the performers, are compensated.
Pandora’s mission to drive down the royalties it pays artists/labels and songwriters/publishers just got some heavy back-up – in the shape of Google and Amazon.
The duo have joined the likes of Pandora, IHeartMedia, NPR, and the National Restaurant Association as members of new lobbying group ‘The MIC (Music, Innovators, Consumers) Coalition’.
These companies know that these are crucial times for the future of royalty payments in the US, the world’s largest recorded music territory:
The Department of Justice is currently reviewing the statutory rates that publishers can charge for digital performance royalties. The publishers are lobbying for the ability to pull their digital negotiation rights out of ASCAP and BMI – which would mean a change in the country’s Consent Decrees. This would allow them to put direct commercial pressure on the likes of Pandora for higher rates;
Meanwhile, the Copyright Review Board is mulling revisions to the statutory royalty rate paid to labels and artists through SoundExchange. Pandora wants to push its per-stream payout down, while SoundExchange is lobbying to double it to around $0.0025 per play;
In no way is this the equivalent of music streaming services that Apple is negotiating licenses; though it likely covers iTunes Radio. While Apple and Spotify are not involved with MIC, they might be beneficiaries of lower royalties.
You appear to be totally unable to comprehend the differences between internet radio and streaming from a rights standpoint.
Here's a hint.
Internet radio gives you channel selections, but they select the music.
Music streaming; you choose what you want to play and when.
You appear to be totally unable to comprehend the differences between internet radio and streaming from a rights standpoint.
Hardly since I pointed out that it's a market Google Music doesn't cover. Google Music doesn't have free internet radio either altho iTunes Radio might fall in that category.
Hardly since I pointed out that it's a market Google Music doesn't cover. Google Music doesn't have free internet radio either altho iTunes Radio might fall in that category.
So why is Google even involved? Are they hedging their bets on some future internet radio?
So why is Google even involved? Are they hedging their bets on some future internet radio?
At any rate, Apple isn't part of that.
If you read the article you would know why they would take an interest in it. Little doubt Apple has an interest too but apparently they would rather someone else do the work.
If you read the article you would know why they would take an interest in it. Little doubt Apple has an interest too but apparently they would rather someone else do the work.
I stated that Apple might benefit, and neither of us know of Apple's position on this, but as you say Google and Amazon, et al are doing the dirty work.
Publicly doing the dirty work I might add. But nice attempt at trying to drag Apple through the mud.
Comments
How much did Apple pay for Lovine and Dre's contacts and abilities to negotiate, again?
I think the same $10/mo, but they also have a free trial period (60 days maybe?) just as Apple is rumored to include. You're probably right about the time-restricted exclusives since they already do that with iTunes. No reason for the subscription service to be any different is there?
I don't think the basics are different. But from a company culture standpoint, music is a Steve Jobs legacy, and Apple treats it very seriously. So much so that the FTC is concerned that Apple carries too much weight and many advantages in online music distribution that are barriers to entry for competition. It isn't monopoly behavior, per se, but a culture that overshadows all others, and is perceived and acknowledged by musicians, industry, and listeners as the premier player.
Apple is the Superpower in music.
I don't think that was the rumored reason for the FTC and EU competition authorities looking into it. I t was just a tad more than that, and I'm not saying an investigation is validation either. But I get the point you wish to make.
*Beats made 1.5B in 2013.
That was earnings. I bet their profit was somewhat less.
I don't think that was the rumored reason for the FTC and EU competition authorities looking into it. I t was just a tad more than that, and I'm not saying an investigation is validation either. But I get the point you wish to make.
Apple has pushed the meme that free should die, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is the labels that have control over that, and they agree with Apple. The FTC an EU would be out of line to punish Apple for stating the obvious.
Google and Amazon are working together to cut prices for streaming by reducing the cut to the labels and musicians.
added link
http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/google-amazon-and-pandora-join-forces-to-fight-music-industry-over-royalty-rates/
Apple has pushed the meme that free should die, but I don't see anything wrong with that. It is the labels that have control over that, and they agree with Apple. The FTC an EU would be out of line to punish Apple for stating the obvious.
Google and Amazon are working together to cut prices for streaming by reducing the cut to the labels and musicians.
And for this reason alone the labels should be anxious to do a deal with Apple.
EDIT: The AI article alludes to the pressure Apple is putting on the labels/performers/writers to accept lower royalties. " It was previously reported that Apple was driving hard bargains with record labels and content owners in hopes of offering consumers a cheaper alternative..."
As the big dog maybe Apple can get them to do so too, sharing less with them percentage-wise than the smaller Google or Amazon was able to wrangle.
They are? I'd not seen that tho it wouldn't be any surprise. The only thing I've seen rumors of is Apple trying to do so, hoping they could get the subscription down to as little as $6 or so by cutting what the musicians and labels would get.
EDIT: The AI article alludes to the pressure Apple is putting on the labels/performers/writers to accept lower royalties. " It was previously reported that Apple was driving hard bargains with record labels and content owners in hopes of offering consumers a cheaper alternative..."
As the big dog maybe Apple can get them to do so too, sharing less with them percentage-wise than the smaller Google or Amazon was able to wrangle.
I added the link; but I'll post it here.
http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/google-amazon-and-pandora-join-forces-to-fight-music-industry-over-royalty-rates/
I should have stated that this was specifically wrt streaming radio, i.e., Panora, and similar services.
I hope Apple wont do a one price fit all system.
As far as streaming music goes, I can't imagine them doing it any other way. What sort of options/tiers can they put in with streaming music anyway? [disclaimer: I'm not all that imaginative with marketing]
1. Ads vs. no ads (why pay for ads? -- seems to work for ESPN though)
2. Radio style vs. playlist (choose the channel vs. choose the songs)
3. For radio style limited/no skipping vs. unlimited skipping
4. Expanded catalogue for higher priced tiers -- can't fathom them doing this
5. Higher bit rate for more expensive tiers
They are? I'd not seen that tho it wouldn't be any surprise. The only thing I've seen rumors of is Apple trying to do so, hoping they could get the subscription down to as little as $6 or so by cutting what the musicians and labels would get.
EDIT: The AI article alludes to the pressure Apple is putting on the labels/performers/writers to accept lower royalties. " It was previously reported that Apple was driving hard bargains with record labels and content owners in hopes of offering consumers a cheaper alternative..."
As the big dog maybe Apple can get them to do so too, sharing less with them percentage-wise than the smaller Google or Amazon was able to wrangle.
Apple negotiates only with the labels, and the rumor I heard is that they wanted a $7.99 a month service.
Your concern is noted for the writers and performers, but in fact, any negotiation with the labels will impact what they make. This applies to Google and Amazon as well. Unfortunately for the artists, neither Google nor Amazon is anywhere close to generating the revenues for them that Apple does.
This sounds like the time the record labels authorized Amazon to go DRM-free while withholding the authorization from Apple.
On the Google front, for some reason my memory has focused on ad-sharing revenue being apart of the Google deal.
Thanks for the link. So they're doing the same as Apple then?
It was noted that Apple was specifically not part of that group, so no, not close to the same. That group, MIC, is attempting to change the royalty rates for musicians. MusicFirst, which is the artists, is fighting the MIC group which includes Google and Amazon.
This is not in anyway the same situation as negotiations with the labels for streaming rights or music download rights. In that, Google and Amazon will be in exactly the same situation as Apple.
If anything, MIC is a much more egregious play against musicians.
"... mission to drive down the royalties it pays artists/labels and songwriters/publishers" How is that different again?
You mentioned musicians. What they want is "the establishment of a sound recording royalty for AM/FM radio, removing satellite radio’s below-market-rate exemption, and treating pre-1972 recordings with the same level of respect as those made after February of 1972". That would have very little to do with anything Google offers outside potentially the pre-72 recordings. It's not Google Music.
HUH? Did you read it?
"... mission to drive down the royalties it pays artists/labels and songwriters/publishers" How is that different again?
This is for digital performance royalties, the equivalent of per song royalties that terrestrial radio pays, and only songwriters and publishers, not the performers, are compensated.
Pandora’s mission to drive down the royalties it pays artists/labels and songwriters/publishers just got some heavy back-up – in the shape of Google and Amazon.
The duo have joined the likes of Pandora, IHeartMedia, NPR, and the National Restaurant Association as members of new lobbying group ‘The MIC (Music, Innovators, Consumers) Coalition’.
In no way is this the equivalent of music streaming services that Apple is negotiating licenses; though it likely covers iTunes Radio. While Apple and Spotify are not involved with MIC, they might be beneficiaries of lower royalties.
You appear to be totally unable to comprehend the differences between internet radio and streaming from a rights standpoint.
Here's a hint.
Internet radio gives you channel selections, but they select the music.
Music streaming; you choose what you want to play and when.
Hardly since I pointed out that it's a market Google Music doesn't cover. Google Music doesn't have free internet radio either altho iTunes Radio might fall in that category.
So why is Google even involved? Are they hedging their bets on some future internet radio?
At any rate, Apple isn't part of that.
If you read the article you would know why they would take an interest in it. Little doubt Apple has an interest too but apparently they would rather someone else do the work.
I stated that Apple might benefit, and neither of us know of Apple's position on this, but as you say Google and Amazon, et al are doing the dirty work.
Publicly doing the dirty work I might add. But nice attempt at trying to drag Apple through the mud.