Music industry execs unconcerned by Apple Music threat
After Apple officially debuted its Apple Music streaming service at WWDC on Monday, industry executives blithely offered their two cents -- albeit anonymously -- on the latest product to come out of Cupertino, proclaiming early that it won't be a runaway success.
Speaking with The Verge, a number of unnamed executives said Apple Music will likely catch on with consumers, but is unlikely to reshape the industry, as did iTunes.
"I think I've never been more confident," one person said following Apple's reveal. "We were all bracing ourselves, but we feel really good about it right now."
Other industry insiders believe Apple left copious elbow room for existing streaming services like Pandora and Spotify, both giants in paid and free subscriptions. Specifically, Apple Music doesn't offer much in the way of exclusive features. Instead, the product is an amalgamation of existing services; video sharing borrowed from YouTube, social networking ala Facebook, free radio content similar to Pandora.
Notably, one executive said Apple is playing off the freemium model in which free account holders can step up to an all-you-can-eat streaming service with offline listening and premium features for a set monthly fee. In this scenario, Apple Music's Beats 1 radio is the free-to-stream tier, while a $10-per-month paid option activates on-demand listening and downloadable tracks.
"They're trying to put a spin on it, but they basically want the freemium model," the person said.
Apple Music is scheduled to roll out in 100 countries on June 30.
Speaking with The Verge, a number of unnamed executives said Apple Music will likely catch on with consumers, but is unlikely to reshape the industry, as did iTunes.
"I think I've never been more confident," one person said following Apple's reveal. "We were all bracing ourselves, but we feel really good about it right now."
Other industry insiders believe Apple left copious elbow room for existing streaming services like Pandora and Spotify, both giants in paid and free subscriptions. Specifically, Apple Music doesn't offer much in the way of exclusive features. Instead, the product is an amalgamation of existing services; video sharing borrowed from YouTube, social networking ala Facebook, free radio content similar to Pandora.
Notably, one executive said Apple is playing off the freemium model in which free account holders can step up to an all-you-can-eat streaming service with offline listening and premium features for a set monthly fee. In this scenario, Apple Music's Beats 1 radio is the free-to-stream tier, while a $10-per-month paid option activates on-demand listening and downloadable tracks.
"They're trying to put a spin on it, but they basically want the freemium model," the person said.
Apple Music is scheduled to roll out in 100 countries on June 30.
Comments
"I think I've never been more confident," one person said following Apple's reveal. [/quote]
Time will tell but you can't count Apple out. Ask Blackberry and Ballmer.
Specifically, Apple Music doesn't offer much in the way of exclusive features. Instead, the product is an amalgamation of existing services; video sharing borrowed from YouTube, social networking ala Facebook, free radio content similar to Pandora.
I think Apple would say the amalgamation *is* the exclusive feature. As they say, it's one place to go for all your music needs, instead of, as Iovine said, going to this app for this, that app for that.
But whether "one-ness" is a compelling enough reason for people to move from other services, I'm not sure.
Apple's official line is that there are over thirty million songs in the AppleMusic catalog; which is just about ALL of the iTunes Music Store. I suspect they're not saying "ALL" because there are one or two holdouts (I'm thinking it's either Taylor Swift, The Beatles, or some small groups) but overall that's a massive selection.
Sounds more like something the "executives" of Spotify or Pandora would say, not someone actually in the music industry.
This one paragraph sums things up quite nicely for me...
1. They spoke to The Verge, a known anti-Apple, bottom-feeder tech smut rag the likes of BGR
2. They spoke to them anonymously
3. They offered the same type of arrogant and ignorant prognostication as when the original iPod and iTunes was released
What does all this tell me? That these CEO's (likely Pandora and Spotify) are just shitting and pissing themselves in fear of seeing their futures flash right before their eyes, a future in which their companies crumble.
"Anonymous music execs" my ass. It's pay for placement by Spotify.
Apple Music won't kill spotify's free (and money-losing) model. It will significantly cut into people switching to the spotify paid service, since many of those were coming out of the iTunes ecosystem.
Why is it a threat to the music industry? If anything, the premium rates are much better than the competitors, which means more money for the music industry.
The free radio station is akin to the free Pandora and Spotify tiers, so it doesn't move the needle for the music industry, so to speak.
Why should they feel threatened by it?
I may have missed a few things due to a power outage for me during the stream.
what has happened almost every time company executives or journalists scoff at apple and the products or software, most of them generally go on to be successful some of them really successful.
there's an old saying that says show your enemy no fear ether that's the case here or they're just too damned arrogant
(like blackberry, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, etc.. the list goes on and on).
But that's how the music industry was built. The artist is an employee of the label. And so are the writers, producers, musicians, etc.
And the labels have always taken the lion's share of the income.
Yeah it sucks... but it's been like that for decades.
In the time it took to write this comment... someone just signed a record contract. Why did they do that?
Google music offers all of this but the free radio. It does have a radio mode. It offers videos on the app. It has curated playlist, it allows for music upload, it also includes YouTube music key its a great service but you see apple music has no compelling reason to choose it over Google music or the rest of the competition.
They are toast and they know it.
At 15 bucks a month for 6 people that's $2.50 per person.
Even the pirate sites Are toast.
But that's how the music industry was built. The artist is an employee of the label. And so are the writers, producers, musicians, etc.
And the labels have always taken the lion's share of the income.
Yeah it sucks... but it's been like that for decades.
In the time it took to write this comment... someone just signed a record contract. Why did they do that?
In the old days of vinyl records, the performers and artist had to depend on the labels to get their music pressed on to a record, distribute it to the record stores and PR to let the consumers know about their music. Plus they had to perform live concerts to help promote their music.
When CD's came along it made it easier for the performers and artist press their own music on to CD's and distributing it to the consumers but the promoting of their music and PR was still a challenge.
Now of days, with digital online downloads, youtube, free music listening sites and internet radio, there are less and less reasons why performers and artist must depend on the music labels. They don't even have to make physical copies of their music to sell. The consumers can do that after they download it from iTunes. The internet has made it so that performers and artist no longer has to travel across the country promoting their music.
Now, I'm not sure who controls the music on free music sites or internet radio. But in the old days, and probably even today, the music industry controls a lot of what get played on over the air radio. Which was why many performers and artist depended on the music labels for PR. I remember that when iTunes was first introduced, there was a way for independent artist to get their music on iTunes to sell, without belonging to one of the big music labels. And I'm sure it still possible for today. Now of days, there not much of a barrier that prevents any performer and artist from selling their own music and promoting it.
The big famous performers and artist will always use one of the big music label because those performers and artist gets paid millions of dollars in advance for an album, even before it's written. One can't really feel sorry for the likes of Bruce Springsteen or U2 or Cher or Madonna when they got millions of dollars in advance from the big music labels, for the rights to distribute their next album (or 2). I doubt that any of the really big famous performers and artist depends on royalties from music sales to survive. The probably make more money selling t-shirts at their concerts.
And if you look at all the performers and artist that have made it big, most to them belong to one of the big music labels. So the perception is that if a performer and artist wants to make it big, they must sign with a music label. Not until there are more performers and artist making it big, by becoming their own label (and publishing an eBook on how they did it.), will they begin to stop thinking that they need to sign with one the existing music labels to make it big.
This one paragraph sums things up quite nicely for me...
1. They spoke to The Verge, a known anti-Apple, bottom-feeder tech smut rag the likes of BGR
2. They spoke to them anonymously
3. They offered the same type of arrogant and ignorant prognostication as when the original iPod and iTunes was released
What does all this tell me? That these CEO's (likely Pandora and Spotify) are just shitting and pissing themselves in fear of seeing their futures flash right before their eyes, a future in which their companies crumble.
Firstly it's hard to see why anybody would think the Labels would be worried by getting more money from a streaming service. The reason the Music App will take off is because it has the advantage of being on about 500M devices to begin with, and you only need to convert a small enough percentage of that base to paid ( via the free sample) and you are in. The labels will be getting more money. I mean if the labels and artists collapse, then Apple has no music. Apples been to the front of paying artists and Labels, the threat wasn't from iTunes ( thats a revision of history) but from napster at al.
The reason the other services won't worry too much is because although Apples service is good for those of us with iOS devices who were hereto unconcerned with streaming but who may be convinced by an integrated service free to being with, existing customers of Spotify et al. have little reason to move.
In the old days of vinyl records, the performers and artist had to depend on the labels to get their music pressed on to a record, distribute it to the record stores and PR to let the consumers know about their music. Plus they had to perform live concerts to help promote their music.
When CD's came along it made it easier for the performers and artist press their own music on to CD's and distributing it to the consumers but the promoting of their music and PR was still a challenge.
Now of days, with digital online downloads, youtube, free music listening sites and internet radio, there are less and less reasons why performers and artist must depend on the music labels. They don't even have to make physical copies of their music to sell. The consumers can do that after they download it from iTunes. The internet has made it so that performers and artist no longer has to travel across the country promoting their music.
Now, I'm not sure who controls the music on free music sites or internet radio. But in the old days, and probably even today, the music industry controls a lot of what get played on over the air radio. Which was why many performers and artist depended on the music labels for PR. I remember that when iTunes was first introduced, there was a way for independent artist to get their music on iTunes to sell, without belonging to one of the big music labels. And I'm sure it still possible for today. Now of days, there not much of a barrier that prevents any performer and artist from selling their own music and promoting it.
The big famous performers and artist will always use one of the big music label because those performers and artist gets paid millions of dollars in advance for an album, even before it's written. One can't really feel sorry for the likes of Bruce Springsteen or U2 or Cher or Madonna when they got millions of dollars in advance from the big music labels, for the rights to distribute their next album (or 2). I doubt that any of the really big famous performers and artist depends on royalties from music sales to survive. The probably make more money selling t-shirts at their concerts.
And if you look at all the performers and artist that have made it big, most to them belong to one of the big music labels. So the perception is that if a performer and artist wants to make it big, they must sign with a music label. Not until there are more performers and artist making it big, by becoming their own label (and publishing an eBook on how they did it.), will they begin to stop thinking that they need to sign with one the existing music labels to make it big.
Labels are specialised venture capitalists. They give you money to make money. Many of their projects will fail, the few that succeed make their profit. They also have distribution and marketing arms but that's just a side to the main business ( most people think it's the main business). It's possible to make it big without labels, but most artists need capital to make their album, and the labels hope to make a return on it, just as startups need venture capital in most cases. Self financing is easier in the app store because you just need a computer ( whats app was self financed but the founders had money from Yahoo, they needed this for day to day living at the very least), but it is not easy at all in music where properly recorded albums costs lots of money. This is changing a bit with youtube etc. but in reality to make it big you can't self publish.
The music executives are sure that they have rigged the payments so the labels get the VAST majority of the money, and the actual performers and writers are paid jack. Of your $10/month fee, you can count on actual artists AND writers sharing less than $1.
Actually the money often goes to new signings, which is why we need this model. The successful subsidise the unsuccessful, or the search for new talent. Thats essential. I am sure the executives are making off like bandits, thats American capitalism, but I don't think they are making excessive profits.