Slashdot Mirror
Last.Fm Founder Criticizes Apple Over Music Subscription Fees
An anonymous reader writes "Apparently not one to mince words, Last.fm founder Richard Jones lambasted Apple for their recently announced App Store subscription rules. 'Apple just ****ed over online music subs for the iPhone,' Jones wrote in IRC earlier this week. Taking things further, Jones angrily theorized that by effectively preventing subscription services like Rhapsody and Spotify from thriving on iTunes, Apple is paving the way for its own music subscription service where it will, surprise surprise, face little to no competition."
Jones argues that music service subscriptions don't operate at margins "anywhere near 30%," and that the dramatic loss in revenue will be tough to survive. Another article suggests that Apple's fee structure will highlight the publishing industry's broken business model. Some analysts expect it to raise antitrust concerns, though the wave of Android tablets hitting the market may stifle that sentiment.
that's what artists say subscription services are doing to the music industry
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/2010/how-much-do-music-artists-earn-online/
Like anyone can even know that
According to new stories I've read from other sites on the same subject, Apple forbids them from charging more to iOS users than they do through their own web storefront.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Does Last.FM make computers? No. Does Apple make computers? Yes. Do some of Apple's computer products feature restriction systems that allow Apple to prevent Last.FM from competing for the users of those devices? You bet.
Palm trees and 8
Here's the easy fix. Ditch your app and make a web-based app. Apple has no control over that and it will port more easily to other platforms such as Android, Web OS, WP7, MeeGo, etc. If you're doing it right, you can even make it easy for your users to make a shortcut to your web-app that shows up as though it were an app.
If that's too much work, don't offer subscriptions through the iOS app. Make a free version that throws in commercials every so often. 30% of $0.00 is $0.00.
I think these companies want to complain because 30% cuts into their profits, but I don't know how many will leave because the iOS user base is still worthwhile even at 70%.
As for the anti-competitiveness of it all, is it really a problem? After all, Apple has been losing market share to Android so who really cares if they want to make themselves a much less attractive platform. On the other hand, I can't buy e-books from Apple and have them work on my Kindle so as far as I'm concerned it's not a good argument for Amazon. If nothing else, hopefully these spats will help drive DRM-free ebooks.
I hate that people are already saying "well don't buy it" or "don't use it." Here is the reality of what happens in the REAL world:
a) Company pulls out of the market
b) Company raises their prices, in some form or another, to cover the cost. Consumer loses. Consumer pays more.
The winner? Ding ding! Answer B. That's what happens. So thanks to Apple, instead of paying, what $3 that Last.fm charges, they'll charge more. It could be $5. Or they could raise it to the competitors like Zune which is $10. I wouldn't bat an eye to pay for $3 for music a month. For $10, I might shop around first and potentially they might lose a sale.
And here is an even bigger problem. That cost will be raised for everyone else too. So you got an Android phone because you don't support Apple being an evil company? Too bad. It's $10/mo for Last.fm no matter what.
And wait, it gets worse! It raises the traditional pricing level for that product. It seems everyone is either in the $3/mo tier, $10. But at least you have a choice. But when Last.fm charges $10 because they can't make it at 3 with Apple's blatantly rip-off policies, now the norm will be $10. Thanks Apple! Now you have no choice--everyone pays $120 per year instead of being able to choose one that's $36 per year.
But alas, I'll get flamed and modded down to hell for this. I really think they enjoy the useful things at reasonable prices being ruined and they like to say "thank you sire, may I have another?"
Actually, the big 4 (Sony BMG, EMI, Warner and Universal who account for something like 99% of the content on the big subscription services) together only make about 5 million songs available. Together they have a back-catalogue of about 200 million songs, most of which you'll never see again in any shape and form because they deem the cost of media transfer and meta-data editing to high in relation to how many they'll sell of each.
Experiments and other stuff
People were doing that. The thing is, if you've already got development and distribution and promotion and all that stuff handled otherwise, factoring in 30% for essentially nothing but payment processing is pretty much unprecedented.
Something like 2% or 3% is closer to normal. Given the tie-in to an existing and popular gift card ecosystem (iTunes cards) and the near universal participation in the system by iOS users, maybe even 5% would have been reasonable. But 30%, for just payment processing? Even as an avid iPhone/iPad/MacOS user myself... too much, too much.
(Unless you're allowed to charge more to make up for it. That'd be better.)
No one cares Jones. Subscriptions are a waste of money!
I used to think this. Then Spotify came along. It changed everything, and represent to me the new model for music everybody is asking for.
Not only the streaming promise of having access to unlimited music, but so elegantly, user friendly, fast and easy implemented. Plus sharing with friends, social playlists and offline syncing to mobile devices. One day I suddenly relalized I even preferred using it to play tracks I already had on the harddisk. So damn convenient is it.
When you have friends over, you have most any music anybody would like to play. I know I don't "own" it, but the amount of Spotify music I've played already, it would have cost me a fortune to own it. And I would have thought of the per-track cost every time, instead of just adding any music I and friends feel like playing. The small sub fee is a damn good deal for enjoying this, even if I don't own it.
And for me, discovery of new music have increased as well. And since most people I know take for granted that everybody has Spotify, you can easily share direct links to tracks and playlists.
Reading over this sounds like a hallelujah sales pitch, but I'll stand by it god damnit, Spotify have change how I buy and consume music for me and very many people I know.
Charging 30% of the price of the app you developed with XCode and Objective-C both of which were developed by Next then Apple and which is then sold and promoted by the iTunes Music Store is one thing.
Charging 30% of all the money you make offering subscriber content seems exorbitant and could be argued as being a predatory business practice. Personally, I believe many others will see it this way and we will see this matter in court before too long.
In the end however, I think Apple's alienation of low-margin subscriber services such as Last.fm, Rhapsody and others will only make the Android platform stronger.
In other news: Users Criticise LastFM Over Featureslack (TM).
They have been dropping feature after feature. I payed to use those features thus i unsubscribed.
Hivemind harvest in progress..
“Our philosophy is simple—when Apple brings a new subscriber to the app, Apple earns a 30 percent share; when the publisher brings an existing or new subscriber to the app, the publisher keeps 100 percent and Apple earns nothing,”
In theory, I agree, and so would most publishers. However, Apple's model doesn't operate that way:
The policy as written is completely inconsistent with nearly all existing subscription business models, makes it easy for Apple to "steal" existing subscribers and take 30% of the subscription fees, and makes it more difficult for existing subscribers to subscribe or renew with directly with the publisher. It's completely inconsistent with the stated intent and philosophy. If not corrected, it will dramatically reduce the available of non-iOS specific content services such as Netflix, Pandora, Last.FM, and Rhapsody on the iOS platform. Fix it now Apple.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
According to new stories I've read from other sites on the same subject, Apple forbids them from charging more to iOS users than they do through their own web storefront.
All they have to do is have a separate iOS streaming subscription.
$X for streaming to PCs and Android
$X*1.3 for streaming to PCs, Android and iOS
What they *can't* do is offer the same purchase as an in app purchase outside of the app for less than inside. So they can't offer the iOS streaming package for less on their website than they do within their app.
In other words, this is a non-issue.
each paycheck you get $1000. you can keep that (ie not put your app on the iDevices)
or instead each paycheck will be $700. but you will get three times as many paychecks.
I was generally with you up until this, because it misses the issue. They aren't taking 30% of the PROFIT. They are taking 30% of the REVENUE.
Each subscriber they take has a cost associated with it. Suppose for each sale that generates you a cheque for 1000 you had expenses of 800, and profit of 200. That much more closely models the situation here.
Apple taking 30% of revenue, means you get a cheque for 700. But your expenses are still 800. So now you are in the hole. Getting 3x as many customers just puts you 3 times deeper into the hole.
If apple was taking 30% of the profit, they could swallow it. But very few markets can really afford a 30% swipe at their REVENUE.
Here's a final comparison:
Apple itself in Q4 had 20B$ in revenue, and $4B in profits. If someone took 30% of Apple's revenue, it would have gone from 4 billion in profits to a 3 BILLION DOLLAR LOSS last quarter. Its shares would be tanking in that sea of red ink.
That's what siphoning 30% off revenue does to a company.