Slashdot Mirror


Sony Music CEO Confirms Launch of Apple's Music Streaming Service

An anonymous reader writes: Sony Music CEO Doug Morris said in an interview that Apple will announce a new music streaming service tomorrow at its World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC). The new Apple Music service will include subscription streaming music features as well as a revamped iTunes Radio service. "What does Apple bring to this?" Morris said. "Well, they've got $178 billion in the bank. And they have 800 million credit cards in iTunes. Spotify has never really advertised because it's never been profitable. My guess is that Apple will promote this like crazy and I think that will have a halo effect on the streaming business. A rising tide will lift all boats," he added. "It's the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry."

86 comments

  1. Rising tide? by flogger · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I think he meant a tsunami which will wash everything else away.

    --
    ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
    "First things first -- but not necessarily in that order"
    -- The Doctor, "Doctor
    1. Re:Rising tide? by markdavis · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Exactly.

      >"It's the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry"

      More like additional fuel to end the "owning" of anything. Streaming is great when you are connected, don't mind someone watching what you are doing, and don't care that you can be fed things you don't want.

      Look at the reaction to even the CONCEPT of Netflix having commercials...

    2. Re:Rising tide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish Apple would add a switch to turn iTunes Radio OFF. Turn off and REMOVE. I don't need it, don't want it, and it's just wasting space on my devices like so much other crap that's making me regret switching to Apple in the first place. That and a number of other things like the iWatch program, or all the fitness bullshit, (that's right, i not Apple. why? because.) Getting a little sick and tired of fuckers who have more money than I can even imagine trying to take more of mine than I've already given them.

      I can't be the only person who feels this way. How hard would it be to get a class-action lawsuit to FORCE Apple to make all these little "services" that just take up memory we PAID for, forcing us to buy devices with even more memory capacity, (which of course is not expandable,) for even more money?

    3. Re:Rising tide? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's a concept: Don't buy it. Simple as that. There are plenty of better phones out there that won't cost you a fortune, AND they have a slot for extra internal memory.

  2. Pandora by Noah+Haders · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think apple is a little late to this. They tried apple radio a couple years ago and it didn't work. insider interviews confirmed that the point was not to get people to listen to the radio, but rather to convert people to buy the songs from itunes. this was patently transparent. At the time I started using pandora and paying $4 through the app store subscription. I have a dozen really cool stations that I have curated through dozens of thumbs up / thumbs down / song seeds. I would need to see something really compelling tomorrow if i'm to be convinced to try something else, let alone in addition.

    1. Re:Pandora by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Those people who already use something like Spotify or Pandora won't immediately switch, but I guess that Apple expects that there will be a very large number of people who have never used an Internet radio service that will sign up for Apple's service.

      Reducing friction in the sign-up process will certainly make a difference and I expect that Apple will make it easy to sign up.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    2. Re:Pandora by sanf780 · · Score: 1

      As I neither use Spotify or Pandora (music I consume comes in CDs), let me ask: Should we worry about market segmentation? I remember people getting upset becuase Taylor Swift exited Spotify in order to get into Tidal. Another player means (a) more pressure to lower prices due to competition or (b) publishers creating scarcity in order to avoid competition. Or do people just want some random noise in the background?

    3. Re:Pandora by Joshua+Fan · · Score: 1

      Apple will make it easy to sign up

      i.e.: automatic. Just fill out this form, mail it in with proof of identity, and we'll stop charging you a subscription in 60-90 days!

    4. Re:Pandora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Is this supposed to be funny? When has Apple ever made it difficult to unsubscribe from their services?

    5. Re:Pandora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was trying to say that it would be opt out, rather than opt in. You can't get much "easier" sign up than it happening automatically.

    6. Re:Pandora by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Surprisingly, you and the US aren't the only people in the world.

    7. Re:Pandora by Noah+Haders · · Score: 1

      It depends on if you prefer to listen for the hottest artists are you prefer to listen for the back catalog. I do a lot of back catalogue genre and live music listening, so the ebbs and flows of hot artists to hot services don't really impact me.

      btdubs, TS didn't pull from Spotify to go to tidal, she pulled from Spotify in order to boost her CD sales and other paid channels. She had wanted to do a deal with Spotify where her music would be available on the paid service but not on the ad-supported service, but they didn't go for that.

    8. Re:Pandora by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      This is not going after Pandora users, it's going after people who don't currently have a streaming service.

      If it launches in the UK then it also might be for me since we can't get Pandora and while I like Spotify well enough, it didn't seem to work as well as Pandora did when I tried in in the US.

      Either way, more competition in the streaming space will be good, surely.

    9. Re:Pandora by gregmac · · Score: 1

      > I would need to see something really compelling tomorrow if i'm to be convinced to try something else, let alone in addition.

      Such as "all competing apps have been removed from the app store per Apple policy"?

      --
      Speak before you think
  3. Walled Garden by GuldKalle · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So, seeing as they are becoming competitors, when will Spotify disappear from the Apple App Store?

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Walled Garden by NotInHere · · Score: 1

      If they do, spotify would have good chances in courts, because thats abuse of market power.

    2. Re:Walled Garden by kthreadd · · Score: 2

      Nothing requires Apple to carry everything in their store. They can deny any app for whatever reason they want.

    3. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Why would they remove Spotify?

      They already carry Google Music in App Store, do we have more conspiracy theories while we're at it?

    4. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nothing requires Apple to carry everything in their store. They can deny any app for whatever reason they want.

      This is definitely not true, even if you only count the US. When you are in a position of market dominance you have to obey antitrust laws. If US law applies to this case or not is somewhat debatable as Apple has less than half the smartphone market, but I don't think it would be legal in Europe for example.

    5. Re: Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pull your head out of your mama you bed wetting nixtard.

      Pandora has an app. Google music and Amazon too.

    6. Re:Walled Garden by kthreadd · · Score: 1

      It would absolutely be legal in Europe. Stores in Europe are free to chose what they want to sell and not, they are not required to carry everyone that wants to. If Apple decides that they don't want to carry competing streaming applications then they are fully within their right to do so, just like Debian is in their right to refuse to ship any application in their archive for whatever reason they want. Are you suggesting that Debian could not legally refuse to ship the non-free Spotify client in Europe?

    7. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Apple is not in a position of market dominance in any market except maybe Japan. They have less than 15% of the smart phone market in the US. Android on the other hand could probably get in trouble for this.

    8. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would absolutely be legal in Europe. Stores in Europe are free to chose what they want to sell and not, they are not required to carry everyone that wants to. If Apple decides that they don't want to carry competing streaming applications then they are fully within their right to do so, just like Debian is in their right to refuse to ship any application in their archive for whatever reason they want. Are you suggesting that Debian could not legally refuse to ship the non-free Spotify client in Europe?

      Debian isn't Apple. Antitrust rules are different for dominant players in a market space, and Apple would very much get into antitrust trouble in Europe if they tried this. It is illegal.

    9. Re:Walled Garden by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Debian's case is completely different because you can choose a different repository than their official one and install from it. No such luck with the iStore.

      Also this is not like other retail businesses. Apple does not consume any shelf space to 'stock' applications. At all.

    10. Re:Walled Garden by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      Which did not forbid people from wanting to break up IBM's mainframe business at one point.

    11. Re:Walled Garden by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      I am sure Apple has consulted with lawyers much smarter and more knowledgeable than you to determine their legal risk. For one thing, a brief perusal of the Wikipedia article on US antitrust and the Sherman Act would show you how wrong you are.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    12. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antitrust laws however only apply when you are in a position of market dominance, which as the Linux zealots will say "Android is leading by 0.1%"

      It's not like where Microsoft was with 90% of the market. Apple is 45% of the phone market and damn near 100% of the tablet and "ipod-like" devices markets. But these devices are also less than 10% of everything. Even if you combine all mobile devices, collectively all apple and android mobile devices are less than 16% of the market.

      So Apple going exclusive with their own "radio" and kicking everyone else off, would be legal. Would it be a good enough reason to? No.

      You can get Chrome for the Apple devices, even though Safari is exactly the same thing with a different javascript engine. You can download alternative video and music players.

      The entire "no duplication" type clauses are meant for declining apps that are little more than duplication of existing functionality with no value added to it.

    13. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am sure Apple has consulted with lawyers much smarter and more knowledgeable than you to determine their legal risk.

      If it's the same smart and knowledgeable lawyers who advised them on the risks of their approach to the Apple Books venture, that doesn't speak well for them. In fact it seems the only thing they managed to do was to kill off what was a rapidly growing e-book market so it was both a legal whiff and a business flop.

    14. Re:Walled Garden by ioErr · · Score: 2

      So, seeing as they are becoming competitors, when will Spotify disappear from the Apple App Store?

      Has Apple ever removed a major competitor's app from the store? After it was approved?

    15. Re:Walled Garden by Kjella · · Score: 2

      It would absolutely be legal in Europe. Stores in Europe are free to chose what they want to sell and not, they are not required to carry everyone that wants to.

      Microsoft has already paid over a billion dollar in fines to the EU over anti-trust charges, they've had the browser selection screen, the forced unbundling of WMP... technically you're correct, they will never force Apple to ship Spotify. What they will do is to say that banning Spotify in favor of their own in-house app is an anti-competitive practice and fine them millions of dollars per day until it ends. The most relevant article in the EU treaty is 102 that explicitly mentions blocking off markets in section (b):

      Article 102
      (ex Article 82 TEC)
      Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a substantial part of it shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.
      Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:
      (a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
      (b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
      (c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
      (d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial usage, have no connection with the subject of such contracts.

      It hinges on the definition of dominant though and while many factors come into play a market share of >40% is considered a minimum. I think even if you consider smartphones a sub-market Apple isn't dominant anymore. Basically if you're just one of many players you can do whatever you like, it's only if you have 40-100% market share you need to consider anti-trust.

      On a more practical note, no way Apple would dare ban Spotify. It'd piss off way too many people. Part of the "walled garden" is that you must make it look like a gated community and not a prison. Though I'm guessing you might end up with only grandfathered applications, if you start a new music streaming service next month you might get rejected.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    16. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting comment, where did you study law?

    17. Re:Walled Garden by jo_ham · · Score: 0

      Nothing requires Apple to carry everything in their store. They can deny any app for whatever reason they want.

      This is definitely not true, even if you only count the US. When you are in a position of market dominance you have to obey antitrust laws. If US law applies to this case or not is somewhat debatable as Apple has less than half the smartphone market, but I don't think it would be legal in Europe for example.

      So what market are they dominant in? The sale of Apple-branded products?

      Or are we forgetting that Apple is only a "dominant monopolist" when it suits slashdot, and the "failing has been" when talk abut how Android has so much market share?

      It can't be both.

    18. Re:Walled Garden by jo_ham · · Score: 1, Insightful

      So, seeing as they are becoming competitors, when will Spotify disappear from the Apple App Store?

      Has Apple ever removed a major competitor's app from the store? After it was approved?

      No, but facts are a very pesky issue for Apple bashing so they're frequently ignored in favour of baseless speculation and fabrication.

    19. Re:Walled Garden by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Keep in mind that the FTC may define a "market" differently than you do.

      For example, Microsoft attempted to use market-share of Apple computers to claim that they did not have a monopoly in the personal computer market. However, they did have a monopoly in personal computers run by Intel CPUs (at the time, Apple computers used PowerPC CPUs). In other words, the FTC had a different market in mind.

    20. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be anti-competitive behavior, which is illegal.

    21. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not just about facts. It's about spirit and essence. Nobody fucks the customer as hard as Apple. No one. It was Steve Job's vision to create a company that was highly desirable and expensive on the outside, yet overrated and mediocre on the inside, all ruled with an iron fist. After all, this is a company that LOVES creating proprietary connectors and purposely making their devices incomparable with non-Apple products. It's been that way since the first Apple computer.

    22. Re:Walled Garden by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 1

      So, Apple is dominant this week, not doomed, beleaguered, suffering dramatic loss of market share, and just about to finally be utterly destroyed by the superior-in-every-way-both-morally-and-technologically juggernaught that is Android... like they were last week?

      It's so hard to keep that straight.

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    23. Re:Walled Garden by SvnLyrBrto · · Score: 2

      They didn't remove Pandora when they launched iTunes Radio. They didn't remove the Kindle app when they launched iBooks. Netflix is still available, despite the existence of the Movie and TV sections of the iTunes store. Chrome is available as an alternative to Safari. And when Apple dumped Google maps from its default position, Google fairly quickly came up with a less embarrassingly out-of-date maps app that's in the app store right now.

      Why should it be any different with Spotify?

      --
      Imagine all the people...
    24. Re:Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Android is an operating system. How would it get in trouble?

    25. Re: Walled Garden by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's so hard to keep that straight.

      That's because you are confusing idiot fanboy discussions with legal relevant arguments.

    26. Re:Walled Garden by Plumpaquatsch · · Score: 1

      It's not just about facts. It's about spirit and essence. Nobody fucks the customer as hard as Apple. No one.

      Right, no ONE. Only Microsoft, Google, Amazon...

      --
      Of course news about a fake are Fake News.
  4. Thousands of Internet Radio stations by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There are thousands of free internet radio stations. Those even work with itunes. Why would anyone pay for it?

    1. Re:Thousands of Internet Radio stations by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      Because Apple.

      It worked before, why shouldn't it this time?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Thousands of Internet Radio stations by gnupun · · Score: 1

      The internet radio stations don't allow you choose the songs you want to listen to whereas you choose the songs with music streaming services.

      But I wonder if the 0.5 cents or whatever per song played given to the song copyright owners is enough money. Suppose iTunes and CD sales became obsolete, would streaming music pay enough to support artists financially?

    3. Re:Thousands of Internet Radio stations by Hamsterdan · · Score: 1

      If most of the money goes to artists, I'd say better then today.

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
  5. Apple Innovation Survival Kit by TheRealHocusLocus · · Score: 1

    APPLE INNOVATION SURVIVAL KIT
    ONLY BREAK SEAL IN CASE OF EMERGENCY

    Contents of Packet A: Introduction of new streaming iTunes service.
    Contents of Packet B: Introduction of new streaming iTunes service.
    Contents of Packet C: Introduction of new streaming iTunes service.

    --
    <blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
  6. why would i want single-vendor music streaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OK this is admittedly a guess but it seems likely from their track record that this service will only work with Apple devices.

    Why in the hell would anyone want a single-vendor music steaming service? Music isn't specific to Apple (or Sony or Google). I can outright BUY unencumbered mp3 files for so dirt cheap that streaming doesn't make any sense. Why stream when I can just buy them and copy them to whatever device I want, whenever I want, and use them long after the streaming service goes bust?

    It makes no sense.

    1. Re:why would i want single-vendor music streaming? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It might not be single-device. iCloud has support for Windows and there's a webapp you can use to access iCloud documents from any compatible web browser.

      By which I of course mean "Safari on OS X" because the webapp doesn't work anywhere else (even though it claims to), and I've never actually seen anyone get iCloud for Windows to work, but you know, details.

    2. Re:why would i want single-vendor music streaming? by MobileTatsu-NJG · · Score: 1

      Listening at work.

      --

      "I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

    3. Re:why would i want single-vendor music streaming? by jo_ham · · Score: 0

      OK this is admittedly a guess but it seems likely from their track record that this service will only work with Apple devices.

      Why in the hell would anyone want a single-vendor music steaming service? Music isn't specific to Apple (or Sony or Google). I can outright BUY unencumbered mp3 files for so dirt cheap that streaming doesn't make any sense. Why stream when I can just buy them and copy them to whatever device I want, whenever I want, and use them long after the streaming service goes bust?

      It makes no sense.

      Sure you can buy music for dirt cheap - you'll still be able to after this launches.

      It's almost as if different people have different needs when it comes to products and services. I'm sure there's some sense in there somewhere. Could it be that people are different from each other? Help me out here. This isn't making sense.

  7. Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

    Spotify has never really advertised because it's never been profitable.

    So you should only advertise when you're profitable?
    If Doug Morris thinks this is a good thing that means it isn't a good thing for the end users.

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    1. Re:Laugh by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Spotify has never really advertised because it's never been profitable.

      So you should only advertise when you're profitable?
      If Doug Morris thinks this is a good thing that means it isn't a good thing for the end users.

      The summary is oddly worked but it means that it has not been a net benefit financially to advertise. They would spend more in advertising costs than they would gain in income.

    2. Re:Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, it is odd though, I don't stream or even go looking for streaming yet I hear and read about Spotifiy constantly.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
    3. Re:Laugh by jo_ham · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, it is odd though, I don't stream or even go looking for streaming yet I hear and read about Spotifiy constantly.

      That's the point.

      It's like Pizza Express, whose first advert was "word of mouth since 1936" or something.

      Spotify haven't used traditional advertising because it's expensive and they are already getting a lot of exposure as it is.

    4. Re:Laugh by koan · · Score: 1

      That makes sense, I have to admit I am experiencing schadenfreude thinking of music execs raging because their markets have dried up.

      --
      "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  8. "An amazing moment for our industry"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, the moment in which it is being completely wiped out. Most of the music market is now digital, hence Apple, Spotify and Google are the new "majors", the previous ones have no reason to exist anymore, and sooner than later they will simply go bankrupt, some already have. There's no reason why Apple, Spotify and Google should "share" the market with Sony or Universal, when they can simply erase them, just like they usually do with smaller competitors in the IT industry, and especially now that the music industry has shrinked significantly (it's worth only $15 bln worldwide) and there's not much to share at all.

    Not to mention that, quite frankly, I struggle to understand why some people still pay for music, whether digital or physical. Apple and Google will have to dump their music business too.

  9. why stream them when you can download them? by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 1

    Good question. If there were an answer to it I think the industry would be in a different spot than it is.

    It turns out customers greatly prefer streaming music (essentially paying per-play) to buying it. Music downloading is down and streaming is up.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
    1. Re: why stream them when you can download them? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Consumers are giving a low value to music, as there are a lot of sources for it. So they tend to get into these all-you-can-eat buffets as they see no point in spending more money for their entertainment.

    2. Re:why stream them when you can download them? by cheesybagel · · Score: 1

      A lot of the streaming is ad based or subscription based. If you listen to recent music a lot it makes more sense to have this subscription service. If you listen occasionally to old music it often doesn't make sense to own it. Plus the streaming services are a good way to sample and find new music.

  10. Sounds like paid PR... by bogaboga · · Score: 1

    A rising tide will lift all boats," he added. "It's the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry."

    Anyone remember Apple Pay with the already available credit card information? Well, according to some, it looks like a dud already. This could well be the same because I for one, have no intention of ever being a subscriber. I am sure I am not alone.

    1. Re:Sounds like paid PR... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, pretty much anything that Slashdot pans seems to make it big.

      The iPod, Windows, Bill Gates, the iPhone, the iPad, the iWatch.

      We like Nokia, Blackberry and god help us, Windows phone.

      There is a lesson here....

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    2. Re:Sounds like paid PR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The iPod, Windows, Bill Gates, the iPhone, the iPad, the iWatch.

      Slashdot's power to make things it pans fail is so powerful it even works on things that came out before slashdot!

    3. Re:Sounds like paid PR... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot's power to make things it pans succeed is so powerful it even works on things that came out before slashdot!

      Whereas things like editable comments are still doomed, I guess. (especially with the 2 minute wait..)

    4. Re:Sounds like paid PR... by jo_ham · · Score: 0

      It depends on the country. When Apple Pay inevitably launches in the UK it will be an enormous hit - contactless payment is all the rage here and has seen massive growth in the past 2 years.

      It doesn't surprise me that the US is lagging behind. You guys don't even have chip and pin.

    5. Re:Sounds like paid PR... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The iWatch has 'made it big'??

      Let's wait a year and see how many people buy the new iWatch 2.

  11. Spotify by koan · · Score: 1

    The chief executive of Spotify, Daniel Ek, has predicted that the free online music service will help the industry grow to as much as 10 times its current size, in a future where old distinctions between providers break down.

    http://www.theguardian.com/tec...

    --
    "If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
  12. Fuck it, why not by geekmux · · Score: 1

    "It's the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry."

    I'd appreciate if someone would pull the CEO of Sony out from under his rock and let him know it's the year 2015.

    You've got to be fucking kidding me with this. As if no one has ever heard of a streaming music service before.

    On a related note (ba dum tiss), must be fun to be a board member for Apple. Fuck it, why not has become the financial motto, especially when identifying cash-on-hand as the justification here.

    1. Re:Fuck it, why not by Carewolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "It's the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry."

      I'd appreciate if someone would pull the CEO of Sony out from under his rock and let him know it's the year 2015.

      You've got to be fucking kidding me with this. As if no one has ever heard of a streaming music service before.

      On a related note (ba dum tiss), must be fun to be a board member for Apple. Fuck it, why not has become the financial motto, especially when identifying cash-on-hand as the justification here.

      Considering their cash on hand, they actually seem surprisingly reluctant with new ideas.

    2. Re:Fuck it, why not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is Apple, when have they ever had a new idea?

  13. grrrhh by Webmaster69 · · Score: 1

    CEO's are overvalued!!

    --
    The signature of my life are the tools.
  14. is this paid advertisement? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what is this? an ad for apple?

    they had streaming for a while now. and the apple radio is pure garbage. what's "news" here?

    also, isn't Sony ceo one of the fuckers from riaa that actually made streaming services garbage by imposing all the retarded rules about skipping and such nonsenses from people that can barely understand the radio business?

  15. Interesting concept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do not offer a streaming service for the first few years and get people to pay per track and get your 30%. Let that ride out until the track sales stabilize and the growth slows to or approaches zero. Then add a subscription service and get more money.

    If it makes sense for Apple to start a subscription service now, it would have made sense from a consumer end to do it 10 years ago. If a majority of the Apple users looked outside of the Apple box, they would not have to wait until Apple provides a service to them, they would look for it on their own. It is a very strange ecosystem where Apple makes all the calls and the direction and people just accept it.

    One thing hold true with Apple, they will ALWAYS balance your freedom and options based on their profit margin. The tighter and more integrated the Apple ecosystem gets, the less freedom and options you will have to use those individual Apple pieces and parts on non Apple paid for equipment, software, and services. Go back and look at every decision Apple has made or things they have NOT done that other companies have in the last 15 years and apply that rule and see if it fits. There may be a pendulum movement in there somewhere but it is still swinging in Apples direction.

  16. Re:I love Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, changing iTunes to a subscription service is just awesome. Say goodbye to all of the music you bought from iTunes, because Apple is going to delete it all remotely and force you to pay per play now.

  17. When is the new Apple Records lawsuit? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is this music distribution yet?

  18. Streaming is fragmenting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think we have just begun to see the fragmentation of music streaming. We have already seen exclusives between artists and certain streaming services. We have seen artists like Taylor swift pull content from one's they feel they don't get a good deal on. Bringing Apple into the mix will only fragment this even further.
    Apple has the means to kill off a lot of services by either buying them as with Beats, or simply buying the exclusive rights to artists content. I have a feeling the likes of Pandora,Spotify,Tidal, Amazon, Google will all be competing for content. Might be nice for Artists who are popular like Swift. But this will likely create a problem for consumers who may have to choose which service has most of what they want to listen too. What will probably kill Apple's service for music streaming is going to be its pricing structure.

  19. "It's the beginning of an amazing moment" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lolololol

    Working.....

  20. Re:I love Apple by ClaraBow · · Score: 1

    This is an additional service. You will still be able to buy songs and if you have iTunes Match, you will still have your own library of music on your computer and on the cloud.

  21. 800 Million Cards Minus 1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And they have 800 million credit cards in iTunes."

    But my CC in iTunes is expired so they only have 799,999,999 cards that are valid.

  22. Once again, Apple playing catch up to Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Google Play Music has been trying to push the $10/mo streaming service and I don't know of anyone who has adopted it.

    I just don't think there is a big un-tapped market for streaming music with all the free options out there (including broadcast Radio which you can now listen to via app).

  23. Sound Quality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It better sound better than iTunes Radio! I use Amazon Radio and RadioTunes (formerly SKY.FM) which are both 256 kbps CBR.

  24. Sony music FINALLY sees an opportunity for profit! by __aanbvm4272 · · Score: 1

    "It's the beginning of an amazing moment for our industry." Let's see how many years since you bought CBS??? A decade? So money might be nice to have coming in. BUT you're no Apple. Maybe Apples' sauce...strained.

  25. Re:I love Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, right...

    Apple will pull the plug, yank your tunes and make you pay per play. Glad I never bought into their stuff.