Apple looks to kill off free Spotify streaming to make more $$$ for itself

[editor]

Interesting commentary here:

Apple Music is a major mess, and it won't beat Spotify
One thought kept racing through my head as Beats supremo Jimmy Iovine and Apple executive Eddy Cue introduced the new service: This doesn't feel like Apple at all. Rather it felt like something designed by committee, a committee of strong egos (like Iovine) who are overly enamored with glitzy music industry culture, and not familiar enough with Apple culture — let alone with how people actually want to access music.

Apple fixes things; it solves problems; it strives towards elegant simplicity. But Apple Music seems like the company has doubled down on all the worst features of iTunes — including one that was dead and should have stayed that way, a musician-based social network. It added more features no one asked for (who was clamoring for a 24-hour radio station?), and tried to dazzle us with star power (Drake's baffling content-free appearance, which was reminiscent of the disastrous Tidal launch).

Apple users like me — hardcore fans who have nevertheless strayed to
Spotify — were left wondering why the heck our favorite company can't get its musical act together.

http://mashable.com/2015/06/09/apple-music-mess/

 

[skyscraper101]

I know loads of people who use the free Spotify service, even with its annoying adverts. Funny to hear Apple being welcomed as some sort of competition given that their gameplan is to usually leverage their unrivalled resources to try and crush the opposition.

But they weren't able to steal the lead this time or exact any kind of notable advantage over the other service (apart from perhaps the family plan).

This time, Spotify were the pioneering service and Apple are playing catch up for a change. Having a decent competitor will be a good thing for Spotify and hopefully they'll think twice before rolling out more useless features like their apps and all the other bloat which I personally hate. It's almost like a role reversal to when the iTunes Store launched all those years back.

 

[Chilli.s]

Can't be bothered with spotify and its too loud intrusive ads. Use youtube and find it better, it seems to have most stuff and then it also has really obscure too and old bootlegs and radio broadcasts and mixtapes.

 

[Athos]

Looking forward to trying it out. Can't use Spotify now because I haven't got a fucking Facebook account.

I use Spotify, but I don't have Facebook.

 

[editor]

I use Spotify, but I don't have Facebook.

You don't need facebook at all:

Do I need Facebook to have a Spotify account?

No, you don't need Facebook to use Spotify. You can choose your own Spotify username and password on the sign up page.

If you create your Spotify account without Facebook, you can still connect the two later. Just open Spotify > Preferences and scroll down to the Social Network section.

 

[mwgdrwg]

You don't need facebook at all:

Brilliant. I'm sure that they removed the ability to create an account without Facebook at some point. I'm glad they reversed that decision!

 

[mwgdrwg]

I wasn't imagining it...at one point you did require a Facebook login - http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/...ok-account-to-sign-up-for-spotify-in-germany/

Good news then.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Definitely.

I'm quite willing to jump ship from Spotify is Apple can produce something decent and not bloated - unfortunately they've both got form where that's concerned. But if they'd do a tie in with iTunes Match so I can upload my entire mp3 library into their cloud server, and combine my offline library with a streaming library for a decent price then I'm definitely interested. The main advantage Spotify still have is the size of their catalog, the free tier to get people onto the platform, and the grandfathered $5/month unlimited tier which I'm on which is still a bargain.

I'm also interested to know if they've been able to strike deals with all the major artists that Spotify took a long while to acquire. For instance, Pink Floyd, Metallica, Led Zeppelin were all much publicised deals which Spotify had to do individually with the artists - presumably on unique terms so those artists got a better deal and Spotify got the PR. The Beatles and AC/DC are still notable by their absence. As is Taylor Swift who just left, and Adele who I think XL/Columbia have put an embargo on her last album. Given the long-wrangled over agreement Apple did with Apple corps for the Beatles catalog on iTunes, I'm keen to know if they'll feature, or if they'll opt out.

I don't really care about all those artists but they'll be big names not to have. Spotify have been able to strike a lot of cool brand tie ins such as with Uber so you can play your music from your Pro account when you get in an Uber, and their integration with the Deejay app is pretty nifty. Apple need to come up with some cool shit like that IMO to really start poaching users away from Spotify. The family plan is a good deal and probably the best advantage they have over Spotify right now. The Beats 1 stuff is all fluff. Zayne Lowe. ffs

Incidentally in the US, Spotify is still not as much of an established brand as it is in Europe. Half the people I talked to about it were more familiar with Pandora and it seemed like people hadn't really got with streaming as quickly as the UK. So perhaps the Apple/iTunes brand will have more gravitas there than Spotify has managed.

Google Play are mainly good in that I've been able to upload upto 50,000 tracks from my offline library to my account for free (regardless of size or length of the tracks) which neither Apple nor Spotify offer. It took ages to get them all up there but at least I know have a complete cloud based backup of my mp3s all for free. The only problem is when it launched with just a web interface to play the music it was terrible, buggy slow and generally unpleasant to use. I haven't tried out the desktop app yet so I may revist it again, but generally I wasn't keen on anything apart from it being a free cloud based hard drive to stick 160GBish of music.

Really good post, and yep I'm a big fan of Spotify/ Uber. Another smart move is you can get it on the PS4 which means I can play music through it while playing games! Even though Apple are smartly bringing Apple Music to Android I just couldn't see them doing the console thing...

Personally I'm the same as I have been the last two decades: I use whatever product best suits my needs. For five years that's been Spotify, I'm not sure I'm ready to give that up yet...

 

[Kid_Eternity]

But they weren't able to steal the lead this time or exact any kind of notable advantage over the other service (apart from perhaps the family plan).

This time, Spotify were the pioneering service and Apple are playing catch up for a change. Having a decent competitor will be a good thing for Spotify and hopefully they'll think twice before rolling out more useless features like their apps and all the other bloat which I personally hate. It's almost like a role reversal to when the iTunes Store launched all those years back.

Completely agree like I said above the streaming arena needs competition...

 

[EastEnder]

Apple won't pay royalties during Music's trial period

...According to the document Apple won't pay royalties to independent music labels -- or unsigned artists, we'd imagine -- while users test drive the app. Re/code confirmed that the company won't pay royalties to any labels, major or indie, for tracks users stream during the trial...

...According to Music Business Worldwide, Apple is negotiating directly with major labels to lock down licensing deals for the service. What's more, rather than hammer out terms with Merlin, a company that handles licensing agreements for a collection of independent labels, Apple insists on dealing with each record label directly. Sources involved in these negotiations tell Engadget that while indies have worked directly with Apple on deals in the past, that was before Merlin existed. But now that labels prefer to do business through Merlin, Apple doesn't want to play ball...

...A source at one label tells Engadget that it nor any of the other indie labels that they have been in contact with plan on signing the contract as it stands. This means that right now, Apple Music stands to miss out on quite the collection of indie artists when it launches at the end of the month...

Massively evil corporate monster in "screws the little guys" shocker....

 

[editor]

Apple won't pay royalties during Music's trial period

Massively evil corporate monster in "screws the little guys" shocker....

Scum.

 

[skyscraper101]

Presumably this was all agreed with the labels in advance while they were securing the deals. So they're are just as complicit.

 

[editor]

Apple are like the big school bully: either you join our gang or we'll duff you up.

 

[skyscraper101]

Apple are like the big school bully: either you join our gang or we'll duff you up.

What I find confusing is that all the major labels are stakeholders in Spotify. So I wonder what kind of arm twisting was involved to guarantee the establishment a rival service with all the major labels on board which would essentially undermine Spotify for a quarter of a year, and not pay out any royalties to them. There must have been some serious lucre involved.

 

[beesonthewhatnow]

Scum.

OTT much?

It's the labels that have signed up to this, point you guns towards them. They presumably think that enough people will pay for the service to make this worth their while. Spotify can cover the free users with ad revenue, afaik the free Apple service won't have ads.

 

[Diamond]

Apple won't pay royalties during Music's trial period

Massively evil corporate monster in "screws the little guys" shocker....

Apple disregards intellectual property as a general rule.

It is also a business and that means it will try and make as much money as possible, which shouldn't really come as any surprise for people who are involved in business.

 

[editor]

OTT much?

It's the labels that have signed up to this, point you guns towards them. They presumably think that enough people will pay for the service to make this worth their while. Spotify can cover the free users with ad revenue, afaik the free Apple service won't have ads.

Apple are the dominant driving force here and they're the money grabbing scumbag multi-billionaires trying to kill off free streaming. The labels are scum too, but they're mere flotsam compared to Apple with their obscene amounts of wealth.

 

[RedDragon]

Actually, I reckon the three month free trial will be their harakiri

 

[panpete]

Dunno why big companies are so greedy, because no one can take money with them once they have died, and we all die eventually, so, what's the point in hoarding money?

 

[ruffneck23]

to pass it on the their next generation of fukkers to screw our next generation

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Presumably this was all agreed with the labels in advance while they were securing the deals. So they're are just as complicit.

Yep, the record companies are just as shitty here.

 

[EastEnder]

Apple disregards intellectual property as a general rule.

It is also a business and that means it will try and make as much money as possible, which shouldn't really come as any surprise for people who are involved in business.

I agree entirely, it's all perfectly understandable & I would be surprised if they acted differently.

However, some companies make an effort to be seen to be doing the honourable thing, as a part of their overall business strategy. Any company wants to maximise profits, but some adopt an approach whereby they curry favour with their potential customers by appearing to be "nice" (whether they are or not is a different issue). A company like Apple is so rich & powerful they are free to pursue whichever strategy they prefer. They could go out of their way to demonstrate how much better they're treating artists than other companies, which would appeal to many consumers. They would still end up making many more billions, that's hardly in any doubt. Or they could throw their weight around, stamp on the little guys, trample the competition, etc. They'll still end up making many more billions. They can easily afford to be nice, but they choose not to be. Make of that what you will...

 

[Diamond]

I agree entirely, it's all perfectly understandable & I would be surprised if they acted differently.

However, some companies make an effort to be seen to be doing the honourable thing, as a part of their overall business strategy. Any company wants to maximise profits, but some adopt an approach whereby they curry favour with their potential customers by appearing to be "nice" (whether they are or not is a different issue). A company like Apple is so rich & powerful they are free to pursue whichever strategy they prefer. They could go out of their way to demonstrate how much better they're treating artists than other companies, which would appeal to many consumers. They would still end up making many more billions, that's hardly in any doubt. Or they could throw their weight around, stamp on the little guys, trample the competition, etc. They'll still end up making many more billions. They can easily afford to be nice, but they choose not to be. Make of that what you will...

It's the flipside of the Apple effect, which is close on a cult.

I wonder when they're going to establish their own religion.

 

[editor]

Nice work, Apple.

When Apple Music debuts on June 30, it may be missing some key independent labels and artists who won’t sign the tech juggernaut’s streaming contract. The key point of contention is one we’ve outlined before, but a tough pill to swallow for smaller labels: The service will not pay any royalties during its heavily-promoted three-month free trial period.

Despite backlash from the American Association for Independent Music (A2IM), Beggars Group (home of Adele, Vampire Weekend, and Beck), and many others, Apple execs will not negotiate, according to Rolling Stone.

Beggars Group exec Andy Heath explained to The Telegraph why the free trial will hit indies the hardest. “If you are running a small label on tight margins you literally can’t afford to do this free trial business,” Health said. “Their plan is clearly to move people over from downloads, which is fine, but it will mean us losing those revenues for three months. Apple hasn’t thought this through at all and it’s not like them. They can’t spring a contract like this on us three weeks from release.”

http://www.digitaltrends.com/music/indie-labels-may-delay-contracts-with-apple-music/

 

[MooChild]

Dunno why big companies are so greedy, because no one can take money with them once they have died, and we all die eventually, so, what's the point in hoarding money?

Companies don't die as often as rich fuckers.

Edit: Unfortunately.

 

[ffsear]

Itunes is shit. Spotify linked into Sonsos is the best home music setup going IMO

 

[Diamond]

Typical of Apple.

Not all big companies are bad but Apple is especially egregious in the hypocritical nature of its brand - making the world more nice by ripping off everyone else...

 

[Sunray]

Its not as good as Spotify so why switch?

Spotify, if you read this, you lucky bunch of cunts. Get to work and restore the PC client to what it was.

 

[panpete]

Companies don't die as often as rich fuckers.

Edit: Unfortunately.

Companies themselves are not conscious entities in the same way as humans are though, and behind companies are humans.

 

[MooChild]

Companies themselves are not conscious entities in the same way as humans are though, and behind companies are humans.

But corporate entities exist to make money, and they don't die as often as humans. So the fact that you can't take it with you is irrelevant to a corporation.