5 ms·

Apple paying music labels $100M-$150M for iCloud

35 points by rmah 15y ago

ansy 15y ago
Original: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/apple_pays_music_bigs_OcxlGqT1E0P5P9vzosxtyK http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/apple_pays_music_bigs_...
- smackfu 15y ago
  "A Google cloud service could now be in the offing as soon as September, said sources familiar with the talks." Wait, what? Different than Google Music?
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - devindra 15y ago
    Google Music doesn't currently let you stream music that you don't already own, and it's also not tied to any particular music store. I think they're referring to Google launching a legit streaming service together with the music labels in a few months.
    - whopa 15y ago
      Judging from this sentence from the article > The Cupertino, Calif., tech giant has agreed to pay the labels between $25 million to $50 million each, as an incentive to get on board, depending on how many tracks consumers are storing. sounds like what Apple is launching is also a music locker service akin to what Google Music is now, and not streaming arbitrary music. Perhaps the author is referring to when Google may remove the invite-only aspect for their service, or maybe just confused.
  - ugh 15y ago
    You need an invitation to get in.
    - smackfu 15y ago
      I'm just a Joe Schmoe who requested an invite on the day they announced it and I got one. Too bad I didn't get any further invites to give out.
      - ugh 15y ago
        It’s not open to the general public and the details of the service when it will open to the general public are not yet known. We will have to wait until Google opens the doors to everyone and how much – if anything – it will cost you. It would be seriously cool if Google continued to offer this service for free. I suspect that they will offer the service with a generous limit for free after they are out of beta (I would imagine at least 2,500 songs – that would be roughly on par with Amazon’s free 20 GB) but I also suspect that they will start charging for the service if you want to upload more. We will have to wait and see.
smackfu 15y ago
That's one way to use up their big pile of cash.
- rmah 15y ago
  $150 mil is 0.25% (1/4 of 1%) of Apple's cash & cash equivalents. They have so much cash it's absurd -- sometimes I wonder why Apple doesn't just buy all the major music labels (they could easily do it). [Edit] This was a joke! Jeez.
  - MatthewPhillips 15y ago
    Wouldn't pass regulation.
  - roc 15y ago
    Apple trying to buy any large content company would kick up the vertical integration concerns from the FCC that NBC/Comcast should have. Buying multiple content companies would be right out.
    - ChrisLTD 15y ago
      There is already some precedence for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment
  - ctdonath 15y ago
    Companies fail when they deviate from their core purpose. Apple's purpose is to sell "walled garden" hardware. Taking over the music industry is too big a move to remain focused on selling their hardware.
    - nahlyee 15y ago
      Isn't iTunes the largest retail music outlet (more music sales than Walmart)?
    - smackfu 15y ago
frankdenbow 15y ago
That is quite a barrier to innovation. Labels still seem to think only the established players will create the next big thing.
- masklinn 15y ago
  Labels do not want a next big thing. Labels want two things: that their current business model keeps working, and that a new physical format completely incompatible with old ones comes along so users have to buy their whole collection again, as happened with DVDs. From this, you may think majors are retarded. They are.
- saturdaysaint 15y ago
  I'm curious as to what this has bought them - there are many comparably small music services (Rdio,Napster,Rhapsody,Spotify, etc.) that I'm assuming could not have paid amounts of this magnitude. As those services I just listed indicates, there's really no shortage of competition in the cloud music space...
  - spullara 15y ago
    All the streaming service pay by usage. My guess is that the usage for Apple is a lot higher. Look at how much Netflix and Pandora pay for their licenses.
JackWebbHeller 15y ago
Is that all?! $150 million seems nothing these days (maybe I'm just tainted by the Skype-Microsoft acquisition...)
- smackfu 15y ago
  I think it's just an advance against future royalties. So if it completely flops, and Apple makes not much money, the labels still get $150 million.
bonch 15y ago
That's pocket change for Apple.
evertonfuller 15y ago
I honestly don't get the point behind this. Neither do I see the point of subscription services like Spotify. I want to actually own my music. Have the file RIGHT THERE on my computer, so I can do whatever I want with it - whenever I want to. Why do I need to have my songs up in the cloud? What about when I'm on holiday - and typically disconnect from the world for a week sans internet - how am I supposed to listen to my music then? It's just ridiculous.

35 points by rmah 15y ago

ansy 15y ago

Original: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/apple_pays_music_bigs_OcxlGqT1E0P5P9vzosxtyK http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/apple_pays_music_bigs_...

smackfu 15y ago
"A Google cloud service could now be in the offing as soon as September, said sources familiar with the talks." Wait, what? Different than Google Music?
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- devindra 15y ago
  Google Music doesn't currently let you stream music that you don't already own, and it's also not tied to any particular music store. I think they're referring to Google launching a legit streaming service together with the music labels in a few months.
  - whopa 15y ago
    Judging from this sentence from the article > The Cupertino, Calif., tech giant has agreed to pay the labels between $25 million to $50 million each, as an incentive to get on board, depending on how many tracks consumers are storing. sounds like what Apple is launching is also a music locker service akin to what Google Music is now, and not streaming arbitrary music. Perhaps the author is referring to when Google may remove the invite-only aspect for their service, or maybe just confused.
- ugh 15y ago
  You need an invitation to get in.
  - smackfu 15y ago
    I'm just a Joe Schmoe who requested an invite on the day they announced it and I got one. Too bad I didn't get any further invites to give out.
    - ugh 15y ago
      It’s not open to the general public and the details of the service when it will open to the general public are not yet known. We will have to wait until Google opens the doors to everyone and how much – if anything – it will cost you. It would be seriously cool if Google continued to offer this service for free. I suspect that they will offer the service with a generous limit for free after they are out of beta (I would imagine at least 2,500 songs – that would be roughly on par with Amazon’s free 20 GB) but I also suspect that they will start charging for the service if you want to upload more. We will have to wait and see.

smackfu 15y ago

That's one way to use up their big pile of cash.

rmah 15y ago
$150 mil is 0.25% (1/4 of 1%) of Apple's cash & cash equivalents. They have so much cash it's absurd -- sometimes I wonder why Apple doesn't just buy all the major music labels (they could easily do it). [Edit] This was a joke! Jeez.
- MatthewPhillips 15y ago
  Wouldn't pass regulation.
- roc 15y ago
  Apple trying to buy any large content company would kick up the vertical integration concerns from the FCC that NBC/Comcast should have. Buying multiple content companies would be right out.
  - ChrisLTD 15y ago
    There is already some precedence for this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Music_Entertainment
- ctdonath 15y ago
  Companies fail when they deviate from their core purpose. Apple's purpose is to sell "walled garden" hardware. Taking over the music industry is too big a move to remain focused on selling their hardware.
  - nahlyee 15y ago
    Isn't iTunes the largest retail music outlet (more music sales than Walmart)?
  - smackfu 15y ago

frankdenbow 15y ago

That is quite a barrier to innovation. Labels still seem to think only the established players will create the next big thing.

masklinn 15y ago
Labels do not want a next big thing. Labels want two things: that their current business model keeps working, and that a new physical format completely incompatible with old ones comes along so users have to buy their whole collection again, as happened with DVDs. From this, you may think majors are retarded. They are.
saturdaysaint 15y ago
I'm curious as to what this has bought them - there are many comparably small music services (Rdio,Napster,Rhapsody,Spotify, etc.) that I'm assuming could not have paid amounts of this magnitude. As those services I just listed indicates, there's really no shortage of competition in the cloud music space...
- spullara 15y ago
  All the streaming service pay by usage. My guess is that the usage for Apple is a lot higher. Look at how much Netflix and Pandora pay for their licenses.

JackWebbHeller 15y ago

Is that all?! $150 million seems nothing these days (maybe I'm just tainted by the Skype-Microsoft acquisition...)

smackfu 15y ago
I think it's just an advance against future royalties. So if it completely flops, and Apple makes not much money, the labels still get $150 million.

bonch 15y ago

That's pocket change for Apple.

evertonfuller 15y ago

I honestly don't get the point behind this. Neither do I see the point of subscription services like Spotify. I want to actually own my music. Have the file RIGHT THERE on my computer, so I can do whatever I want with it - whenever I want to. Why do I need to have my songs up in the cloud? What about when I'm on holiday - and typically disconnect from the world for a week sans internet - how am I supposed to listen to my music then? It's just ridiculous.