Apple's iRadio hits another snag; WWDC launch in jeopardy
Back in March, and again last month, we passed along the word that the failure of Apple to reach a deal with Sony Music was delaying the launch of iRadio. Unless you've been in an isolation chamber these last few months, you know that this is expected to be Apple's free streaming music service with which it will compete against other services like Pandora and Spotify. And yes, just the other day more competition came in the form of Google Play Music All Access. But unlike those services, Cupertino plans on profiting from mobile ads instead of subscription fees. Revenue from the mobile ads are to be split with the record labels.
While Apple had hoped to launch the service at next month's WWDC developer conference, snags in negotiations with Sony Music and Warner Music have forced a delay. And now there is word leaking out that the fourth largest music publisher, BMG Rights Management, is also unhappy with Apple's offer and has not reached a deal yet with the Cupertino based firm.
Earlier this year, Apple was believed to be offering the labels a royalty rate of 6 cents for each 100 songs streamed, about half the 12 cents that Pandora is believed to pay and well under the 35 cents that Spotify is believed to pony up. But Apple is said to believe that because it is offering these companies a split of ad revenues, and because it expects an exceptionally large number of users, it should not have to pay the same royalty rates as other streaming music services.
The music industry is concerned about getting locked into a deal that pays songwriters and artists an amount deemed to be too low. This is what happened with Pandora. The president of the National Music Publishers Association, David Israelite, doesn't want to see another Pandora-like deal get signed. Although his organization is not involved in the negotiations with Apple, he said, "It's very important that new digital services pay songwriters and music publishers a fair share of the money."
source: TheVerge via BGR
1. saurik (Posts: 86; Member since: 13 May 2013)
I wonder how can a company like Apple provide streaming music service for free? Lol.
9. CellularNinja (Posts: 306; Member since: 27 Sep 2011)
I'm surprised as well since Apple is known for its Apple tax on products. I would think they would charge a lot for this to make money. It's not characteristic of them that's for sure.
10. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5982; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)
I imagine Apple is looking at the broadcast radio model (where as long as you can provide a receiver you can listen to the broadcast for free) and expecting it can cut a similar deal. Radio is supported by ads; why not iRadio? The angle for Apple is sales of new iToys. The old iToys won't be able to support iRadio; only new iToys with a special iRadio chipset will support iRadio.
13. Jack1192 (Posts: 35; Member since: 30 Mar 2013)
Yeah, similar to what happened with Siri during the launch of iPhone 4S. They didn't make it available for the iPhone 4.
2. HASHTAG (unregistered)
3. saurik (Posts: 86; Member since: 13 May 2013)
lol this isn't the right article to comment this cuz apples not gonna charge for iRadio haha
5. HASHTAG (unregistered)
So what if Apple isn't going to charge; that's their choice. But still they should still have to pay Sony, Warner, and the others a fair amount, instead of being cheap. So, yes this is the right article to call Apple greedy.
16. Droiddoes (unregistered)
Fascinating. They just want to make everyone but themselves and their drones pay for it. Typical greedy disgusting move by a greedy disgusting company.
12. joey_sfb (Posts: 3718; Member since: 29 Mar 2012)
at least the labels agrees with the fee Google is paying them unlike the cheapo fruit that overcharge their customers turnaround and be cheap with their suppliers. The labels should not deal unless they are comfortable with the rates.
4. PhoneCritic (Posts: 416; Member since: 05 Oct 2011)
Not surprised. Apple as a business has millions of users that it offers up as it's leverage( a fair inline price) which is good. However, to think that because of this it does not have to pay songwriters and musicians the fair going rate is really arrogant. Many other companies have millions of users to and they are willing to pay the fair going rate. This is like when Apple said it's patents were worth 6 bucks a piece for every device that infringed on them but on every patent it infringed on it said was worth only 00.02 cent per device. Hope they come to a sensible agreement that is fair to everyone especially the people who write and perform the music.
7. downphoenix (Posts: 2557; Member since: 19 Jun 2010)
this service is very un-applelike, just like how the google play music all access is very un-googlelike. I would have expected Apple to charge a subscription and Google to monetize it based on ads.
8. InspectorGadget80 (Posts: 6881; Member since: 26 Mar 2011)
Iradio IFAil. Sony don't want Apple too own any profits. Sony owns MGM/COLUMBIA records which have one of the largest music artist in the industry.
14. rk9flame (Posts: 5; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)
First of all, I'm aware I'm only fueling your fire, but here it goes.
When trying to make fun of an apple product or service, the correct nomenclature is a lower case 'i', followed by a capital noun or verb. ex: iRadio, iPad, iFail. At least get that part right if you are trying to be "clever".
Next, Sony's music division isn't exactly printing money. Its a stable income for the company, but is neither growing nor failing. This partnership would be a huge boost for them if done properly.
Both parties are simply ensuring they get the best deal they can, just as Apple is doing, and as any company would do. No one is being "evil", they are just practicing good business. As long as neither company stonewalls the other and talks are happening, nothing is wrong.
Disclosure: I own both Apple and Sony products and am very much fans of both companies.
15. Droiddoes (unregistered)
HAHA greedy apple, everyone's getting sick of their sh*t and it's about time!