Apple seeks to cut Beats Music monthly subscription rate in half

Apple seeks to cut Beats Music monthly subscription rate in half
There have been reports recently that Apple is in talks with record labels, seeking to lower the royalties it pays them for streaming music. The goal in Cupertino, is for Apple to slice in half the price it charges for streaming tunes with Beats Music. The current rate is $9.99 a month. Apple didn't arrive at the $4.99 figure by pulling a piece of paper with that figure out of its hat.

The tech titan realized that the average iTunes customer spends a maximum of $60 a year to download music. That works out to $5 per month. Even if cutting the price in half doesn't bring in enough new blood to make up for the price cut, Apple claims that its dedicated subscribers will help keep revenue constant.

Apple's iTunes Radio, which is a free, advertiser supported service that uses radio station-styled playlists, is not going to be the service that allows Apple to compete with other music streamers like Spotify. And thus we discover the true reason behind Apple's $3 billion acquisition of Beats. Apple is expected to relaunch Beats Music early next year.

Meanwhile, Spotify has announced today a 50% discount for accounts opened by family members. If you are paying the usual $10 per month for Spotify's premium account, your wife, brother, sister or husband need only pay $5. The reason why these music streamers are so eager to wield an ax on pricing, is that sales of downloaded music are not only dropping, but the pace of the decline is accelerating. No doubt that the other streamers are egging Apple on, since any new deal reached with the recording industry will become the industry standard.

But this is right in Apple's wheelhouse. Differentiating its music streaming offering by UI, selection and features allows Apple to use the magic of the Apple name to take on Spotify and Pandora. This probably means the end of the Beats Music name, and a re-branding of Apple's paid music offering.

source: Recode via RedmondPie



1. darkvadervip

Posts: 366; Member since: Dec 08, 2010


2. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

Wow...something positive coming from Apple. Hope it works out. And I hope that doesnt mean a price hike elsewhere....especially for hardware.

9. jaytai0106

Posts: 1888; Member since: Mar 30, 2011

It is something positive coming form Apple finally. I bet they will make it only available on iOS devices one day... (I hope not). I did the free trial and I hated it. Some reason it will only play the first 15ish second of the song.

3. DnB925Art

Posts: 1168; Member since: May 23, 2013

The problem is they came late to the game and a lot of people are already locked into other music streaming services. Right now the only way to lure customers is by their name, a better catalog of music and price.

5. tedkord

Posts: 17357; Member since: Jun 17, 2009

Note, if Beats takes off, will the hardcore Apple fans hold their noses and claim that is only because it's cheaper? Like they do with Android?

6. boosook

Posts: 1442; Member since: Nov 19, 2012

well, I don't agree... streaming services are inherently interchangeable, because you don't own anything! So what keeps you "locked" in another streaming service? Nothing! As long as the service is good (i.e. the catalog is the same, the app has a good interface and the service works well) what differentiates a service from another? Price! That's because streaming services are only interfaces to songs that are produced by the majors, so I'll just choose the interface that works and costs less.

7. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

You mentioned interface but said only difference between services is price. Its both. Some have decent music player controls, some you can actually listen to the music on another player or another streaming music player. I did that with Google Music and Amazon mp3. Cant remember which allowed it right now tho. Some have a better browsing system. Some let you listen to music offline, even if it has a "get back online by x days" restriction. One thing I like about Spotify.

8. boosook

Posts: 1442; Member since: Nov 19, 2012

Yes of course: the price you pay for a given interface. I agree that there are some clients that are better than others, some that have more bugs than others. So, your choice will be based on how good the client is and its price. What I was trying to say is that there's nothing that ties you to a particular client and if you find another client which is as good as your current one but it costs half, well, you would probably change.

4. PapaSmurf

Posts: 10457; Member since: May 14, 2012

I get this for free thanks to the AT&T employee discount. Great app.

10. ahhxd717

Posts: 332; Member since: Dec 08, 2011

How does it compare to Google Play All Access? Thinking about getting it once my trial is up

11. richyoung

Posts: 1; Member since: Oct 21, 2014

OK Google. Your turn. How about $4.99 for Play Music? Or lower if you want to lead...

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.