back to article Bring on the Music, Apple: Spotify ups the ante - and money pot

Music streaming biz Spotify has raised $115m (£75m) from an investor, part of the latest funding round which — according to reports — values the company at a staggering $8.5bn (£5.7bn). Swedish telephone biz TeliaSonera AB today confirmed it has handed over a further $115m to Spotify, with the company having been an investor …

  1. Snowy Silver badge

    Interesting...

    Similar to the Spotify app, Apple Music will release its pre-installed music service for $10 a month when iPhone customers upgrade their mobes to the latest version of iOS.

    Using their large user base to move into a new market!, surely that is anti competitive and there should be a option to install a different music service instead, a bit like Microsoft where made to do with Explorer.

    1. jay_bea

      Re: Interesting...

      Well at the moment, you can install the Spotify/Amazon Music/Google Play Music App on your iDevice so you can have different music services, but will that continue once Apple Music is launched?

      1. Busby

        Re: Interesting...

        Not sure if it still exists but Apple used to have a clause in the app store terms that you couldn't have an app to replace Apple features ie SMS or similar. Be curious to see if they dare try to retroactively apply this to competing cloud music services or if they are too worried this would make the antitrust claims even more compelling. Wouldn't surprise me if they don't pull existing apps but just refuse to approve any updated versions.

        Certainly would be concerned if I worked at Spotify, Pandora or similar services that I'm about to lose a large chunk of customers.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Interesting...

          There's always some idiot who comes up with this "now Apple is going to ban competitors" but no one can point to a single instance where they have retroactively banned competing apps. Did they ban Google Maps or Nokia Here when they did Apple Maps? No. Did they ban WhatsApp et al when they introduced iMessage? No. And so on...

          But please, continue with the ridiculous assertions every time Apple adds something new that all the competition is going to be banned from the App Store tomorrow.

        2. Slx

          Re: Interesting...

          Banning Spotify retrospectively from iOS would undoubtedly unleash a European Commission fine that could run into massive amounts of money as it would be a % of Apple's revenues and don't think they wouldn't do it either, the EU Competition Commission has taken on huge players both local and international.

    2. Naselus

      Re: Interesting...

      "Using their large user base to move into a new market!, surely that is anti competitive and there should be a option to install a different music service instead, a bit like Microsoft where made to do with Explorer."

      No, it's not anti-competitive. Apple aren't as popular as their presence in the tech press suggests, and have nowhere near the level of clout MS enjoyed in the late '90s.

      In MS's case, they had 95% market share of the whole world's desktop OS market and were leveraging that for dominance in web browsing. In Apple's case, they have about 15% of the world's smartmobe market, so no matter how they leverage it they're not gonna shut out competitors. For all the giant valuation of Apple, they've never actually been dominant in any market; even in the US, where iPhones are more popular than elsewhere, Samsung and Android have pretty much always had better market share - and North America is actually a really small market (~400m people, half the size of Europe, a third the size of India and 1/4th the size of China). In global terms, it's like being the premier cheese-monger in Dudley.

      If you look at the rest of their tech portfolio, it actually gets worse. Macbooks and Mac Desktops have a market share of about 10%; that's only about 3% higher than it was back in the mid-90s. Even the mighty iPod, which had over 70% of the US MP3 market every year for most of a decade, was actually below 50% if you looked at it world wide. The Watch's iPhone dependency means it's locked out of over 85% of the worldwide market automatically, which doesn't exactly bode well. iPad market share fell off a cliff the moment serious competitors decided the tablet market was a thing after all, and continues to plummet even in a now shrinking market.

      1. Bob Starling
        Happy

        Re: Interesting...

        You know you can upset people by arguing with facts don't you

      2. phuzz Silver badge
        Meh

        Re: Interesting...

        I've been assuming that at least part of the reason iPad sales fell off a cliff is because everyone who wanted one (and could afford one) has already bought one, and there's not much point in upgrading.

        1. Naselus

          Re: Interesting...

          "I've been assuming that at least part of the reason iPad sales fell off a cliff is because everyone who wanted one (and could afford one) has already bought one, and there's not much point in upgrading."

          I suspect it's rather more to do with the fact that tablets are shit, tbh. Well, they're not shit, but they're far more limited than the ludicrous hype around them suggested. Remember how, in 2010, we were told the era of the desktop was over? Anyone still got desktops in the office, 5 years later? Thought you might...

  2. Eric Olson

    It should be noted...

    That Apple Music and record labels are being investigated for evidence of price fixing or collusion to shut out freemium streaming services like Spotify. It's being led by the same two Attorney Generals who went after, found, and prosecuted Apple and publishers for price fixing in the eBook sphere.

    This is important to Spotify because there have been rumblings that some high-profile artists and their labels don't like these services because they don't provide enough in revenue for the most popular acts, while the smaller labels and artists seem to love Spotify.

    Source: www.nytimes.com/reuters/2015/06/10/business/10reuters-apple-music-investigation.html

    1. Mike Bell

      Re: It should be noted...

      It should also be noted that Universal Music Group, a major partner under investigation, has already repudiated said claims.

      1. Naselus

        Re: It should be noted...

        "It should also be noted that Universal Music Group, a major partner under investigation, has already repudiated said claims."

        Yes, and Apple denied the e-book price fixing too. Even when it was bloody obvious that it was true. Sometimes, companies lie when they're caught cheating.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: It should be noted...

      That Apple Music and record labels are being investigated for evidence of price fixing or collusion to shut out freemium streaming services like Spotify. It's being led by the same two Attorney Generals who went after, found, and prosecuted Apple and publishers for price fixing in the eBook sphere.

      It should also be noted that "encouraging" investigations of organisations moving into an established market and then ensuring that this is widely reported is not exactly a new tactic for those already in that market, which is what may be happening here.

      I don't think Apple would burn its fingers twice - it doesn't have to. This is not to say that Apple would or would not act if it thought it could get away with it (no idea what stance current leadership takes in that aspect), just that risk vs reward doesn't stack up for it to do so.

  3. Zog_but_not_the_first
    Facepalm

    Hmmm...

    "The deal is based around furthering media distribution, customer insights, data analytics and advertising"

    One of those reflects an enjoyment of music while the other three reflect stalking, snooping and selling shit.

  4. werdsmith Silver badge

    Streaming services don't really make much sense for my requirements. I already own and have paid for media with 99% of the music I am ever going to really like. If I signed up to Spotify or Apple Music then I would be paying for it all over again.

    Or I would be paying to have the music delivered by a different medium.

    Nah.

    1. RonWheeler

      You should try it (Spotify that is)

      There is a lot of good new music out there if you look. Not having to pay for a CD or suffering the (usually dire) playlists of radio stations makes trying out new stuff risk free and rewarding.

    2. Busby

      I used to think the same as if it's not in my library then I wont be listening to it and I always carried a 160gb ipod classic. But now I mainly use the free Google Play Music, only lets you upload 20,000 songs so I had to be selective but does give me access on any device anywhere at no cost. Also means I don't need to carry the ipod as it was on the heavy side was happy to drop it.

      Now use a mix of locally stored and cloud stored depending on what connection I'm on and how much data I have left to burn on my mobe.

      Also useful when visiting parents to download your library to another machine but of course I wouldn't use it for those purposes.

  5. Fihart

    Apple v. Music

    Though I own two (secondhand) iPods I seldom use them because adding music via iTunes is a pain (at least compared with drag and drop on Samsung and Sony players). Occasionally I have to help a friend with her iPod and end up shouting at it.

    This weekend I was asked to try to rescue an Ipod Touch which friend of friend had locked up with a wrong passcode (why would you need a passcode on a music player, anyway).

    As far as I could see, without diving into the bowels of the OS or backing it up to the original computer it was teamed with (which I didn't have), all the music on it would be lost when unlocking, as that involved a complete wipe and OS reload. The operation, including research and downloading iTunes to my computer, took more than an hour.

    Once it was working again the iPod displayed a new beastliness towards music in that it seemed impossible (I know now it isn't) to rip a CD to the iPod. At least on older versions of iTunes, it was a little simpler to rip and transfer. With the new generation Pod with wireless net connectivity Apple has made it simpler to just download tracks from them -- at a cost per track that I pay for complete albums in charity shops and flea markets !

    So, in helping out, I assume I have destroyed her music collection purchased at some considerable cost -- and she may have some trouble restoring it from her computer as the iPod is now teamed to my computer.

    I may here be displaying ignorance of ways of managing an iPod that are obvious to the more experienced user -- but my complaint is that the Apple approach (which doubtless extends to iPhone) is annoying nonsense compared with other brands.

    1. Zog_but_not_the_first
      Gimp

      Re: Apple v. Music

      At the risk of being tiresomely repetitive "Apple - do it our way and nobody gets hurt".

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like