back to article 'Apple lures labels from free streams – and why is no one doing anything about it' shrieks group

A pressure group in America has urged US watchdog the FTC and Uncle Sam's Department of Justice to probe Apple Music for signs of antitrust violations. Consumer Watchdog has written a letter [PDF] to the five commissioners of the FTC as well as DoJ attorney general Loretta Lynch and assistant attorney general William Baer …

  1. Dan Paul

    Paid versus Unpaid services?

    Are we really so stupid to play the anti-trust card when the record labels or artists would rather sign a deal with a paying customer (Apple) rather than one that does not pay (Pandora et al)? Perhaps Apple is remiss in asking for an exclusive deal but you have to ask, aren't the record labels the ones really at fault here? They could always say no!

    I know I like to be financially rewarded for my work. How about you? Wasn't there just a forum thread about working for charities and how unrewarding that was.

    1. justausername

      Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

      You do realize that both services pay artists, right? The issue being discussed is how each service brings money in. One does that through selling advertisements and the other does that by selling subscriptions.

      1. Doug Petrosky 1

        Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

        You do realize that ad supported music makes 10% of what paid music makes per stream and the labels are not happy with it. The fact that Apple choose to offer a service that the music industry likes to try to get favorable considerations from said industry is just good business. Apple is trying to enter a market that has serious competition and needs to differentiate it's services as best it can.

        There is no collusion here, just a company trying to enter a crowded market by giving the industry what they wanted. I wonder how Spotify (who is who is behind all of this) would feel if Apple said...ok screw it! Here is our ad supported version!

        In the end, the industry would still start windowing new releases into paid services first to encourage people to upgrade, but at least nobody would have Apple to throw under the bus.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

          "You do realize that ad supported music makes 10% of what paid music makes per stream and the labels are not happy with it. The fact that Apple choose to offer a service that the music industry likes to try to get favorable considerations from said industry is just good business."

          The problem is that, in some circles, this would be considered cartel behaviour, a form of oligopoly power. Winning friends and influencing people is one thing; using said influence to deny the same to others is a whole other kettle of fish.

      2. Dan Paul

        Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

        No, idiot, the vast majority of Pandora users get it for FREE. Only some of their users are on subscription. THATS why they are not paying the labels enough to keep them from going to Apple as their subscription base is not big enough. Apple doesn't do anything for free but they are creating a price war with the "Free" model by paying MORE money to artists and labels than Pandora does.

    2. Planty Bronze badge
      FAIL

      Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

      Apple owners, desperately delusional as usual. They get paid either way, different earning models, but both paying.

      1. Dan Paul

        Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?@Planty

        I have never owned an Apple product or service in my life. If you could learn to read, instead of reacting with that tiny, primitive lizard brain of yours; you might have understood what I was saying.

        Pandora has an ad supported, half ass subscription model that has few subscribers and too many free clients, Apple ONLY has a fully fleshed out and mature subscription model supported by everyone who has an iPhone and wants music.

        Now children, who will make more money, a bigger dick to swing and have a greater ability to pay artists?

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

      The issue here is the monopolistic practice of trying to lock competitors out through exclusive deals. If all they (Apple) were offering was to pay more for the music it wouldn't be a problem and may even help the artists (assuming the labels would pass some of that on to them). But if they are after exclusive deals which prevent the unpaid services from gaining access to the music, that's bad.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

        Why did it take so long for Google to progress Google music from a US service to a global one? The answer is all the regional deals that apple had signed labels upto that prevented them talking to anyone else. "You want to sell on iTunes, sure sign this...".

        This is his anti consumer works. Anyone with an apple product is part of the problem

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

        how is this any different from a TV Show being available on say Sky Atlantic and not on say Channel 5?

        One is paid for by advertisers and sponsors only while the former has Subscribers as well.

        About time that Channel 5 (and others) compained to Ofcom that they can't show the same progs as a subscription only channel.

        I have no intention of ever signing up for the likes of Apple Music, spotify, Netflix , Sky, amazon Prime or VM (yes I'm a scrooge), I make do with what I get in terms of TV for what I pay on my TV license.

        Any prog on C5, C4 etc that has commercial breaks is recorded so I can skip over the endless ads for crap I don't want or services that I wouldn't touch with a 100ft pole.

        Yours GOM #2108 {Grumpy Old Man number 2108}

        1. Dan Paul

          Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

          Someone who gets it. WOW! I didn't think it would happen.

      3. Dan Paul

        Re: Paid versus Unpaid services?

        Is paying a higher price than your competitors monopolistic? I don't think so.

        If you bothered to read what I wrote, you might have seen that I already addressed the issue of exclusivity being grounds for monopolistic rebuke.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Dear Apple, I have a bat with spikes if you need to borrow one.

  3. Planty Bronze badge

    Apple owners, the real problem

    Total freaking retards that can't understand they are the key part of the problem

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Apple owners, the real problem

      Beg pardon?

    2. Doug Petrosky 1

      Re: Apple owners, the real problem

      Enlighten us all! How are we part of the problem?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Apple owners, the real problem

        You carry on buying their overpriced , underperforming crap not caring about their anti consumer evil practices.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Apple owners, the real problem

          Yawn... The only advantage of an Android phone is that it is cheap. And that's what it says about its owner.

          1. Planty Bronze badge
            FAIL

            Re: Apple owners, the real problem

            Nice try at baiting. Sadly it's far from true. Something like the Sony Xperia Z3 destroys anything Apple have to offer, it's got a better display, better speakers, thinner, waterproof, HD 24/96 audio, hardware active noise cancelling, it doesn't bend in your pocket, comes with an O/S that doesn't limit you.

            Oh, it's also cheaper, but apparently, that's a bad thing, as your measure of how good something is, is how much it costs...

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Apple owners, the real problem

              >>Nice try at baiting. Sadly it's far from true. Something like the Sony Xperia Z3 destroys anything Apple have to offer, ...

              You need to better inform yourself. As of 9/14 the iPhone 6 is objectively better than almost all other phones at almost everything:

              http://www.anandtech.com/show/8554/the-iphone-6-review

              The idea that Apple sells an inferior product is laughably wrong. It's a fairy tale that Android owners tell themselves at night before going to bed so they'll feel better about their purchasing decisions.

            2. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Apple owners, the real problem

              >>Something like the Sony Xperia Z3 destroys anything Apple have to offer, it's got a better display, better speakers, thinner, waterproof, HD 24/96 audio, hardware active noise cancelling, it doesn't bend in your pocket, comes with an O/S that doesn't limit you.

              Actually I was curious about the Z3 so I looked it up. Some of these claims are flat-out wrong. The Z3 is actually slightly thicker than the iPhone 6, and a fair amount (almost 20%) heavier. It may support 24/96 audio formats but that seems to be an exercise in pointlessness since its SNR is nearly 10 dB (!!) worse. Of course the iPhone has had active noise cancellation ever since the iPhone 4 back in 2011. And it seems the Xperia Z3 does bend in your pocket:

              http://www.redmondpie.com/sony-xperia-z3-suffers-from-bendgate-too-just-like-the-iphone-6-plus-photos/

              The iPhone 6's display is so much better than all other phones that it would be a pretty big surprise if the Sony had a better display, although I haven't seen any numbers re: color gamut, accuracy, contrast, white point, etc. (Have you?)

              The Sony may have better speakers and being waterproof is obviously an advantage. I would still rather have an iPhone 6 if it's going to be better in almost every other regard.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Nothing new

    The problem with music and streaming services in particular is how mush should they cost and how much profit is considered acceptable. Their argument is that by cutting off all of the free or cheaper services they force people to pay a lot more than the "work" is actually worth. It's no different to what sports organisations do with TV rights to maximise their profits, signing up to the ones who offer the most money and cost the consumer the most. Maybe it should be illegal but it's not, it's just business.

  5. FreedomTX

    Sense of self entitlements are not good...

    The issue here isn't people getting rewarded for their work, it is Apple trying to throw their weight around to get around market forces and 'rub out' ad supported streaming services...and violating anti-trust rules in the process. You greedy, self entitled twits really amuse me. Why don't you try reading the article and then maybe you can post in a more non-ignorant fashion.

    1. Doug Petrosky 1

      Re: Sense of self entitlements are not good...

      Think for a second...... Why would apple care about ad supported streaming going away? Do you think they are not smart enough to make an ad supported service of their own? Do you think they want to make iOS devices less useful or more expensive to use? THIS MAKES NO SENSE!!!!

      Apple is trying to enter a market with a compelling product to offer for it's iOS users because it wants to sell more iOS devices. A look at ad supported streaming shows that revenue to the music labels is 1/10 of what it is per stream vs paid subscriptions and that companies who offer these services are loosing money on ad supported streams. Then look at subscriptions on the same service and 10X the money is delivered to the industry and that segment is profitable for the streaming provider........ hmmm. Which business model should we follow?

      Spotify is scared and should be. The labels have been threatening to change streaming prices for years, but without competition were unwilling. Now Apple is here and Spotify knows they are in trouble, so they are trying to get the government to protect their failed business model.

      1. justausername

        Re: Sense of self entitlements are not good...

        You keep throwing around this 10% number for ad based streaming. Care to back that up with a verified source?

        Artists complain about streaming earning them less money than terrestrial radio. As well it should since a stream is one listener. A radio station is hundreds of thousands if not millions. The two are not comparable. I know that is a bit off topic. Just wanted to add my nonsensical rant to counteract yours.

        1. Jan Hargreaves

          Re: Sense of self entitlements are not good...

          I've seen it in reports from Spotify and many other ad supported models for artists I deal with but here is an online source:

          http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/11/26/spotifypremiumadsupported

          Slightly old but the figures are accurate.

          Spotify Free:

          Streams: 220,571

          Royalty: $108.40

          Average per-stream payout: $0.00049

          How anyone can justify this as a fair remuneration is beyond me.

          1. Alan Twelve

            Re: Sense of self entitlements are not good...

            Jan

            That $0.00049 per stream may be what the artist receives, but it's not what Spotify are paying, is it?

            Anyway, this is what the market has dictated the stream to be worth, surely?

            1. Bob the Skutter

              Re: Sense of self entitlements are not good...

              I believe that radio pays out about £40 in royalties for a song, if you have 100k people listening that equates to £0.0004 which is less than Spotify per listener.

            2. Jan Hargreaves

              Re: Sense of self entitlements are not good...

              That is what Spotify is paying. Not sure what you mean by that statement. There are third parties involved in a lot of cases but the amount received from Spotify is reported, at least in my own experience. The artist then gets a percentage of that.

              It may be what most of the major streaming players are paying; that doesn't make it a fair payment though. The irony of multi-millionaire musicians standing on stage asking for a higher cut must be lost on them, but their point is valid. If you think this is a fair rate then perhaps you should work for $10 an hour. Stuff the "living rage"; the market has dictated that $10 an hour is enough to live on in New York. How many streams is that....?

  6. NanoMeter

    Youtube would be closed for commercial music if it was up to Apple. I hope Google will be able to keep the record companies on Youtube.

    1. Doug Petrosky 1

      You idiot! Apple couldn't care!

      Apple just wants to be the center of your music experience. They offer an ad supported service today the competes with pandora. They would be happy to offer an ad supported Spotify style service too but the industry don't want it so it will be hard for Apple to differentiate.

      I have no doubt that something will come of this, but it is stupider than the ebook thing. Apple couldn't care if ebooks cost $20 or $2. They just want to provide a service that helps them sell iOS devices.

      1. lukewarmdog
        Trollface

        @Doug

        You're stupider than the ebook thing.

  7. VinceH

    Optional

    "Apple's distaste for free streaming music anything that isn't theirs"

    FTFY!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Optional

      Hey Come on !

      They gave me a U2 album for free.

      1. VinceH
        Trollface

        Re: Optional

        Yeah - it wasn't theirs so they got rid of it sharpish by giving it away to as many people as they could! :p

  8. P. Lee

    Don't Worry, Be Happy

    Anyone who channel surfs on radio can't help noticing that you'll find the same advert on different channels at the same time every day. You'll also notice that your hear the same track on multiple channels at the same time, every day.

    Coincidence? Not really. Its the same marketing principle that MS tried to use with the W8 TIFKAM interface: if you make something familiar, people will like it and they will buy it (or at least ring up and ask to have it played, which is also a sale, especially if airtime is used to calculate royalty distributions).

    Of course you have to have some vaguely likeable raw material to start with (MS didn't, pretty young things in skimpy clothes simulating or implying sex are likely to meet that rather low bar), but its the blanket marketing which keeps out the mindshare competition which is what makes it effective. The artists (and I use the term loosely) are the iron ore, the marketing is the manufacturing which turns it into shiny trinkets which people want. Free music is the advertising which gets people to buy it, so that when the marketing ends, they can still hear it.

    So (pop) music will always be available for free. If it wasn't, people wouldn't buy it. The industry wants you to have the music for free and then feel loss when its taken away. The first hit is free.

    1. Captain DaFt

      Re: Don't Worry, Be Happy

      "The industry wants you to have the music for free and then feel loss when its taken away. The first hit is free."

      Then they're doing something WROMG*. These days when I can't hear most popular pop tunes anymore, I feel relief!

      *Not a misspelling. It's a portmanteau of "wrong" and "OMG!" Denotes a more catastrophic error.

    2. Charles 9

      Re: Don't Worry, Be Happy

      Advertisement timing is a technique used by both radio and TV to discourage station surfing which can cause station defections. Most people would normally look for something else to peruse when the commercials come on. But if all the stations are airing commercials at the same time, then there are no alternatives and perusers will just sit tight.

      If more than one station is airing the same song at the same time, odds are the stations are part of the same conglomerate.

  9. Medixstiff

    What I would like to know.

    Have any Apple owners moved to Android and tried to transfer their purchases across, I know I used to be able to download songs I bought on the Play Store to my mobile, then sometime last year that changed as DoubleTwist threw up a message about due to changes, songs could now only be played through Google's player.

    1. Dave Fox

      Re: What I would like to know.

      Yes, you can only play Google Play Music content on Google Play Music.

      However, at least Google make Play Music, Play Movies and TV, and Play Books available on iOS.

      Compare and contrast to Apple apps on Android.

      Now I'm sure someone will pipe up and say that Apple Music is going to be available on Android, and this is true, but let's not kid ourselves that this is some sea-change from Apple. The *only* reason they are supporting Android is family sharing - they know damn well that they have to support cross platform family sharing if rivals like Spotify are able to do this, because not every family is all iOS or all Android (in my case, my wife uses iOS devices, but I prefer Android).

      I wouldn't be at all surprised of Apple Music for Android only works with a family subscription when it is eventually released.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: What I would like to know.

        Regarding music purchases from Google Play Music...

        When you buy a song (or album) from GPM it is added into your Google Play Music account. If you open the Google Play Music website on your computer you'll find all of the songs in your library are there, and next to each is a little menu button (three dots). Click this and there is a "download" option. Alternatively if you have the Google Play Music Manager installed on your computer for uploading your music collection to your Google library there is a "download purchases" button in there.

        How do I know this? Because I use it all the time, and if I buy a song from Google I sometimes want to play it in my car on my iPod, so I download the MP3, add it to iTunes, and transfer it through there.

        FWIW you can also download iTunes purchases and play them on anything too, as they're just MP3s after all.

  10. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    You don't have to buy their music...

    ...and they don't have to sell it to you for the price you want.

    What's the problem? If the music is worth it then people will pay. It's not an essential like food, water or medicine.

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