Comments on: ‘Apple Just F****d Over Online Music Subs’

By: Thor

Thor — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 18:50:04 +0000

So now Android, Palm and Microsoft can market their phones as 30% cheaper to run Spotify on? If I got this correctly the price Spotify offers for subscriptions via the web must not be cheaper than subscribing via Apple. Thus to me it sounds like Spotify can charge a premium via their site and iTunes to offer the option of still using the iPhone to stream music. As is one price for iOS and a cheaper price if you don’t want the option to use an Apple devide. I could be mistaken …

By: James

James — Sat, 19 Feb 2011 23:24:43 +0000

Surely there is a huge opportunity for the newly formed Nokisoft alliance to swoop in on this mess and take advantage? Nokia, with its extensive global network of operator billing agreements, and Microsoft with potential publishing gems like Seadragon that have barely been put to use – ppublishers could push paid content way beyond the boundaries that limit Apple and Google.

It could work, and it could work very well if the details were worked out correctly. Using the pinch to zoom on WP7 you could cram an entire publication into one 300mpx image, charging, say, 1€ for the privilege.

I would pay.

By: honjk

honjk — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 14:25:13 +0000

———-
subscription services just as they promise to return the music industry to growth
==========

no, lying to yourself is f%%king over yourself…. in NO WAY has “Music” Subscription services even had enough subscribers to scratch a fingernail of a flee in the music industry…..

even Rhapsody is constantly losing subscribers, of the tiny few they have…..

it is a case of “there are no drones here, move along” you can not compete in the industry because people don’t actually want to use you…. App or Subscription or not….. move along, App customers didn’t want you in the first place, try the web, if you couldn’t make it there over the last 10 years, why in the world did you think a “subscription” service for your subscription service was going to help?

use the web for gods sake.

By: V Lee V

V Lee V — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 13:02:41 +0000

The emerging generation is on the GOOGLE PHONE ANYWAY . APPLE BETTER WISE UP . WE were going to do the whole apple app dance and decided ( none too soon ) to ‘OPT-OUT’ . Thanks to my kids and ALL their friends for showing me the way . THEY ARE ALL ON THE GOOGLE formatted phones . WOW!

By: David Evans

David Evans — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 12:06:44 +0000

I think quite a few people are missing the most iniquitous part of the Apple deal here; its not the 30% (as a publisher you can make the business case or you can’t, but its straightforward), its that Apple insist they get the same or better pricing through iTunes as another platform. So there’s no loading a 30% “iOS surcharge” on, or anything like that. Apple are effectively taking away content owners’ rights to set pricing or offer channel-specific promotions if they want to remain on iTunes. If Wal-Mart of Tesco tried that; they’d be in front of a judge so fast it would make your head spin.

As for those who claim retail takes more than 30% so its OK for Apple to do the same; first of all its not entirely true (retail margins on books and music are actually pretty low, games are better), and second the retailer is doing a damn site more to justify their margin that Apple does, not least the stock risk, but also marketing (Apple gives you no guaranteed promotion for your App at all) and the effort of physical distribution, Apple doesn’t even give you bandwidth, so to compare Apple’s justification for 30% when compared to retail is extremely disingenuous.

By: Richard Tobin

Richard Tobin — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 11:23:41 +0000

If you have just one big fat apple in a barrel, sooner or later it will go rotten. Every apple goes rotten in the end. Better to have a barrel full of smaller fruits.

If Apple make consumers pay a 30% loading – and it will be the consumers who pay – Apple will find it all comes right back right into their face. The iPhone will run with Linux and will run Android (see androidoniphone for eg). Consumers will dump the iOS and convert if they are squeezed because the business model for making competitive iPhone OS’s will become viable – plus then Flash will run (their monopolistic-motivated mistake number one).

I cannot imagine anybody would miss using iTunes and the iStore – It is surely the most clunky user-unfriendly and unsearchable solution one could imagine. There already are alternatives, such as CopyTrans, and these products availability will grow exponentially as providers and clients realise the financial and utility advantages of getting out of the pomaceous prison.

Apple should take care not to kill their Golden Goose. Their sales in iTunes are as a result of people who have chosen the equipment – because the equipment is good (which they are paying for) and there is ready access to a wide range of meaningful independent applications. I cannot imaging bothering to use iTunes and the iStore if I did not have Apple hardware – why would you?

And indeed once you have decided your iPhone/Pad is better-off using alternative software – surely next time you buy a device it would not be so important that an Apple product is at the top of your shopping list at all. No no no. There are many good products out there these days.

By: Sebastien_Givry

Sebastien_Givry — Fri, 18 Feb 2011 10:12:59 +0000

If you all complain, it means that in the end, you really care about distributing on Apple’s AppStore and that this channel does bring you significant advantages over Android Market. Otherwhise you would have just wrote “who cares”. As many said, Apple gets its 30% share because it brings value and revenues to the publishers….

By: Jake

Jake — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 23:35:22 +0000

Look at Pandora as the example:

60% of revenues to the label extortion racket
30% of revenues to the Apple extortion racket

That leaves 10% of revenues for those annoying little things like salaries, servers, bandwidth, rent, and paying the electricity bill.

What does not exist in this model is actually making money. The labels and Apple are just treating music services like their whipping boys. What industry in the world is paying 90% of their revenues on content acquisition and affiliate distribution costs?

By: MJAD1965

MJAD1965 — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 20:19:05 +0000

“People are willing to pay through the nose for a brand. Idiots.
My boss was using his iPad yesterday and all I heard him do was b!tch while using it. But when you ask him what thinks of it he says he loves it. I think other apple fanboys are similarly brainwashed.”

Daauurgh. I’m a fanboy (good one!). I’m brainwashed. I’m a stupid idiot, and I don’t even know it, that’s what a stupid idiot I am. I’m not nearly as awesome as NoSacredCow. If only I could be. If only everyone could be. NoSacredCow knows everything. He’s awesome beyond words.

By: Jiggy Piggy Team

Jiggy Piggy Team — Thu, 17 Feb 2011 16:44:00 +0000

And now with Verizon coming on board, millions more will be using Apple’s platform. Undeniably monopolistic and destructive to the music industry.

Even if quick solutions to jump out of Apple and adhere to Android and other platforms may sound like a good idea, the streaming models need large customer base. The 30% fee will some how filter it’s way back to the customer and unless the customer is willing to pay more, subscriptions will deminish either fast or slowly.