“By acquiring Lala, Apple is signaling that it intends to be a major player in the fast growing streaming music sector,” Foremski writes. “It also shows that Apple is betting on a unique approach towards streaming music services and one that better fits into its current iTunes business model.”
Foremski writes, “Lala offers customers a lifetime license to stream songs from its extensive music library for 10 cents per song. This is a complimentary model to Apple’s iTunes store that offers downloads of songs for 99 cents each.”
“In the US there are numerous startups offering advertising supported music streaming services. Advertising supported music streaming, however, faces challenges as license fees rise,” Foremski writes. “With a paid-model such as that offered by Lala, Apple will be able to offer better licensing deals to the hard hit music industry than revenues from competitors with advertising supported music streaming services. This will be a key differentiator in the forthcoming battles over subscribers to music streaming services.”
Foremski write, “Unlike music subscription plans where access to music stops when payment stops, Lala users retain full access. Why waste $15 per month on a subscription plan when for the same money you can have lifetime access to 150 songs a month, and build a growing library of music? Again, Apple has a key differentiator that competitors lack.”
Full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “James W.” for the heads up.]
Heh, now *every* Lala-related story I read makes me think of Kylie Minogue’s “Can’t Get You Out Of My Head”, thanks to the bits that go: “La la la, la la la Lala…”
Apple will use Lala’s technology to stream the music you already own to any Apple device anywhere. I don’t think it will be used to give you streaming access to any and all music – that would require a monthly subscription. This way you buy the music once and then stream it anytime to anywhere for free.
TT –
You’re back on my Christmas list!
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”cool smile” style=”border:0;” />
Up yours Universal now let’s see you slight Apple
I don’t think this is any better than other services. 10¢ and I can stream forever. Not really, because some day the servers will shutdown and I will not be able to get my stream any more.
How does $15 per lifetime provide a richer cash stream that $15 a month?
Doesnt seem to stack up.
Just a thought,,,,,
“”By acquiring Lala, Apple is signaling that it intends to be a major player in the fast growing streaming music sector,” Foremski writes”
the fast growing streaming music sector..???????? since when. And now that Rhapsody has an iPhone app, I just have to wonder.
I have to seriously question the author…
Just a thought.
en
“This is a complimentary model ….”
I think they mean “complementary”
@Cubert: “Apple will use Lala’s technology to stream the music you already own to any Apple device anywhere.”
They didn’t need to buy an $80M company to do that. Does Lala own some IP Apple wants?
I think this is short sighted view. I bet Apple will not use Lala’s business model at all. Instead it will use the technology behind Lala in a new and totally unexpected way. They did not purchase Lala on a whim. They needed that type of expertise to further develop MobileMe is my bet.
I’m with Jeff – I think that Lala may have streaming IP that could help Apple when they reveal a subscription streaming video service
Just me being the fanboy here, but I think we all know the truth: When Apple reveals what they are actually going to do with Lala we’ll all wet ourselves and proclaim the concept as genius, revolutionary and something we can’t believe we lived all these long years without.
Hey, somebody had to say it.
@ MidWest Mac ; Agree…
I read some where, that LaLa has the tech, to scan your library , so you would have access to all your music, just not what was purchased via iTunes , and wld
not equire you to upLoad to a cloud
So far Apple’s pay rate to the artists has been the most generous of all the download sites. Speaking as a hopeful artist, if the LaLa connection turns out to be merely a way of providing easier access to music that has already been bought and paid for, then I would have no problem with it. But if it turns out that Rhapsody et alia’s shortchanging of the musician is forcing Apple to follow suit, that would be very bad for us.
“Lala offers streaming for 10 cents per song. This is a complimentary model to Apple’s iTunes store that offers downloads of songs for 99 cents each.”
I think the word he was after was ‘contradictory’.
well let’s think:
pros of Lala/Apple cloud streaming:
1. 10 cents for lifetime (or as long as Apple exists) listening rights to a song – just 10% or less of the cost of an iTunes purchase. your library could be 10x bigger for the same total expenditure!
2. one free full preview of a song (the iTunes random 30 seconds is almost never enuff).
3. play anywhere you have web access (and iPhone cell data too?).
4. don’t need a big storage drive.
cons of Lala/Apple cloud streaming:
5. can’t play the song when no web (or iPhone?) access is available. whereas if you buy it from iTunes you can.
6. can’t burn a CD with the songs. if you buy it from iTunes you can.
7. can’t use songs as ringtones, imovie soundtracks, etc. if you buy it from iTunes you can.
8. streaming audio quality not always as good as iTunes purchase quality.
9. streaming may conflict with other simultaneous LAN activity, causing audio glitches.
of course you could just buy a few songs you want to burn etc. and stream the rest, and save a lot of money.
what i don’t get is why the media companies would like this. they just pushed the price of hit songs up to $1.39 this year, and more for albums too. how could they make anywhere near as much money at 10 cents a song? teens aren’t going to buy 14x as many pop star songs.
it would only maybe make sense if you paid 10 cents for each piece of hardware licensed to stream one song. so then you might pay 30 cents total per song (for a desktop, laptop, iPod combo) – or 50 cents for all 5 computers licensed to one iTunes account?