“Apple has reportedly pitched music labels a new lower pricing structure for its Beats Music service, arguing that subscriptions could grow considerably if the price could be lowered to just $5 per month,” Neil Hughes reports for AppleInsider.
“In its negotiations with record labels, Apple has reportedly said that its best iTunes buyers only spend about $5 per month on downloaded music, according to Re/code. It’s because of that threshold that Apple reportedly believes that dropping subscription prices to that level could generate more revenue for music labels,” Hughes reports. “Currently, a subscription Beats Music costs $9.99 per month. If users are willing to sign up for a full year, it costs $99.99 for 12 months.”
Hughes reports, “Apple is also said to be considering a rebranding of its Beats Music service, bringing it more closely in line with its other iTunes products.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews readers too numerous to mention individually for the heads up.]
oh yes iBeats
…or would it be AppleBeats these days?
Currently a beats subscription only costs $8.29 per month if you buy the whole year at once.
Mongo love Apple and Sheriff Bart, but will remain beatless.
OK, I’m old, but why subscribe to music when radios still exist?
You can’t force the radio to play whatever exact songs you want, whenever you want them, as many times as you want to hear them.
Re-phrase your question as, “Why should I buy record albums when radio still exists?” and you’ll see your folly.
The radio is fine. It all sounds the same, anyway. Might as well be the same song played on a loop for years on end. Never hear Boo Hoo, anymore.
It’s as though trombones never existed.
Hurrumph.
Cuz I wanna hear the other 11 tracks that sucked and clean the dust off the record every so often.
Good point. 🙂
Still not interested though. I haven’t heard much good music since the 80s and my nieces and nephew keep me updated.
Why would I pay monthly to:
“play whatever exact songs you want, whenever you want them, as many times as you want to hear them.”
When I can just have an iPod/iPhone.
Think of all the money you save each year, as you stated above.. $99/year.. you buy more than 100 songs every year?
I’m close to having downloaded 100 songs just this month. Would I buy 100 songs a year if I had to pay for each one individually? Absolutely not. When you have to pay per-song, you only download the songs you really really want. Your behavior changes when you have a subscription service and literally unlimited access to everything in the service’s library. If you don’t have to pay per-song, it doesn’t have to be a song I REALLY REALLY MUST HAVE in order for me to download it. With Beats, if it’s a song I kind of like, or kind of like today, or a song I used to like in high school, or a song that’s pretty catchy but stupid…I’ll still download it, because it costs literally nothing extra to do so. Beats is an all-you-can-eat buffet of music downloading, and just like any all-you-can-eat buffet, you’re likely to gorge.
and the day you stop subscribing, or the service stops… you LOST all that money. (and access to all those songs)
Lol I plan to stop subscribing the day I delete my AppleID and buy an Android phone…in other words, never.
and again… ALL that money spent on those songs… and the access to them… gone.
What if Apple killed Beats tomorrow?
So your off to spend more money elsewhere…
You can throw money away all you want, but to most people.. it’s not worth it.
Apple would NEVER do that. They are not a two bit company that will go bankrupt anytime before you die. But other companies that you “side with” just might do what you fear.
“Apple would NEVER do that. They are not a two bit company that will go bankrupt anytime before you die.”
Was just saying that as an example.
The rumor/fear was that Apple was going to do just that. They may change beats though.. incorporate it into iTunes radio somehow.
regardless, not paying a monthly fee for something like radio.
And there’s no guarantee from day-to-day that the songs you want are going to be there
“1. Anything that is in the world when you’re born is normal and ordinary and is just a natural part of the way the world works.
2. Anything that’s invented between when you’re fifteen and thirty-five is new and exciting and revolutionary and you can probably get a career in it.
3. Anything invented after you’re thirty-five is against the natural order of things.”
–Douglas Adams
Most broadcast radio, and satellite radio, have both had, to varying degrees, a daily repotious habit.
The area where I live has pretty good local PBS station that does not play the usual “nationally owned media conglomerate programmed” top-40 junk.
Try the WPFK 91.9 App, if you have a half-way decent data plan.
Even at a lower amount frankly I don’t think I would bother. There is a lot of music I like that I don’t own, but I do have far more music than I could ever reasonably listen to. At the moment I have a playlist that only includes 4 and 5 star rated songs, I’ve restricted it to only include songs I have not listened to in the last 20 months (used to be a year, but I freed up some space), even listening to an hour a day to and from work I have nearly a thousand songs at any given time and these are songs I love! If I paid for all these services, Netflix, Amazon, HBO, SKY, Beats, whatever I’m spending hundreds a month . I get to choose to listen/watch pretty much anything, but frankly I’m not that bothered, it’s not as if I’m ever truly struggling for entertainment. As it happens, with the volume of great podcasts to listen to each week I watch less and less tv as it is. The main thing I pay for is Sport. Podcasts have turned me onto a world of live entertainment, so I pay to go see that.
Us old folks would rephrase your rephrase as “Why should I pay a subscription when I can buy the album of what I like and own it forever?”
Forget Beats, forget iTunes……forget everything. Pono is where it’s at! I was very sceptical at first. But the best music is at Pono. All that stuff about “you’ll need lots of expensive equipment to tell the difference” is unfortunately (or maybe if you love music) is simply not true. I ask every “music lover” to take a look and then I hope Apple comes up to speed with this kind of quality.
Come on Apple, all that “Music is in our DNA” sounds kind of hollow. Do what’s right. Give us ALL the music we already paid for.
Beaten by Dre is something I would not use if Apple gave it away- seriously. I have no respect for Andre Romelle Young, his misconduct with women or his business practices. The fact that Apple pissed away almost $3 Billion on this nothing outfit makes me wonder who is minding the store and the purse at Apple.
Second, I do not want to rent my music. Factor in the pittance that the artists get from the current rental (subscription) model and it is bad Karma all around.
Music worth listening to is worth buying and helps support the musicians who create the art we enjoy. People need to stop being so damn cheap and Apple should take the high road and increase what artists are paid for music.
Had beats free for a spell with AT&T. Never got into it. I’m not made for the streaming genre based model I guess. I continue to listen to the local college and classical radio around here where they will play things no-one has paid them for.
Judging by the comments in this thread, I’m starting to think nearly everyone on this forum is pushing (or has already pushed past) age 60.
Who gets squeezed with this pricing? Artists, that’s who. The middlemen aren’t going to give up their cut. I’m still for paying the artist for their music, and all these streaming programs devalue the value of artist’s talent. Other than that I don’t have an answer. Streaming is very attractive on many levels; it just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.