Apple asks Taylor Swift, others to promote revamped Beats Music service

“Apple Inc. has asked Florence and the Machine and more than a dozen other artists for exclusive deals to promote a revamped Beats Music, and persuade people to ante up for what they’re accustomed to getting pretty much for free,” Lucas Shaw reports for Bloomberg. “The company’s in talks with the British group, which is set to release an album in June, about giving Apple limited streaming rights to a track, and has approached Taylor Swift and others about partnerships, according to people familiar with the matter. The idea is that exclusives will be bait for music lovers loathe to pay for subscriptions.”

“The offering from Apple — whose iTunes is the world’s largest seller of music — will be the most-watched subscription-only effort yet,” Shaw reports. “Beats Music will be retooled and re-launched this summer, possibly with a new name. There will be a $9.99-a-month subscription for individuals and a family plan for $14.99, according to the people, who asked not to be identified because they’re not authorized to speak publicly about the matter.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Once all of this is running, Apple should offer a single subscription deal that bundles iCloud storage, iTunes Music subscriptions, Internet TV, etc. for one price.

Related articles:
U.S. feds weigh investigation of Apple’s forthcoming ‘iTunes Music’ streaming service – April 7, 2015
EU regulators already probing Apple’s music streaming plans in Europe – April 2, 2015
Apple’s ‘iTunes Music’ streaming service to cost $9.99/month, no free tier; iTunes Radio to get makeover – March 26, 2015
With iTunes Music, Apple wants to help music labels roll back the tide of free digital music – March 6, 2015
Apple may release ‘iTunes Music’ with iOS 8.4 ‘Copper’ – February 9, 2015
iTunes Music: New Beats service will continue Apple’s reign as the king of digital music – February 4, 2015
Apple’s Beats-based music service plans revealed, including Apple’s first Android app – February 4, 2015


  1. Of all the Apple major efforts, music streaming leaves me the least impressed. This is mainly due to the fact I like my current collection. I am not “lowest common denominator.”

  2. Apple has had a much longer relationship with artists than Samsung. Not sure what you are trying to say, but does it not make sense that they would want to leverage some of the talent that are selling the biggest albums in the world through their store?

  3. I got an idea Apple! Just buy the largest Record Label in Town and stop this Mickey Mouse deal making with them. Done! And you can price your service exactly how you want. The others will have to follow. Same thing when Steve jobs owned Pixar and he needed content for the iTunes and AppleTV. Only the Disney properties were first, the others followed. Do the same.

  4. Subscription services are really for the young who’ve yet to experience the breadth and width of the music scene. A lot of us older types already have huge delightful collections (that would take months to listen to end to end) and there’s not a lot of new stuff that gets us as hot ‘n bothered as when we were teens & 20-somethings.

    Frankly the older stuff is much better anyway than most of the sampled, hip-hop, repetitious produced style, and over normalized, over Auto-Tuned junk put out today where any pretty face can be a star. There, I said it, like the true curmudgeon I probably am. 🙂

    1. Subscriptions are also for those of us who would never collect enough to satisfy an appetite for variety, and who see little value in accumulating stuff, even digital stuff that requires no extra physical space to store. Today’s treasure — especially if it reflects pop culture — often becomes part of tomorrow’s clutter. And if I still want to hear the better, “older stuff,” there are streams for that, too.

      1. Different strokes CL, I acknowledge that. There is plenty of value though in maintaining a library – assuming you still listen to it. Nothing today would make me switch to a steady diet of contemporary mass mediocrity and wannabe’s. There is an occasional musical jewel though that manages to squeak through with originality instead of the usual banality in a culture that celebrates fools like the Kardashians who contribute nothing but foolishness. I pity what modern audiences think is good, instead of derivative, cynical and just plain awful.

        I keep a base collection of musical faves on my iPod or SD card in my new car. I can always listen in on other sources as you say. In the end it’s all about how you wish to consume your music and there is no right or wrong really.

  5. As much as some bemoan the Apple/Beats deal, it would be a mistake not to use the Beats name in the new music service. Audiophiles may disagree but Beats had a name and cache that reverberated (oh, a pun) with a lot of people. Apple should strengthen that name by using what Beats did well (curated music) with Apple’s marketing clout and its massive network infrastructure.

    1. I agree, particularly since iTunes Radio was pretty much a failure. There’s no reason to cram more into the iTunes app, let Beats Music be the name brand, with a direct tie-in to iTunes for purchasing songs should the listener choose to do so.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.