“Twelve years ago, with the launch of the iTunes music store, Apple changed how we purchase and listen to music,” Joan E. Solsman and Shara Tibken write for CNET. “Now it hopes to shake things up again — despite playing catchup this time around.”
“Apple is expected to debut a subscription streaming-music service, making it one of the central announcements at the company’s annual developers conference next week in San Francisco,” Solsman and Tibken write. “Consider it a reboot of the Beats Music streaming service it purchased last year.”
“Apple’s music service could once again change up how consumers purchase music by placing a spotlight on the burgeoning trend of music subscriptions. Instead of paying 99 cents a track, consumers pay a monthly fee — reportedly $10 a month — for access to virtually any song they want,” Solsman and Tibken write. “Apple’s advantage: hundreds of millions of consumers are already familiar and comfortable with iTunes. And Apple has their credit card and purchase information already stored.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Music subscriptions will finally come of age with the launch of Apple Music.
SEE ALSO:
For Apple Music to succeed, iTunes download sales must be sacrificed – June 2, 2015
Apple’s all-in bet to be watershed moment for music; $10/month unlimited subscription service and more – June 1, 2015
Apple in talks to sign Drake, Pharrell Williams, and David Guetta as iTunes Radio DJs – June 1, 2015
Kanye West’s long-delayed album release may be connected to Apple Music’s launch – May 21, 2015
Apple’s music streaming service to have Ping-like social network for artists – May 14, 2015
Apple’s new streaming music service to offer free song sampling, free trial, other free features – May 8, 2015
$3 Billion (with a B), seriously?
Worth maybe $500 million, if that.
Spoken like someone who doesn’t understand value.
I’m not sure you’re taking into account revenue from PLUM sources, COD partnerships, and the halo effect…
Don’t forget to play with your NOB
$3 billion is almost nothing to Apple. Apple has already spent tens of billions of dollars in the form of stock buybacks this year. Heck, they make over $10 billion in pure profits every quarter, so really what’s the big deal over the Beat’s purchase?
Lowly Intel Corp. just bought Altera for $16 billion and hardly anyone is whining about whether the cost was justifiable or not. You don’t think Intel has more money to throw away than Apple, do you?
I want to see Apple split the difference between streaming and buying. If you are paying for streaming, all music purchases are 50% (or more) off.
That could def help them leverage the strength of their existing store during the transition between music delivery models….
…and shouldn’t hurt artists/labels if accounted for properly.
I just hope that Apple negotiates a deal with the music labels wherein they can’t yank their music from users’ playlists that has already been added. The most annoying thing about the Beats subscription is that you’ll add a song to your playlist, and then Taylor Swift or whoever will decide they want more money and yank the song from the service and then you have a grayed-out gap on your playlist and you can’t play that song anymore.
I think once it’s been added to your playlist, the artist/label shouldn’t be able to decide they want it back and take it from you.
If you “buy” a subscription or a license, you haven’t really bought anything at all. You’re just renting and the provider can manhandle you as they like.
Yes, that’s the way it is now. But that can consumer-hostile behavior can be negotiated away. Apple could make music labels sign a contract stating that once a song is added to the service it can’t later be yanked from it.
No, I think you are wrong. The way it is now, I can buy music and listen to it whenever I want and nobody can yank it away.
Subscriptions and licenses are a whole different ballgame, subject to expiration and change. There is nothing perpetual about them. If you want to be sure of listening to a song any time you want, you should buy it outright.
I wonder what the final verdict will be, ownership of music will outdo streaming services, streaming services will outdo ownership of music or peaceful mutual coexistence.
Myself, I’m still sold on owning my own music. I will follow and listen to what it coming up but to pay for it? Not really, in fact there were times where I find I’m almost tempted to pay radio stations not to play something (Who let the dogs out” comes to mind as a song that should never have been played more than once.
Worth more to apple if they give away the service.
There are so many places streaming DOESN’T work….don’t see attraction.
Streaming only works if someone else is paying the bill. How does it work on a cell phone? You pay AT&T.
Ya really think anyone missed it? Or knew it was gone?
whatever they do, i hope the word ‘iTunes’ is not involved in any way, shape, or form