Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple Near Deal For Radio Service

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the iListen-to-your-iFavorite-iSongs dept.

Media 143

An anonymous reader writes "TechCrunch and The Verge are reporting that Apple is near a deal with Universal Music to provide a streaming 'iRadio' music service. 'Apple is expected to launch a web radio service similar to Pandora's later this year, provided that executives there can strike an agreement with Sony Music Entertainment as well as music publishers. Talks with Sony, which operates the third label, Sony Music Entertainment and Sony / ATV, the music publishing company jointly run with the estate of the late singer Michael Jackson, are said to not be as far along towards reaching a deal. ... As for the financial terms, Apple will not receive the steep discounts it had sought for the labels' music.' Apple's 400 million active iTunes accounts could give even Pandora, with its 200 million users, something to worry about. 'For startups and streaming music companies, this means looking closely at the competitive advantages offered by their own platforms and decided how best to position their own services. A key advantage, and one that will likely get emphasized by virtually everyone challenged by an iRadio, is cross-platform compatibility. Apple will likely be able to offer something along those lines through iTunes on Windows, but for the most part it'll be a strictly iOS/Mac affair. That, combined with personalization and recommendation engines, along with other value add features, will be the way to combat an iTunes streaming service, but no matter what, an Apple product will change the face of this market.'"

cancel ×

143 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Great. (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445111)

If their music choice that they'll give customers is anything like the choices given in phones, it will be more repetitive than the top 20 radio station. But less popular, and more hipsterish.

Re:Great. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445245)

Yes, because the range of music on the iTunes Music Store is simply all top-40 and absolutely nothing obscure, eclectic or independent, isn't it?

Re:Great. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445361)

maybe it's just for elevator music in their new spaceship office?

Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445147)

Don't
Give
a
Shit
About
Anything
Apple
.

Re:Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (2, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445163)

Yep. Yet another slashvertisement, this time for a rumor/vapor service.

Re:Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445173)

Then
Shut
the
Fuck
up
and
go
elsewhere
instead
of
making
inane
and
pointless
comments

Re:Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (0)

cyborg_monkey (150790) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445791)

Oh, well said you fuckwit.

Re:Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445991)

Then
Shut
the
Fuck
up ...

Gee, and I just modded them insightful. :-O

Re:Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445193)

Then why are you reading apple.slashdot.org?

Re:Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445195)

You don't speak for Gays. We LOVE everything Apple. We are fruits, too, you know.

Re:Allow Me to Speak for EveryOne - Hear (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445329)

Speak for yourself.

Pathetic (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445635)

Is slashdot becoming like 4chan? Enough with these homophobic comments.

Apple apple apple... (0, Troll)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445167)

> an Apple product will change the face of this market

An Android product would make more of a difference, what with the current approx 2:1 ratio in favour of Android usage on smartphones.

Re:Apple apple apple... (1, Interesting)

bogaboga (793279) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445225)

An Android product would make more of a difference, what with the current approx 2:1 ratio in favour of Android usage on smartphones.

Trouble is, most folks on Android are known to loathe "paying for any software." So what they do is to pirate [idownloadblog.com] .

Re:Apple apple apple... (-1, Troll)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445365)

shhh... isheep haven't yet caught onto this concept

Re:Apple apple apple... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445395)

No trouble telling who you're shilling for, your post history speaks for itself.

Did anyone tell you that Jobs is dead, by the way? There's not much point sucking the dick of a dead man, unless that's the kind of thing that gets your rocks off. In which case you'd probably fit in better on 4chan than here.

Apple Developers attack users (2)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445905)

Trouble is, most folks on Android are known to loathe "paying for any software."

This is an article about an Apple user being attacked for Piracy by an Apple developer by Hyjacking their twitter accounts and posting confessions of piracy :) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/ios-apps-hijack-twitter-accounts-post-false-confessions-of-piracy/ [arstechnica.com] . Perhaps you should should stop Demonising Android users. I'm personally willing to post screenshots of my Play account, showing all my purchases.

Re:Apple Developers attack users (2)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446299)

Trouble is, most folks on Android are known to loathe "paying for any software."

This is an article about an Apple user being attacked for Piracy by an Apple developer by Hyjacking their twitter accounts and posting confessions of piracy :) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/ios-apps-hijack-twitter-accounts-post-false-confessions-of-piracy/ [arstechnica.com] . Perhaps you should should stop Demonising Android users. I'm personally willing to post screenshots of my Play account, showing all my purchases.

And here [theverge.com] is the sad tale of an Android Twitter client running out of of their 100,000 tokens despite having only about 40,000 paid downloads. So even for something as useless as a Twitter client, you have 60% pirates,

So Apple users are 15% more likely to pirate (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446363)

you have 60% pirates,

So your saying that Android users are more likely to pirate by only 15% as the Application I linked to had 75% of Apple user being pirates. pirates.

Re:So Apple users are 15% more likely to pirate (1, Flamebait)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446389)

you have 60% pirates,

So your saying that Android users are more likely to pirate by only 15% as the Application I linked to had 75% of Apple user being pirates. pirates.

So what you are saying is that at least on Fandroid fails at Math. And Logic. And reading comprehension. And at not being a dick.

Apple users are 15% more likely to pirate (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446447)

So what you are saying is that at least on Fandroid fails at Math. And Logic. And reading comprehension. And at not being a dick.

No my maths is pretty good, Apple users Pirate at 75% Android users at 60%. Apple users are more likely to pirate [and get attacked by Developers on their twitter pages]. My writing on that post was pretty sloppy, but my maths flawless.

Re:Apple users are 15% more likely to pirate (0)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446605)

So what you are saying is that at least on Fandroid fails at Math. And Logic. And reading comprehension. And at not being a dick.

No my maths is pretty good, Apple users Pirate at 75% Android users at 60%.

That's not 15% more, that's 15 percentage point more., failboy. Apart from that, you are getting your number from a company that computes piracy numbers for their apps with the same tool they used to famously post thousands of false positive piracy confessions. Epic fail by both of you.

BTW nobody ever claimed there was no piracy on iOS - because unlike what you claim that's what jailbreaking is mostly used for. Boo-yah.

Re:Apple users are 15% more likely to pirate (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43446921)

Apart from that, you are getting your number from a company that computes piracy numbers for their apps with the same tool they used to famously post thousands of false positive piracy confessions.

Oh no someone said something finding a flaw in Apple or its users, better pretend it doesn't count. ;_;

Re:Apple Developers attack users (0)

node 3 (115640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447349)

Trouble is, most folks on Android are known to loathe "paying for any software."

This is an article about an Apple user being attacked for Piracy by an Apple developer by Hyjacking their twitter accounts and posting confessions of piracy :) http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/11/ios-apps-hijack-twitter-accounts-post-false-confessions-of-piracy/ [arstechnica.com] .

Nice try. How does that refute that iOS users buy more software than Android users? For every tuppe666, there's a thousand grandmas who got their Android phone free and have never paid for a single app, and wouldn't even know how to.

Perhaps you should should stop Demonising Android users. I'm personally willing to post screenshots of my Play account, showing all my purchases.

Perhaps once you stop demonizing Apple users. This story has nothing to do with Android, yet fandroids such as yourself seem to have no trouble coming up with reasons to bring up the wholly irrelevant (to this story) Android OS.

Sounds like an inferiority complex to me. At least it's not as bad here as it is on G+.

Phones for every Generation (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447749)

there's a thousand grandmas who got their Android phone free

I think the main reason Android is so much more successful with All generations...and sexes is more down to its larger screen size; resolution and pixel density allowing better viewing, and its ease of use.

Re:Apple apple apple... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446749)

The article you linked to tries to link to the actual report but it seems to have been removed from the Yankee website. IIRC it was shown to be bullshit back when it was released. For example the cheapest iPhone is still pretty expensive, but you can get really cheap Android phones. If you are the sort of person who buys a really cheap phone on a pay-as-you-go deal you probably won't spend much money on apps, so it is no wonder that the per-user revenue is lower than iOS.

40 apps per user per year on iOS at say an average of $2/app means they are spending $80/year on apps. Many Android phones cost less than that. The report also doesn't look at ad revenue - perhaps Android users prefer free but ad supported apps to paid ones.

Google are also much better about refunds and Apple. With Apple the process is not made easy or obvious, but on Play you can refund an app instantly within 15 minutes of purchase. I suspect that crap Android apps get refunded a lot, unlike crap iOS apps.

There are also lots of quality open-source and free apps for Android, meaning you get features for free that iOS users have to pay for. If you are a developer who wants to make money on Android you can still sell, you just have to put a bit more effort in to creating something new and useful.

Re:Apple apple apple... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43446967)

15 minutes isn't really enough time to test an app, especially when the download and install time is part of that 15 minutes. Although there is a (seemingly automated) to request a refund through the play store website within 48 hours of purchasing an app, but that method isn't widely known or as simple.

Re:Apple apple apple... (1)

ClaraBow (212734) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447137)

iOS does not equal just iPhones, don't forget iPads and iPods. What is the combined marketshare of all iOS devices versus all Android? I"m just glad that there is healthy competition. It's making both platforms better.

Re:Apple apple apple... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445385)

> an Apple product will change the face of this market

An Android product would make more of a difference, what with the current approx 2:1 ratio in favour of Android usage on smartphones.

When you add in iPad and iPod Touch numbers to the iPhone numbers, Android no longer has a 2:1 advantage. You need ot look at iOS devices vs Android devices.

Re:Apple apple apple... (4, Insightful)

Goody (23843) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445579)

> an Apple product will change the face of this market

An Android product would make more of a difference, what with the current approx 2:1 ratio in favour of Android usage on smartphones.

I'd say changing one-third of a 10 gazillion smartphone market is pretty significant.

Re:Apple apple apple... (3, Interesting)

Swampash (1131503) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445765)

Android has a clear lead over iOS in market share, but no-one cares. Because those Android users use their phones as, well, phones. And they don't spend money.

iOS has almost 100% of the market that matters: smartphone owners who use their smartphones as smartphones and are happy to spend money.

Apple market share is so teeny tiny (1, Troll)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445931)

iOS has almost 100% of the market that matters

No they don't. Lets be honest about Apples market share...Its a localised phenomena in US and UK, and its more about how the carriers expect users to pay for the phones. Apples market share is so low...even Windows phone brag about having larger market share. You can pretend the Apple has some kind of lead...and it did, but that was when it did have major market share, but today applications are developed first for Android, and in some markets where Apple is none existent...Apple Applications are not being developed at all...and the same goes for video; books; music :). Would you like be to show you recipts of my Play purchases :) I just bought NBA Jam :)

Re:Apple market share is so teeny tiny (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446535)

Yeah, likely they'll end up like Nintendo. Sure they won't have the biggest chunk of the market, but they'll still be making money. The Wii is the only recent reception to this where they sold more units than the other guys. The N64, GameCube, and Wii U have low sales numbers, but Nintendo has remained profitable, while Sony and especially Microsoft fail to make money on their console divisions. Nintendo hasn't been making a ton of money in the last little while, and they may have reported some losses, but they'll still remain relevant for a long time.

Nothing Like Nintendo (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446621)

Yeah, likely they'll end up like Nintendo.

Except Nintendo won the console wars [had the majority market share at least] with its wii...although its struggling with its wii u http://www.vgchartz.com/ [vgchartz.com] as you can see it outsold both Sony and Microsoft. Ironically Apple [when its still did computing] was rumoured to be serious about buying Nintendo, and would have been an incredibly good use of its money [they have $140 Billion now under the couch], unfortunately Jobs was always been against games [maybe sour grapes]...but right now I suspect unless Apple expand their product line [as they are rumoured to be doing...and is a little late], and quit their lock-in games [proprietary software and hardware only cuts it when your on top]. I think they are going to become relevant only in the US soon, and then only until the carriers gang up on Apple [dies a natural death].

Re:Nothing Like Nintendo (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447287)

Pyrrhic victory. Hardware wise, sure nintendo won, but on the software side (where the real money is) they lost by a landslide.

Re:Apple market share is so teeny tiny (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447139)

Well the only lead that matters to people seeking a profit, is the willingness of people to spend money.

Android users don't spend money

http://www.eweek.com/cloud/apple-app-store-revenue-dwarfs-android-app-store-sales-report/ [eweek.com]

Or even surf the web as often as iOS users:

http://allthingsd.com/20130403/safari-still-winning-the-mobile-browser-war/ [allthingsd.com]

Except its not quite how it seems :) (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447211)

Android users don't spend money...Or even surf the web as often as iOS users:

Check your spin from your own outdated article that have dubious sources :) "Google Play paid revenue grew by 311 percent since January, Apple's paid revenue only grew by 12.9 percent" reread my comments :)....and this is an outdated article.

As for the browse think it is [was!?] an anomaly of netlink...I'm not even sure if its true their any-more, but the site is borked, a quick look at statcounter http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_browser-ww-monthly-201203-201303 [statcounter.com] shows that ios web presence continue to be well below Android :) unsurprisingly.

You should read and verify your links before posting and wasting peoples time, especially mine.

Re:Except its not quite how it seems :) (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447319)

Check your spin from your own outdated article that have dubious sources :) "Google Play paid revenue grew by 311 percent since January, Apple's paid revenue only grew by 12.9 percent" reread my comments :)....and this is an outdated article.

Saying that it grew from a tiny amount to a larger but tiny amount, still doesn't negate the fact that iOS users outspend Android users 4-1.

Re:Apple market share is so teeny tiny (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447395)

Lets be honest about Apples market share...Its a localised phenomena in US and UK,

Tell that to Japan, Germany and China. And quarter by quarter numbers seem good in many other markets too.

but today applications are developed first for Android,

Please. Fortune just put out a report on verticals. With the exception of Oil and Gas (Windows Phone) iOS or Android had the overwhelming majority with iOS having about a 2::1 lead.

Apples Market share 25times smaller..and shrinking (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447647)

Lets be honest about Apples market share...Its a localised phenomena in US and UK,

Tell that to Japan, Germany and China. And quarter by quarter numbers seem good in many other markets too.

Not sure where you are getting your data from. :) This is the latest article I can find [sorry about the Google translate] http://translate.google.com.hk/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://data.eguan.cn/yidonghulian_147283.html [google.com.hk] It shows Apples market share *dropping* from 6.2% to 4.2 while Android continued to rise to 90.1%. To put that in perspective. Apples market share is 21times smaller...do you seriously want to claim that the Chinese Developers are developing any Applications. Apple is a dead platform in the largest market in the world.

Re:Apples Market share 25times smaller..and shrink (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447759)

IDG has it at 8.5% by volume up .5%. Most smartphones in China are sold at $79. If you look at revenue rather than units a more balanced image: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/201304stock-130412135737-phpapp01/95/slide-7-638.jpg?1365793092 [slidesharecdn.com]

This BTW is a global picture: http://image.slidesharecdn.com/201304stock-130412135737-phpapp01/95/slide-5-638.jpg?1365793092 [slidesharecdn.com]

do you seriously want to claim that the Chinese Developers are developing any Applications

I have no idea. But I don't particularly care the claim was about Apple's dying marketshare worldwide not the geography of its developers.

How much so phones sell for in China? (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447897)

Most smartphones in China are sold at $79

Not according to the Chinese who claim the average is 1,393 yuan(about $220) admittedly I agree the iPhone has priced itself out of the market for short term profitability in the American market.

What can you get for 1,393 yuan in china...lets have a look at the Chinese Amazon.cn http://translate.google.com.hk/translate?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=amazon.cn [google.com.hk] unsurprisingly their top selling phone is 1,165 yuan...so a little less than average. its a Motorola; dual-mode dual standby 1.2GHz dual-core Android 4.0 system 4.3-inch phone. Its a better phone than I own :) Interesting that its a Motorola too, as I haven't heard much good news about them in a while. The bottom line is check your fact before posting them.

Re:Apple apple apple... (1)

node 3 (115640) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447327)

> an Apple product will change the face of this market

An Android product would make more of a difference, what with the current approx 2:1 ratio in favour of Android usage on smartphones.

How so? Stuff that happens on iOS has a greater impact than any other OS on the planet, even Windows these days.

You're also leaving out iOS on iPads and iPod touches, as well as all the Macs and PCs running iTunes. All of which add up to the most lucrative segment of the music market in the world. How is Android supposed to be more impactful than that?

Re:Apple apple apple... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447367)

Globally the difference is bigger. But the question is not phone units sold but:

a) Value to advertisers
b) Willingness to pay for digital entertainment

(a) Android is close but ultimately the value to advertisers depends on willingness to pay.

Re:Apple apple apple... (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447597)

And the sad part is MSFT had this shit ready to go and actually gaining share more than half a decade ago until Ballmer killed it for a lame iTunes ripoff because God fucking forbid MSFT do anything other than copy Apple under his watch.

Fricking playsforsure was BRILLIANT, you could use ANY player, from that $20 thumbstick to that $400 PMP, and you could get your tunes from any one of a dozen sites thus keeping prices low and competition high. Most sites gave you so many MP3s free and clear per month, usually enough that at the buck a song iTunes set as the price you were getting the service for basically free, and instead of having to have Internet 24/7 to use it you only needed to hook up once a month to get another load of tunes, which you could choose your own or pick one of a ton of pre-compiled playlists of everything from top 40 - metal, whatever.

if this turns out to be a hit I really hope somebody on the board at MSFT just walks up and bitchslaps Ballmer's fat ass, i really do, because frankly they could have had this but BETTER in practically every way, they already had massive support and the whole infrastructure already up and running, but yet again Ballmer snatched defeat from the jaws of victory because it wouldn't make MSFT into an ersatz Apple. Fucking idiot.

iTunes for Windows (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445171)

iTunes for Windows sucks

Re:iTunes for Windows (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445413)

Yeah... a troll... Tried to add an .mkv to the iTunes library yesterday. Apparently it is not possible (after googling), but some indicator for things that it doesn't permit you to do would be nice. Connected a relative's iPad to it, and it promptly named the thing to -my username-'s iPad. Great.

Whatever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445217)

As long as it's a separate app.

I don't need any more fucking bloat in iTunes. iTunes 11 is GOOD. Leave it the fuck alone. I don't want your goddam radio service rammed up my ass, just like you tried to do with Ping.

Re:Whatever. (1)

peragrin (659227) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445537)

No Itunes 11 is the best itunes since itunes 3 or 4.

Itunes is three distinct products trying to be merged. Itunes Store, iTunes Media player, and Idevice Sync. If the the idevice Sync, and Itunes store where separate from the media player it would be a far better product.

Re:Whatever. (4, Informative)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445807)

No Itunes 11 is the best itunes since itunes 3 or 4.

Itunes is three distinct products trying to be merged. Itunes Store, iTunes Media player, and Idevice Sync. If the the idevice Sync, and Itunes store where separate from the media player it would be a far better product.

It's also trying to be a e-book library and a file I/O manager for iOS apps. As an e-book manager iTunes is mediocre at best and it sucks for file I/O. Another thing is that quite a few not very computer savvy iDevice novices get confused by the inconsistency of the fact that iTunes is this monolithic all-in-one monstrosity on OS X/Windows but on iOS it is split into several separate Apps. Apple should split iTunes up into separate programs on OS X/Windows to reflect the iOS setup, which is the setup I like better anyway.

Re:Whatever. (2)

CastrTroy (595695) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446643)

It's odd, because I've used iTunes for a while, and I found it not that bad. You never even see the store unless you click on the tiny little store thing on the laft hand side. If you took someone who's never heard of iTunes and told them it was a music player, they probably wouldn't even find the store, assuming they were a standard computer user who doesn't explore the programs they use, and only clicks on the 3 things they really need. It's also nice that it can be used to sync to your iDevice because it knows where all your music is, and it knows all the playlists and which music you like. I'd hate it if I had to have that information somehow synced between 2 different programs just so I could copy music to my music player. Sure it has some shortcomings, and it isn't perfect, but having 3 different programs would be much worse.

Re:Whatever. (1)

spire3661 (1038968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447303)

Itunes is shit. I have it on mac and PC and its shit. Its overly bloated, and file handling is AWFUL. Sometimes i just want to drop a file on my ipad, not full sync/backup etc.

apple near deal and korea almost in war (4, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445231)

no need to report until either one of actually happens. reading about it every few days gets old when there's nothing concrete new to report.

Re:apple near deal and korea almost in war (1)

krisamico (452786) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447399)

Ah, but the early reporting is how you juice your prices and make out better in the deal at the last minute. It's a staple in mergers and acquisitions as well!

I am for more content. Quality content. (5, Insightful)

ron-l-j (1725874) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445243)

I do not care who makes the product. As long as the artists make a fair wage, and the content is quality. Good audio quality content is hard to find anywhere on the web. Finding quality MP3 bitrate is hard as well. That is why people turn to apple, because there is quality control. I would love to see a free software foundation built store full of high quality content that artists are proud to be a part of. Developers are artists, and like artists its had to get along, and agree on some thing so large. maybe I should go over to kick starter...... But then Stallman would get mad when the Hollywood types would want to DRM the whole business.

Re:I am for more content. Quality content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445263)

DRM the whole business = Works only with Windows everybody else have to pirate

Re:I am for more content. Quality content. (1)

dfghjk (711126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445531)

"Good audio quality content is hard to find anywhere on the web." No.
"Finding quality MP3 bitrate is hard as well." No.
"That is why people turn to apple, because there is quality control." No.
"Developers are artists..." No.

"maybe I should go over to kick starter..." Yeah, you should do that.

I'm sure musicians would love having RMS dictate the licensing terms of their works. With the FSF revolutionizing music, perhaps we can look for some young Finnish artist starting a grassroots effort to clone Beethoven's 9th after Stallman failed to meet promises for decades. Then we can look forward to bickering over whether the name starts with "gnu/" to acknowledge that Stallman is more important than you. But whatever happens, at least RMS gets your work and you have no say-so.

Re:I am for more content. Quality content. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445981)

This. Sadly I expect the RMS fanboys to mod you down and out.

Re:I am for more content. Quality content. (2)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445849)

I do not care who makes the product. As long as the artists make a fair wage, and the content is quality. Good audio quality content is hard to find anywhere on the web. Finding quality MP3 bitrate is hard as well. That is why people turn to apple, because there is quality control.

I have no problems at all finding music in MP3 format in good quality. I just go to Amazon. Usually I go to iTunes for AAC format, but as I said, finding MP3 music is no problem at all. Is there something I'm missing in what you are trying to say?

Two songs I couldn't find on Amazon (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446779)

I have no problems at all finding music in MP3 format in good quality. I just go to Amazon.

There have been a lot of singles that I haven't been able to find on Amazon, except by cover bands best known for their karaoke albums. "Anyone At All" by Carole King and "Gimme Little Sign" were among them last time I checked.

Re:I am for more content. Quality content. (2)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446545)

Actually music downloaded from iTunes is often inferior to well encoded MP3s. It comes in AAC format 256Kbit, encoded with an unknown application that doesn't seem to perform as well as LAME encoded MP3s at 320Kb. It also inserts some personally identifying metadata into the file.

I'll take well encoded MP3s or preferably FLAC thanks, otherwise I'm not interested.

Re:I am for more content. Quality content. (1)

PowerBook2k (312576) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447383)

Not even DRM- Stallman would get mad because the artists were releasing their music under the heretically un-Freeâ Creative Commons license, instead of GPL, the One True License Forever And Ever Amen.

http://news.slashdot.org/story/06/02/07/1733220/rms-says-creative-commons-unacceptable [slashdot.org]

Market leader (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445249)

In fanboy hype! Lead the way Apple, be different, just like pandora and spotify and last.fm and ...

Re:Market leader (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445389)

the difference will be that apple makes a shitload more money than all the others combined

in the words of james hetfield... nothing else matters

Apple gace away they Market to Google :) (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445879)

the difference will be that apple makes a shitload more money than all the others combined

Not even close; Google+Samsung alone are larger than Apple :). Apples ipod market has died a quiet death, and its Market share of phones is so awful even Microsoft brag of Bigger market share. Apple has a tiny [and shrinking] share [after a race for early *hardware* profits] of potential customers.

Perhaps you should get your education from a better quality metal source...I would recommend Accept for financial analysis.

Re:Apple gace away they Market to Google :) (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446371)

Not even close; Google+Samsung alone are larger than Apple :).

And my dad is bigger than your dad... It seems very important to you that Google and Samsung together are very large, isn't it? Emotionally involved with them? One of those companies makes their money selling your data. The other has conviction after conviction for price fixing, has been poisoning employees by the hundreds, their boss was convicted for tax evasion (and given a presidential pardon). Lovely bunch.

Standalone music players don't sell too many at the moment, but most are sold by Apple. Even if you count only portable music players that are not game consoles, Apple sells most. If you count portable game consoles with or without music players included that are not phones, Apple sells most. Apple's market share of phones has grown year after year after year, so I don't know what Microsoft would be bragging about.

Google do not Sell your data Apple sells YOU! (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446497)

It seems very important to you that Google and Samsung together are very large, isn't it? Emotionally involved with them? One of those companies makes their money selling your data.

Ignoring your personal attacks. My comments were in reference to a factual error by the original poster. Like you made with this one. Google will NEVER sell your data, because they can only do so once...they sell targeted advertising space [done by a computing algorithm] to other companies. Ironically Apple sell their users to Google for $400 Million [reportedly going up to 1Billion] So i'm not really sure what your point is Apple still has a small and shrinking part of the audio player market.

Re:Google do not Sell your data Apple sells YOU! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43447609)

My comments were in reference to a factual error by the original poster

my original post was a prediction of something that will happen in the future, so it can't be a "factual error"

Google will NEVER sell your data

Ironically Apple sell their users to Google for $400 Million [reportedly going up to 1Billion]

which is worse, the guy that sells guns or the guy that buys them?

So i'm not really sure what your point is Apple still has a small and shrinking part of the audio player market

if you weren't such a dipshit you would have realized from my original post that the point is apple will make more money from their radio than all the others combined, because as you point out yourself, google doesn't sell music or radio services (neither does samsung)...

they sell targeted advertising space

...and samsung sells devices to play music and listen to radio

it can't be a "factual error" (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447697)

if you weren't such a dipshit you would have realized...google doesn't sell music or radio services (neither does samsung)

Samsung Music Hub
http://www.samsung.com/us/article/music-hub-all-the-music-you-want-all-in-one-place [samsung.com]

Music on Google Play
https://play.google.com/store/music [google.com]

Yes I'm afraid you have indeed made a factual error, don't feel too bad

Re:Apple gace away they Market to Google :) (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447247)

Not even close; Google+Samsung alone are larger than Apple :).

Apple profit: 41,733.0 million
Google profit: 10,737.00 million

Couldn't find a reliable source for Samsung.

Apples ipod market has died a quiet death

Too bad that Apple didn't see in advance that phones that could play music would overtake the dedicated mp3 player market eventually. I'm sure that if they had introduced a hybrid phone + media player back in 2007 they wouldn't be in the sad shape they are in today.....

Microsoft brag of Bigger market share

Huh?

You want to talk profits not value :) (1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447593)

You want to talk about profits :) not "Market cap" or "Market share" suddenly we are back to the same point *profit*, because lets face it Apple just aren't that big...but they are profitable [At least in the short term :). This is a sign of how much Apple can *milk* its customers, and the Answer is "OMG" and they have a reported $140Billion just sat around allegedly. Its why they have [just] the biggest Market cap in the world [Although as I point out there are a lot of large players in the smartphone market].

But here is the thing. Apple have lost 35% of their Market value in 6Months alone, and the main reason is Apple makes the vast majority of those profits from the iPhone hardware sales, and investors got so nervous, about it failing to meet its sales targets; its shrinking margins; long term profitability is suddenly *puff* all that value just vanished from the company [$250Billion]...but the bottom line is the market does not see Apple as a long term prospect.

Actually I thought Apple cannibalising its music player sales for that of the iPhone was brilliant [and pretty much everyone agrees], not cannibalising its iPhone sales with an iPhone nano I suspect will prove its downfall. The reference to Microsoft is their latest brag that they outsell the iPhone in 6 countries...they even reported it here, personally I think its a bad reflection on both companies.

Re:You want to talk profits not value :) (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447821)

You want to talk about profits :)

Yes because companies are in business to make a profit -- shocking I know.

not "Market cap"

Market Caps:

AAPL - 403.6B
GOOG - 260.4B

The reference to Microsoft is their latest brag that they outsell the iPhone in 6 countries.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrrhic_victory [wikipedia.org]

Re:Apple gace away they Market to Google :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43447631)

samsung builds everything from iphone components to oil tankers

apple is merely a pimple on samsung's massive ass

Re:Apple gace away they Market to Google :) (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447431)

Crutchy: the difference will be that apple makes a shitload more money than all the others combined
Tepples: Not even close; Google+Samsung alone are larger than Apple :)

Well first off Crutchy was talking about Spotify and Pandora. But even on this in terms of Net income Apple is still quite a bit ahead:

Apple = 41.75B
Google = 10.79B
Samsung = 18.12B

EBITDA Apple is up by less since Samsung's depreciation was huge, only $3B.

Hello Hello, Apple is in vertigo (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445373)

Where is Fiona Apple? Must be all that CISPA shit starting to run down your panties.

All this copyright cloak and dagger bullshit.

Discussions with Universal, Discussions with Sony. Give me a break, the only discussion is PRICE and how to fuck the end user.
Universal will probably finish the "deal" sooner than sony because they at least KNOW what they want.
Universal is patient like China, Apple is tearing its hair out, Shhhh quite, as we tune in on a classified conversation regarding price with Universal...

what about 950
what about 975
how about 980

at some point the number will be right and Apple will have U2 streaming...

Hello Hello, my name, is Vertigo!

You must have thought I was kidding around when I said, "even the labels don't know the law."

Locked up (0)

markdavis (642305) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445463)

>"Apple will likely be able to offer something along those lines through iTunes on Windows, but for the most part it'll be a strictly iOS/Mac affair."

That is no surprise. Just what we need- another platform-locked streaming radio. So far, Spotify has better options than Pandora, but it doesn't run on Linux, severely limiting it's usefulness to me.

iWhatever be certainly be less useful, since at least Spotify AND Pandora are available on the #1 phone platform (Android) and the #1 or #2 (depending on your sources) tablet platform (Android). If they ignore Linux, Android, and even MS-Windows, I can't believe they would make that much of an effective competitor.

Old Monopolies Need to Die (-1)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445489)

I was quite shocked at this. Itunes was relevant [forced on its users] in its day with its [not your] mp3 players tied to it, and dragged though with the rise [and fall now] of the iphone [hell you needed it to update your phone!?]. On its own its a bloated mess in every way [size, features...it needs to die], and Apple products simply "Didn't Work" if connected to Linux [none too pretty with anything else]. With the rise of Android and OTA updates; Mass Storage Connectivity; Standard Protocols]. I'm currently using Clementine http://www.clementine-player.org/ [clementine-player.org] [cross platfom] as my music player of choice...and a click on the internet button gives me a range of cloud radio; storage; sales in a none intrusive manner. I'm not pushing Clementine its just one of the *many* music players [something itunes should remember it is] that is better in *every* way. itunes need to be burned with fire.

Radio? (2)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445511)

I like to choose the music I listen to. I gave up radio long ago.

Re:Radio? (1)

dimeglio (456244) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445645)

Young people still love radio. You're not in their demographics anymore kid.

Re:Radio? (0)

Nerdfest (867930) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445809)

I like to choose the software I can install. Perhaps Apple isn't meant for us.

Re:Radio? (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445871)

Do you also not own a TV [theonion.com] ?

Re:Radio? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447081)

Main reason for me to listen to the radio is to hear music I didn't know yet. And that way to have a better idea on what's available to choose from.

Ornery (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445565)

Fuck all these big companies that think they can own the world.

If we had a Justice Department that was worth a damn, Apple would be facing huge anti-trust suits just for thinking about something like this.

Re:Ornery (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445653)

You can always buy a piece of these big companies and profit. In fact, if you have a retirement plan or a mutual fund, you might already own parts of these companies. Let's not be hypocrites.

Re:Ornery (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#43445903)

I live in a shack and steal wi-fi from the neighbours, you insensitive clod!

Re:Ornery (0)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446551)

You can always buy a piece of these big companies and profit.

Actually, no you cannot always buy a piece of these big companies and profit.

If you bought Apple at >700, you are not profiting, nor do you have a "piece" of it.

I guess it's all whether or not you believe that competition is good for an economy and society. If you don't believe competition is good, than having Apple involved in hardware, software, broadband and content is OK with you.

Re:Ornery (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447435)

If we had a Justice Department that was worth a damn, Apple would be facing huge anti-trust suits just for thinking about something like this.

Apple isn't a monopoly.

Re:Ornery (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447489)

Apple isn't a monopoly.

The anti-trust laws are about more than simple monopolies. They're about anti-competitive practices, price-fixing, etc.

You don't have to have a monopoly to be involved in monopolistic behavior. Vertical integration is one thing that anti-trust laws address. That means owning too much of the chain of production. Microsoft was not a monopoly either, but the anti-competitive effect of building Internet Explorer into their operating system and giving it certain advantages set off enough alarms for a successful case to be made. If Apple's new "radio service" is integrated into iOS, how is that different?

Re:Ornery (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447687)

Microsoft was not a monopoly either,

Not true. Microsoft was declared to be a monopoly in operating systems.

Vertical integration is one thing that anti-trust laws address

True. If Apple were vertically integrating to establish a monopoly that would be illegal. Vertical integration is perfectly legal. General Motors is allowed to use their own parts, run their own dealerships and provide loans. Even when the government ran GM directly.

If Apple's new "radio service" is integrated into iOS, how is that different? [than Microsoft with IE]

First off the issue above. Companies are allowed to do things monopolies cannot. Companies can be much more competitive. As long as Apple is not considered a monopoly in smartphones they have a lot of freedom of action.

Microsoft at the time claimed they could avoid separating the browser component away. The argument of the court was that Microsoft used their OS monopoly to establish a browser monopoly. That is IE standards tried to control the web.

Apple would just be offering a service. They aren't attempting to control internet radio but rather just create yet another reason to buy their primary product. If they did use their hardware to try and destroy Pandora... that's bad. If they were a monopoly then it is a crime.

Commercials? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43445837)

If there is even one commercial I will not use it.

Platform and Streaming concerns are orthogonal (3, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446113)

Why does it matter what platforms your streaming solution supports? If someone moves to a platform that doesn't support your service, they just switch to someone who does. If they move to a platform that supports your service, there's almost no barrier to switch over because you are both offering an unlimited supply of streaming music with a variety of channels. When you are providing a service that gives the user nothing of permanence, they have no reason to stay with you.

I don't think iTunes can compete on price at all, there's no way the music industry is going to let margin slip out of their grasp again. So it'll probably be nearly the same price as other services.

Where iTunes might be able to have a bit of a leg up is baking streaming radio support into indie contracts that iTunes carries, so that they automatically get a wider range of music that other services would have a rough time matching since it would involve a ton of separate contracts. Perhaps that's widespread in streaming today, I don't know.

Your abosolutely right Apple is rotten. (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446337)

I don't know.

I guess you don't. I absolutely agree with you Apple is rotten, but excusing them, just because they are heading towards being a niche product is not right. We have learnt from IE that bundling software how abuse monopolies can stop innovation...and can only imagine how bad it would be not if like the iphone the bowser was locked to the iphone [safari frontends don't count ;)], and your right Apple should not not be considered a platform at all, but opened up to competing services, so Apple users can benefit...no matter how small Apple is [the same should and in the case of Android does apply].

Competition needs protecting.

Off Kilter (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446745)

Where did that wild and totally unrelated missive come from? It's in response to my pointing out that streaming radio is the OPPOSITE of lock-in, no matter WHO is providing it because it's so easy to leave. So iTunes providing streaming radio does nothing to further Apple lock-in, it's just a nice to user service on a number of popular platforms (including Windows I might point out). In fact if anything it reduces average consumer lock-in if fewer people are buying and more are streaming. It ties people to Apple less, not more!

You have gone off the deep end. And for what? What good does it do you or anyone to hate a company so much? I once disliked Microsoft almost as much as you hate Apple today; but I got over it and am a better person today as a result. There is no room in our lives for as much hate as you are willing to harbor. Something else beautiful or vital goes when you chose to make space for that particular kind of personal demon, and it will eat you alive if you let it. Let it go, and free yourself in the process!

Govenment involvement (0)

tuppe666 (904118) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446873)

further Apple lock-in

I agree. Especially considering the news that a quarter of American books sold are electronic, imagine what a disaster it would be if Steve Jobs had succeeded in forming its [another?] cartel. It needs greater scrutiny regarding its abusive policies, especially in regards companies able to compete with Apples first parts Applications..especially the abuse of not allowing other stores on their [not your] phones including book/music/magiazine...and obviously Application. Competition is a precious commodity, and needs to be preserved. In fact movement vbetween platforms needs to be trivial...and the rights of users protected against Apple. Users are not even aware that they are being sold to advertising companies.

Apple product will change the face of this market? (0)

knarf (34928) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446393)

Not to be cynical - a promise which I'll most likely break in the first sentence - but one of the ways this market will be changed by Apple's entry is the expected launch of several law suits, most likely by Apple. The start has probably already been made by Apple patenting the most trivial aspects of their future service. In a few years time we'll see lawsuits started by Apple on the way competitors match music choices, on the automatic composition of playlists, etc. It would be good news if I were to be wrong, but with history as my guide I'm probably right.

Sounds good..not... (1)

xQuarkDS9x (646166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446639)

Sounds good until you realize that it'll be tied down into Itunes and iDevices and that it'll likely use the AAC format or some variation of it to stream music and they most definetly will insert audio and possibly video ads into it as well. And it will not support shoutcast radio streams something that's been around now for over 10 years.

I'd rather stick with my own music collection of Ogg Vorbis files ripped from CD's I own and much higher sound quality compared to mp3 and AAC and not be tied down to the patent and license crap that Fraunhofer and Apple made with their own audio formats.

Do we really need another clone of pretty much every radio station in the USA and Canada that plays pretty much the same music tracks over and over each month but just shuffles it around a bit? No.

Re:Sounds good..not... (1)

Karlt1 (231423) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447165)

'd rather stick with my own music collection of Ogg Vorbis files ripped from CD's I own and much higher sound quality compared to mp3 and AAC and not be tied down to the patent and license crap that Fraunhofer and Apple made with their own audio formats.

Do people still think that AAC is an Apple format?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding [wikipedia.org]

Apple has nothing to do with AAC besides being just another licensee --- along with everybody else in the industry.

AAC is also a required format for Android compatibility.

It's not radio, it's a jukebox (4, Insightful)

ZipK (1051658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43446879)

Streaming services like Pandora and Rdio aren't radio, they're jukeboxes. Even a canned playlist from another user is missing the human element of an announcer who shares his or her knowledge of the music and bands, as well as adding thought and experience into the segues and sets.There's no spontaneity in these services, no tie to the time of day or local events, no cultural gathering point. Other than music, they exhibit few of the characteristics that make good radio a great listening experience.

Re:It's not radio, it's a jukebox (1)

jbolden (176878) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447451)

I think it has been about a quarter century since there has been DJs on regular radio much. By that standard there just isn't much radio left anywhere.

Limited choice of music. (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#43447101)

This service seems to be limited to the music of certain big labels. If you're not with that big label, your music will not be on iRadio. That's a serious limitation that traditional over-the-air radio stations do not have - they pay a flat fee, or a fee per song played, regardless of the publisher of the song. That alone makes it so much less interesting. It's not radio, it's more of a "universal music promotion channel".

And probably a total lack of dj's, that do announcements, some silly talk sometimes, give some news facts, whatever. Some may be experts in a certain music genre, and will introduce their listeners to interesting new stuff. Major part of what makes radio, radio.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?