
Apple paying music labels $100M-$150M for iCloud - rmah
http://venturebeat.com/2011/06/03/apple-paying-music-labels-100m-150m-for-icloud/
======
frankdenbow
That is quite a barrier to innovation. Labels still seem to think only the
established players will create the next big thing.

~~~
saturdaysaint
I'm curious as to what this has bought them - there are many comparably small
music services (Rdio,Napster,Rhapsody,Spotify, etc.) that I'm assuming could
not have paid amounts of this magnitude. As those services I just listed
indicates, there's really no shortage of competition in the cloud music
space...

~~~
spullara
All the streaming service pay by usage. My guess is that the usage for Apple
is a lot higher. Look at how much Netflix and Pandora pay for their licenses.

------
ansy
Original:
[http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/apple_pays_music_bigs_...](http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/apple_pays_music_bigs_OcxlGqT1E0P5P9vzosxtyK)

~~~
smackfu
"A Google cloud service could now be in the offing as soon as September, said
sources familiar with the talks."

Wait, what? Different than Google Music?

~~~
devindra
Google Music doesn't currently let you stream music that you don't already
own, and it's also not tied to any particular music store. I think they're
referring to Google launching a legit streaming service together with the
music labels in a few months.

~~~
whopa
Judging from this sentence from the article

> The Cupertino, Calif., tech giant has agreed to pay the labels between $25
> million to $50 million each, as an incentive to get on board, depending on
> how many tracks consumers are _storing_.

sounds like what Apple is launching is also a music locker service akin to
what Google Music is now, and not streaming arbitrary music. Perhaps the
author is referring to when Google may remove the invite-only aspect for their
service, or maybe just confused.

------
evertonfuller
I honestly don't get the point behind this. Neither do I see the point of
subscription services like Spotify.

I want to actually own my music. Have the file RIGHT THERE on my computer, so
I can do whatever I want with it - whenever I want to.

Why do I need to have my songs up in the cloud? What about when I'm on holiday
- and typically disconnect from the world for a week sans internet - how am I
supposed to listen to my music then?

It's just ridiculous.

------
JackWebbHeller
Is that all?!

$150 million seems nothing these days (maybe I'm just tainted by the Skype-
Microsoft acquisition...)

~~~
smackfu
I think it's just an advance against future royalties. So if it completely
flops, and Apple makes not much money, the labels still get $150 million.

------
smackfu
That's one way to use up their big pile of cash.

~~~
rmah
$150 mil is 0.25% (1/4 of 1%) of Apple's cash & cash equivalents. They have so
much cash it's absurd -- sometimes I wonder why Apple doesn't just buy all the
major music labels (they could easily do it).

[Edit] This was a joke! Jeez.

~~~
ctdonath
Companies fail when they deviate from their core purpose. Apple's purpose is
to sell "walled garden" hardware. Taking over the music industry is too big a
move to remain focused on selling their hardware.

~~~
smackfu
The former Apple Computer Inc. isn't really the best example of that. They
make an awful lot of money selling music and apps nowadays.

~~~
mbreese
They dropped "Computer" from their name awhile ago, just for that reason.

------
bonch
That's pocket change for Apple.

