Seeking Alpha

iRadio (AAPL) is "still bogged down in licensing talks," music industry sources tell The Verge's...

iRadio (AAPL) is "still bogged down in licensing talks," music industry sources tell The Verge's Greg Sandoval. In addition to Sony (already reported to have rejected Apple's licensing terms), BMG is said to be holding out for a better deal; one has reportedly been signed with Universal. Apple's interest in offering on-demand options not found on Pandora (P) and other Web radio services has reportedly complicated talks. Past reports stated Apple is aiming for a summer launch.
Comments (14)
  • GOOG seemed to have accomplished this quickly, though it sounds like their service will be more of a competing product to Spotify. If AAPL manage to create a Pandora (P) like service, then it brings up the idea that Pandora may disappear from list of iOS apps. Overall it is good to see AAPL move more towards higher margin services.
    17 May 2013, 05:01 PM Reply Like
  • Is internet radio really a "higher margin service?"

     

    Seems to me that iRadio isn't the only thing bogged down at Apple. At the beginning of aapl's slide, when writers started saying Apple wasn't innovating, I scoffed for quite awhile.

     

    Now I've changed my mind. iRadio won't save Apple. Everyone is doing it, the market is already saturated with internet radio. Apple is now a follower.

     

    I agree with others who have said that stock buybacks in this case are a sign that the company has lost it's edge. Dividend hikes are nice but they don't replace dynamic leadership.

     

    I still love my macBook Pro but tried out a Samsung g4 phone and it's really good, better than the iPhone.
    17 May 2013, 05:45 PM Reply Like
  • AAPL started iAD and has not been able to effectively monetize that yet. An internet radio service allows ad revenues. If they follow the model of Pandora (P), then ad free radio would happen at a subscriber rate. Basically this is software services, which tend to have better margins than hardware sales. I would guess that Apple would be able to leverage this better than Pandora.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    Indeed, I wrote many months ago: "One of the first tenets of competition is to not follow your competition. Doing so would simply validate their moves, and make your company appear to be chasing the leader." Tough to not agree with you that streaming radio to iDevices is following competitors, though I think it is something that Apple needs to do to keep up with the competition.

     

    I still enjoy my MacBook Pro too, though the newest all-soldered hardware from Apple has me investigating other devices for the first time in over 18 years. The designs are still sleek, though what was once rare and special has now become all too common. In some regions, Apple products are near saturation. I think the company needs to move more towards software and services.
    17 May 2013, 06:13 PM Reply Like
  • When Apple introduced Apps, Google had a problem. Google relies on traffic by offering links to data. Apps bypass Google and focus on going directly to the data. Solution one was to buy Android and throw it into open source. Each modification by EOM's who adopted it, violated countless patents, but each was unique and fragmented litigation potential, across corporate and state borders. A litigation nightmare was the result. Strategy 2 was to sell mobile devices for cost with Google Chrome and Android on board. A razor and blade model with the no margin hardware the razor and ad clicks the blades. An attack on the hardware side of Apple. No wonder Steve Jobs was pissed. Google is now stepping into Apple's music domain. Apple has a chance to put the shoe on the other foot. The streaming radio can be their razor and the music the blade. They can offer the streaming DRM protected music for free, ad free and all other streamers become obsolete. Add features like those found on a PVR, with Siri access, as an upsell, and you have a killer service, with barriers to entry. Music video options with YouTube type front end ads, freemium with ads, or paid without, now starts to compete with Google in their ad space. If my understanding of Google music streaming is correct, it is a subscription only model, with custom stations, on demand streaming and access to whatever music you upload to an online library, plus some Pandora like features. Apple can allow iCloud type library access, pause, rewind, start over, record for later playback and buy song options. Genius playlists based on personal tastes, to offer compelling music choices, increasing sales. They can offer it for free and Google goes, oops!!
    17 May 2013, 06:41 PM Reply Like
  • What would be the benefit to the companies holding rights to music, to sign up exclusively with Apple?

     

    Part of your argument sounds like an anti-trust issue in the making. While many investors would like to see aspects of commerce converted into near-monopoly status, there are numerous legal issues that block that potential.

     

    I think competition is good and healthy. In the end the consumer ends up with more choices, and competition can drive more innovation. Apple should be able to find something unique with such a service, that compels users to want to adopt that service. Simply blocking competitors does not appear to me to be a viable long term strategy. So far litigation has not altered the path of sales and platform drift.
    17 May 2013, 06:57 PM Reply Like
  • Nope. Nokia Music is a free service with all Nokia Lumias.
    Premium service based on a subscription.
    18 May 2013, 09:45 AM Reply Like
  • More music sales and a share in upsell service/ad revenues with the industry leader in music sales, seems like good motivation for the music labels. Anti-trust?? Google's service will not be made available for iOS devices. Who is engaging in anti-trust behavior here?

     

    Patents are supposed to protect innovation. They allow first to market exclusivity, to help recuperate the costs of R&D. Then after a period, reasonable license fees to protect the intellectual property aspect.

     

    Toothless regulatory watchdogs are making ignoring patents and slap on the wrist litigation costs, no different than bribing the right officials. Just a cost of doing business.

     

    Getting an Android market share base by copying software and hardware, was more important, than any litigation costs. Let's see if we can cripple Apple by destroying their margins and making them have to spend heavily on marketing to compete against their own technology, during the period where they should have exclusivity. Now accuse them of stunting innovation and suggest that anti-trust action should be brought. Blame the victim.

     

    Average citizens are the victim. They are the shareholders. Their rights are being violated and their investments plundered by these tactics. Put a face on the victims. If you have owned Apple stock since Android was made open source, your rights have been violated.

     

    You should be angry. Abusers like to claim their right to abuse. In this case under the label of protecting the right to competition and innovation. If this was a big pharma drug patent being violated, all hell would have broken loose.

     

    It's no profit that stifles innovation. Big pharma is quitting developing new antibiotics. Too expensive to develop because resistance comes too soon. Non-patentable solutions exist (bacteriophages) but without patent protection, people will die, no profit.

     

    Get mad, boycott abusers like Google and Samsung.
    18 May 2013, 09:49 AM Reply Like
  • I don't own anything made by Samsung, but that is simply because I have not found anything they make that I personally like. As for Google, I use Google Maps, though I dislike the efforts they have put into getting access to written content through sponsoring Orphan Works legislation. I'm not a boycott type of person, though I understand that is fairly popular at the moment in the United States.

     

    Meanwhile the legal battles drag on over "design" patents, which are (in my opinion) simply ways to get around copyright laws that may become weaker in the future. There was no Trademark violation in these battles. The distinctions of the design lawsuits is unique to the US market, because patent laws vary from country to country. Obviously people are extremely polarized on this, so I have no interest in anyone agreeing with me; I am simply stating my opinion. I should point out that I have been massively stubborn all my life, so don't waste time typing a reply to try to change my viewpoint.

     

    I have zero emotional attachment to any of my investments, and the same goes for devices I choose to use in my life. Emotions are best reserved for important things like personal relationships, or pets in your household. Getting "mad", as you suggest, accomplishes nothing in investing.
    18 May 2013, 06:48 PM Reply Like
  • You said it! Lets hope Apple hears it! Siri access to iRadio would be awesome. Order songs while commuting without looking for buttons and not taking your eyes off the freeway.
    Thanks imac007
    18 May 2013, 07:55 PM Reply Like
  • Hold on!
    Just yesterday SA ran an article in which the author said that Apple's upcoming radio will be "like Pandora's."

     

    Clearly this author did not have his facts straight.

     

    Is there ever a retraction at SA?
    17 May 2013, 07:34 PM Reply Like
  • Both statements are true. AAPL iRadio is a recommendation engine-driven digital radio service like P. But the snag in negotiations is on enhancing user features, specifically permitting more skipping than P. iRadio can still be "like" Pandora if it is essentially the same kind of product, but with some enhanced interactivity.
    17 May 2013, 08:13 PM Reply Like
  • CNET reports that the Sony iRadio negotiation hang up is actually down to a fairly small issue around skipping functionality. http://cnet.co/14y0kad

     

    With Universal done, Warner almost done, and Sony narrowed to a featue enhancement issue, iRadio is becoming more inevitable every day. If the three major label groups are on board with their three largest publishers in tow, smaller publishers like BMG will come on board because Apple can credibly threaten to launch without them.
    17 May 2013, 07:36 PM Reply Like
  • I think apple does due dilligence from future revenue perspective. Google is a hasty builder.
    18 May 2013, 09:43 AM Reply Like
  • Yeah if they replace my Pandora app, which has stations I've crafted for years now, on my iPhone I'll be one nudge closer to never buying the iPhone again. And at this point they really have some work to do to sell me a 4th handset of essentially the same design with light upgrading. I feel like many probably do, if Apple doesn't help me explore the electronic frontier then there is surely a company out there willing to take the risk of being novel and forward thinking. BBRY comes to mind, the next run of BB10 premium products could be a game changer, most importantly, for my cell phone.
    18 May 2013, 02:06 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)