Re:Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics
by dublinben on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @06:17PM
(#7813323)
A company like Pandora or Spotify? Two debt-financed companies that still can't turn a profit from music.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics
by neura on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @06:35PM
(#7813405)
Neither of which also sell music in their own online stores, so it's hard to make a fair comparison.
Also, Apple's iRadio is probably not taking off as well as they'd like and Beats Music already has a better feature set.
Re:Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics
by 001sky on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @06:31PM
(#7813384)
Pandora and spotify are structurally unprofitable because of their licensing problems/payments. Apple is %500Bn company-- big enough to become a label--has the marketing expertise (iTunes) and Capital ($X0Bns cash) to be a next-generation 'label'. Or maybe I'm missing something?
Re:Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics
by dublinben on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @07:15PM
(#7813600)
If Apple (or Google) had wanted to buy out the record labels and their catalogs, they could have done so years ago. They obviously didn't, probably because it's a dying industry that isn't nearly as profitable as their current products.
The very idea of a 'record label' is a relic of the 20th Century, when all recorded music was distributed on heavy physical artifacts.
Re:Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics
by 001sky on Wednesday May 28, 2014 @10:34PM
(#7814392)
Not sure I follow. Who said anything about buying out the record labels? Apple can just <become> a label-replacement. There is still a need for a distribution/production/promotion service layer in music biz.
Re:Apple Confirms Its $3 Billion Deal for Beats Electronics
by ForHackernews on Thursday May 29, 2014 @12:40AM
(#7814769)
Or Google Play store, for that matter.