Got a tip for us? Share it...

Apple's Discontinuation of Lala Streaming Music Service Not Likely Leading to Imminent Launch of Web-Focused iTunes


With today's news that Apple is planning a May 31st shutdown for Lala Media, the streaming music service it acquired last December, speculation has arisen that Apple may be on the verge of launching its own cloud-based version of iTunes. MediaMemo reports, however, that industry sources are indicating that such a move would have to occur a bit further down the road.

Sources tell me that in the past few weeks, Apple has started signaling to the labels that it's interested in a Web-based version of iTunes, its dominant music retail platform. But those conversations are preliminary at best.

The music industry has reportedly rejected Apple's earlier proposals for a cloud-based iTunes, claiming that offering users the ability to stream a single purchased track to multiple devices should require the labels to receive greater revenue than they do under the current system, a position Apple and its customers would generally not be likely to accept.

The report notes that Apple could try to argue that users have the legal right to stream their purchased content to their own devices as they see fit, but such a move would antagonize the record labels and also likely hamper Apple's efforts to expand its content deals in other media segments such as television networks.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

23 months ago
The music industry is quite happy to give favourable terms to services like Spotify (which, by the way, they make even less money from), but if Apple wants a cloud based iTunes they stick up barriers.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
Is it too much to ask that I own my music AND stream it however I want to? I can do something like that right now thanks to some creative home server products. Apple would just make it work more easily for me.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
I dont see how this is a good thing, from the sounds of it, nabster 5.0, you pay to stream content, and dont get to store it? or you can store it also, if its the ladder, yes its cool but if its stream only and you pay to be able to listen, then whats the point, you can just go on youtube or myspace to listen to it, i think this is a really lame decision.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
If the music industry perceives any opportunity to sell the same product to the same customer multiple times, they will fight to protect it. :mad:
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
Didn't Apple used to have a browser based do-hicky? I'm sure I remember course mates streaming music from one computer to another through Safari.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
If Apple limits the number of devices you can stream to, I don't see a problem. One can already stream iTunes music in the home via home sharing. What is the problem with being able to stream it to your devices over the internet? The labels apparently didn't have a problem with Microsoft allowing Zune users to stream to each other in a limited area.

If the RIAA and labels keep blocking Apple's plans, maybe they should start striking up some conversations with artists behind the scenes to directly distribute their content once their contracts are up. How many artists would like to keep more than the paltry 7% the labels give them, especially if Apple would help with tour costs and advertising. At first, Apple would lose a ton of iTMS business but another way to look at it is that they would gain exclusive access to some of the biggest artists.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
The only way to fix this garbage heap of a situation with the labels and apple (and everyone else) is compulsory licensing. Thats the only way to take the labels and their heel-dragging, head-up-their-ass approach out of innovation.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago

The music industry has reportedly rejected Apple's earlier proposals for a cloud-based iTunes, claiming that offering users the ability to stream a single purchased track to multiple devices should require the labels to receive greater revenue than they do under the current system, a position Apple and its customers would generally not be likely to accept.


Someone want to clarify the reasoning here?

I pay 99 cents to own the song, but have to pay more if I decide to stream it to my ipod, iphone, ipad, or foreign computer when I'm away from my home computer?
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
This seems like something that Apple would want to announce during its fall media event anyway.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives
23 months ago
i really would have thought more than a decade on from napster the music companies would have shifted enough of their baby-boomer upper management drones out the door to prevent such short-sighted decisions. the only thing i can come up with is they know their industry is dead and those at the top are trying to squeeze the last few dimes out of the corpse before the industry decentralizes completely.
Rating: 0 Positives / 0 Negatives

[ Read All Comments ]