Warner Music Remains Optimistic on Streaming Music, as Long as It's Paid

warner_music_logoAmid the explosion in popularity of streaming music services, Warner Music Group continues to support the concept, as long as subscribers are paying for the music to which they are listening, reports Re/code. Warner's CEO Stephen Cooper spoke about the company's growing interest in streaming music during the company's latest earnings conference call which was held last week.

Streaming music is increasingly important to Warner, with revenue from online music up 74 percent year over year. In the same period, revenue from downloads plummeted 12 percent, echoing a similar downward trend also seen by Apple's iTunes music download service.

To offset the loss from downloads, Warner currently accepts the freemium model of ad-supported streaming music, but only as a means to convert users to paying subscribers. Paid subscriptions and not freemium plans are the future of the industry, states Cooper.

In our view, right now, enabling meaningful global growth in the number of paying subscribers is the best option for artists, for songwriters, for copyright owners and for the services themselves. Subscription streaming is not only a fantastic offering for music fans, it will propel the long-term health of the music industry. We look forward to continuing to work closely with our partners to turbo-charge the adoption rate for subscription streaming.

Warner's emphasis on paying subscribers may not bode well for Apple's reported plan of slashing monthly costs for its Beats Music service. The Cupertino company is rumored to be pushing music labels to cut current subscription prices in half to $5 per month as it negotiates the terms for its recently acquired Beats Music streaming service. Apple argues that lowering the monthly cost will encourage significantly more users to sign up for the paid service, but labels are obviously considering whether those gains will outweigh the lower per-user income that comes with the cheaper pricing.

Along with a goal of lowering consumer pricing, Apple is also said to be working on an early 2015 refresh for the Beats service, likely integrating it into the iTunes brand. With iTunes Radio and Beats Music, Apple offers both ad-supported and paid streaming service, although the two are not currently integrated. iTunes Radio is currently tied to Apple's traditional download offerings, offering easy access for users to purchase individual tracks they hear on iTunes Radio. Even so, iTunes Radio has seen a tepid reception and international expansion has been extremely slow with the service available only in the United States and Australia.

Popular Stories

iOS 26

Everything New in iOS 26.1 Beta 1

Monday September 22, 2025 12:44 pm PDT by
Apple released the first beta of iOS 26.1 today, just a week after launching iOS 26. iOS 26.1 mainly adds new languages to Apple Intelligence, but there are a few other features that are worth knowing about. New Apple Intelligence Languages Apple Intelligence is now available in Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, Portuguese (Portugal), Swedish, Turkish, Chinese (Traditional), and Vietnamese. AirPo...
apple tv 4k new orange

Next Apple TV Expected to Launch This Year With These New Features

Monday September 22, 2025 10:00 am PDT by
The next Apple TV is expected to be released later this year, and a handful of new features and changes have been rumored for the device. Below, we recap what to expect from the next Apple TV, according to rumors. Likely Features N1 Chip With Wi-Fi 7 Last year, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman said the next Apple TV would be equipped with Apple's own combined Wi-Fi and Bluetooth chip, which is...
iPhone 17 Pro USB C Port

iPhone 17 Pro Max's USB-C Charging Speeds Tested With Apple Chargers

Monday September 22, 2025 7:29 am PDT by
The website ChargerLAB has tested the iPhone 17 Pro Max's USB-C charging speeds with a variety of Apple's chargers, from 18W to 140W. The device reached a peak charging speed of around 36W with the following Apple chargers:40W Dynamic Power Adapter with 60W Max 61W USB-C Power Adapter 67W USB-C Power Adapter 70W USB-C Power Adapter 96W USB-C Power Adapter 140W USB-C Power AdapterFor...
Apple Intelligence General Feature 2

iOS 26.1 Adds New Apple Intelligence Languages and Expands AirPods Live Translation

Monday September 22, 2025 11:15 am PDT by
With iOS 26.1, Apple Intelligence is gaining support for additional languages, including Danish, Dutch, Norwegian, Portuguese (Portugal), Swedish, Turkish, Chinese (Traditional), and Vietnamese. Apple announced plans to expand the languages that can be used with Apple Intelligence last year, and now the added language support is here. Apple Intelligence is now available in the following...
iPhone 17 Pro and Air N1 Feature

Some iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, and iPhone Air Users Experiencing Intermittent Wi-Fi Issue

Monday September 22, 2025 8:44 am PDT by
Apple's latest iPhone models launched on Friday, and some early adopters of the devices are experiencing intermittent Wi-Fi issues. Affected customers say Wi-Fi connectivity periodically cuts out on the iPhone 17, iPhone 17 Pro, iPhone 17 Pro Max, and iPhone Air, with hundreds of comments about the issue posted across the MacRumors Forums, Reddit, and the Apple Support Community over the...
Apple Foldable Thumb

Foldable iPhone Like 'Two Titanium iPhone Airs' Joined at the Hinge

Monday September 22, 2025 2:16 am PDT by
Next year's rumored foldable iPhone will showcase an ultra-thin design resembling "two titanium iPhone Airs side-by-side," according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. Writing in the Q&A section of his latest Power On newsletter, Gurman says Apple's first foldable device will be "super thin and a design achievement," combining Apple's thinnest iPhone form factor with cutting-edge folding...
iPhone 17 Pro Colors

Skipped the iPhone 17 Pro? Here's What is Rumored for iPhone 18 Pro

Tuesday September 23, 2025 8:55 am PDT by
While the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max are still a year away, there are already a few rumors about the devices that offer an early look ahead. Below, we have recapped some of the early iPhone 18 Pro rumors so far. This story was published previously, and it has been updated to reflect the latest rumors. Many early rumors prove to be true, but nothing is confirmed yet, and Apple's...
iphone 17 pro dark blue 1

Apple Blames In-Store MagSafe Chargers for iPhone 17 Pro Display Model Scratches

Wednesday September 24, 2025 10:22 am PDT by
The marks on the iPhone 17 Pro models that people have noticed at Apple retail stores are caused by the chargers that Apple uses, Apple confirmed today. Apple told 9to5Mac that worn MagSafe charging stands in stores are causing marks on the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max. Apple says that the marks are not scratches, and are instead material transfer from the stand to the phone. The...
ios 26 digital id passport wallet

Apple Confirms iOS 26 Wallet Passport Feature is Coming in 2025

Tuesday September 23, 2025 1:06 pm PDT by
Digital ID, the iOS 26 feature that lets U.S. passport holders add their passports to the Wallet app, is coming later in 2025, Apple confirmed today. Apple updated the release timing wording of Digital ID on its iOS 26 features page. "Digital ID will be coming later this year with US passports only," it reads. Prior to today, the footnote for the feature said "Digital ID will be available ...
maxresdefault

iPhone 17 Pro is Vulnerable to Scratching, But Not Where You Might Think

Tuesday September 23, 2025 2:18 pm PDT by
Early reports have suggested that the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone Air are more vulnerable to scratches and scuffs, primarily due to damage spotted at Apple Stores. Apple customers have discovered that the iPhone Air and iPhone 17 Pro models Apple has out for display at its retail locations have scratching in the area of the MagSafe charger. Those devices are handled by hundreds to thousands of...

Top Rated Comments

HobeSoundDarryl Avatar
141 months ago
Of course the labels want us to rent-to-play. That has a potentially endless revenue tail tied to it.

Here's the problem: until we got to the ripping stage, there was a regular re-buy model. Vinyl & Cassettes wore out. CDs solved much of the problem of wearing out and ripping from CDs meant you had a pristine copy of your music for up to forever. Music ripped from CDs I bought way back in the 1980s still sound exactly as good as they sounded when played the first time.

Then you have the generational problem. Kiddies grow up and leave the nest. They might like some of their parent's music. In the past, it was either take some of it with them or buy new copies of the same music. Digital copies meant the music could both go and stay- no obvious need to buy anew.

Then you have the singles problem. The music industry originally revolved around the single. But there was a golden period where one just about had to buy a whole CD to get the 1-2 good songs they actually wanted. iTunes and similar brought back the ability to buy just the good songs.

Then you have the used market problem. Used CDs that are playable will play the music as good as new CDs. So one could either lay out the $XX for a new CD or maybe 10%-20% of the new price for a used copy. End result is exactly the same. However, reselling a CD doesn't show as new revenue for the Music Studios.

Basically, digital (CD's) ended much of the natural push to re-buy. And once you have enough favorites in your own library of owned music, you can shuffle to keep the ears pretty stimulated with favorites.

Renting is usually spun in support for new music discovery but I suspect the ability to play 90 seconds of any song in iTunes, availability of music videos, classic (free) radio, online (free) radio, VH1 & MTV, etc offers much of that same benefit without the subscription fee. The problem may not be that people don't want to buy (or re-buy) new music (that will show as music studio revenues); the problem is probably that either the market has accumulated much of the music it wants and/or it has a multitude of cheaper ways to get new music it doesn't own vs. buying a new CD or a new digital download.

In my own experience, when I discover a new song I'd like to have, I check digital sources like iTunes (where it will usually be $1.29). Then, I'll check used CD prices and find that I can get that song plus other "best of" in collections like the "Now that what I call music" or similar or in "greatest hits" anthology (along with a number of other good songs) for close to that or maybe a few dollars more. Unless I spend the $1.29 or buy a brand new CD, the studio gets no new revenue even though I end up with the same net result. So they gripe about declining music sales but music still sells- just not in ways that show in their revenues.

Personally, I just don't see streaming as the salvation. If it's ad-driven, there's free radio that is ad driven (not $10/month and not $5/month). Instead, I think iTunes and similar largely got it right with the single purchase model. The problem is that now a lot of music buyers probably have a lot of the music they want to own. It will be pristine forever so they won't wear out that music by enjoying it.

If the studios want to grow revenues, what is needed is a lot of brand new music that the masses deem "must have". With somewhat rare exception, I still find myself favoring "oldies" over modern music. Give me some new music that sounds as good as the old stuff and I'm interested. Otherwise, I already have lots of great music synched to my iDevices: shuffle play, no commercials, $0/month.
Score: 17 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Paradoxally Avatar
141 months ago
I will never support Spotify with my money. They claim they give 70% of revenue back to artists/songwriters/musicians, but this is just marketing propaganda to make you feel good.

http://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/07/but-spotify-is-paying-70-of-gross-to-artists-isnt-that-fair-no-and-heres-why/

For big artists, they don't care (mostly, yet some have taken their music entirely off streaming playoffs, which I totally support). They earn millions with tours, album sales and merchandise. However, not everyone is Taylor Swift or Beyoncé. The biggest indie stream was paid 3k from Spotify. That's nothing!

If you want to support artists, especially indie or lesser known ones, buy their music and go to their shows. Don't stream it from Spotify. It's not a sustainable business model for anyone in the music industry that hasn't a big label behind them.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
J. Jizzle Avatar
141 months ago
I've never understood why people would pay to stream music. Just put your music collection in iTunes and synch to your iPhone or Google Music on Android. May be a little time consuming, but it's free and you get to listen to what you actually want to hear.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
roadbloc Avatar
141 months ago
I'd rather give my money to the artists directly than support greedy music labels on the way. Go **** yourselves Warner Music.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)
2457282 Avatar
141 months ago
Personally, I like to own my own stuff and still purchase and download. My wife goes back and forth between Spotify and my music library, but hates having to wade through my 14,000 songs.

I think that streaming could work if --
1. Better options for selecting music; I still find that it plays a lot of junk for me.
2. Better options for listening when not connected to Wi-Fi.
3. Reasonable prices.
4. Protects the artist - if they don't make money, they can't create the product we want to hear.

None of the options out there seems to do this right now.
Score: 4 Votes (Like | Disagree)
garya73 Avatar
141 months ago
Album sales mostly benefit the labels. Musicians make most of their money from touring and merchandise sales.

So of course a big label like Warner wants to promote a subscription model. They are going to make more money that way then with free or freemium models.

I try to support smaller artists and go to their shows and buy merchandise and CDs there. Though then again, how much of the money you pay to get in actually goes to the artist, and not to the venue. You know the ticket broker is getting paid, they always list their fee separately. But $4+ for one ticket is just outrageous when it is all done electronically and you print your own ticket at home.

Thankfully the internet and sites that promote indie or unsigned artists exist. And any band or person can create their own site and distribute their own music. Cut the labels completely out of the equation (or at least minimize the amount of money they take from the artists).
Score: 2 Votes (Like | Disagree)