Apple's relaunch of Beats Music said to cost $10 a month

CNET ^ | 06/02/15 | Joan E. Solsman

[Enlightened1]

Unlike Spotify, the new incarnation of the streaming music service under Apple won't have a way to listen to anything on demand for free, according to a report.

The new Beats Music may look different from the old Beats Music, but it will feel just the same to your wallet.

The Wall Street Journal, citing unnamed sources, reported Monday that Apple's subscription streaming service will have the standard $10-a-month price to listen to any song on demand. Other outlets had reported previously that Apple was negotiating with labels to have a lower price but failed to win that concession.

The service represents yet another steaming music option -- albeit one with the cachet of the Apple brand. Apple isn't competing on price -- the $10 rate is the same price that Spotify charges for its own premium service, and was the same price of the original Beats Music service.

The computing giant bought Beats Music last year as part of its $3 billion takeover of the service's headphone-maker parent company. Apple long resisted the subscription music model, enjoying its leadership of the market for digital song downloads after launching the iTunes store as the antidote to file sharing plaguing the recording industry more than a decade ago. However, streaming's popularity -- and downloads' decline -- have made the format too important for Apple to ignore.

Lower pricing also would have raised antitrust risks for Apple. Regulators in the US and Europe have been exploring the possibility that Apple was using its market influence to secure a licensing advantage compared to rivals. Beats Music was either $10 a month or discounted to $100 a year for people who committed to the longer term.

[Enlightened1]

If this rumor is true, then I predict a mass drop off in music for Apple.

I like music, but not enough to pay $10 a month. Apple has a good set up now.

If it's not broken, then why fix it?

[Obadiah]

$10 a month? And then to use it on the fly you had better hope there is free Wi-Fi that isn’t throttled or has dozens of others streaming, or restricts streaming site. The alternative, of course is to burn up your data.

Can’t see it.

[ilgipper]

I did Spotify for awhile at about that price. 9.99, I think. I couldn’t justify the cost and cut it. If it was $6, I’d do it in a heartbeat.

[Svartalfiar]

I just listen to the radio. I have a ton of songs on my computer though if I really want to listen to those.

[Mad Dawgg]

"If it's not broken, then why fix it?"

From what I read in the article it is broken as far as Apple is concerned.

"Apple long resisted the subscription music model, enjoying its leadership of the market for digital song downloads after launching the iTunes store as the antidote to file sharing plaguing the recording industry more than a decade ago. However, streaming's popularity -- and downloads' decline -- have made the format too important for Apple to ignore."

In the link in that paragraph it tells Streaming started outselling CD sales and digital download sales dropped by 8.7%.

Paradigm shift. No need to own music anymore and if you do want a copy buying it is not necessary with the ease of the internet AND the multiple ways you can get LEGAL free copies of your favorite hits.