I think the comments here and in the article are unnecessarily vitriolic towards Apple, who albeit is a trillion dollar corporation, but has plainly proven over decades that their business model is based on delivering genuine value to customers, a handful of caveats and misdirections withstanding.
I think the comments here and in the article are unnecessarily vitriolic towards Apple, who albeit is a trillion dollar corporation, but has plainly proven over decades that their business model is based on delivering genuine value to customers, a handful of caveats and misdirections withstanding.
Theory #1 is the obvious motive for Apple and the least riskiest approach. Apple does not take overt risks and are known to be slow to move. I do not see them making any deliberate pursuits towards AI-generated music until that market has been well proven out. Today, AI music still amounts to novelty meme content that shows up on your feed occasionally.
They have been cornering the classical music market since they bought Primephonic, the niche classical music streaming service, in August 2021. Clearly they are just trying to buy into the classical music industry by buying a reputable classical music label. It doesn't need to be fancy or even profitable - just well run, with hard-earned experience among its staff and ownership. Whats valuable to Apple here is the access to knowledge and experience of working within the classical music industry, and being exposed to every step between artist to listener.
What is likely here is that Apple is making a bet towards niche streaming services for music (and probably other forms of content) as the way to profitability. One giant music app with all artists and all tracks is starting to seem like a nebulous and herculean approach that never quite satisfies the user. However - a niche streaming app dedicated to classical music? That would invite die-hard classical fans and casual ethusiasts alike and is much more likely to retain users over time. And to build a successful niche app that satisfies the die-hard classical music listener, you need deep knowledge and expertise. That's why they bought BIS.
Another good insight. Didn't Apple announce (or release) a classical music app rather recently? Classical music lovers have been complaining about the limits of iTunes and the Music app for decades now. Apple didn't buy Beats just for its brilliant headset design. It bought Beats for its expertise in aspects of the music business.
This fits with Apple history. Apple bought SoundJam and hired its designers to turn it into iTunes. SoundJam was the pre-eminent music software if your listening choice was a Rio or similar MP3 box. From the first, Apple bought in outside expertise in music to produce the iPod. They've been doing it since.
Yes, Apple released the Apple Music Classical app which makes it easy to search classical music by composer, musician, instrument, etc... Mr. Gioia asks, “how many music fans searching for Beethoven or Mozart on streaming are picky about conductors and orchestras?” It makes no sense that Apple would release this app in conjunction with a strategy of using little-known artists. It doesn’t fit in with “streaming is bad, corporations are evil” narrative.
The Apple Classical app shows an Editor’s Choice as the first pick when searching for works or composers. For Beethoven’s fifth it’s neither Berlin Philharmonic nor Minneapolis Symphony it is surprisingly Simon Bolivar Philharmonic of Venezuela, so maybe Ted is partly right that they plan on reducing their costs by defaulting to lower royalty recommendations.
The Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra has recorded 4 albums for Deutsche Grammophon. Their conductor, Gustavo Dudamel, also leads the Los Angeles Philharmonic and will become the music and artistic director of the New York Philharmonic in 2026. The conductor and orchestra have been persecuted for protesting the authoritarian government of Venezuela. This is not to say that money is not a factor, but they seem to be a quality orchestra deserving of recognition.
Apple has been dealing with the "classical music industry" for as long as the iTunes store has existed. At various times, they've had special deals with classical specialty labels like Deutsche Grammophon (who used to sell downloads exclusively through iTunes) and with orchestras like the New York Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, etc. They've been in the classical space, as a distributor of downloads, for a long time now. They didn't need to buy a classical label to get experience with that side of the business.
The only new expertise they get from buying BIS is how to actually make new classical recordings: doing deals with conductors, orchestras and music publishers on the program for a recording; actually making the recordings; and then manufacturing and selling the CDs or SACDs (yes, BIS still records in DSD and releases a number of new SACD recordings each year). And inventory management, I guess, since BIS famously never deleted a title from its catalog, and would sell you any CD they'd ever published.
The problem is... why would Apple care about any of that? I really don't think they're interested in operating their own classical record label, in the sense of making new recordings and selling them on CD (or even making them available for download). It makes far more sense that Apple wants exclusive, royalty-free access to the BIS catalog (and probably the catalogs of not-yet-acquired classical labels), and will shut down the rest of BIS's business. Which sucks.
RE: Making deals with conductors, orchestras, publishers ... I think actually Apple does care a lot about that. One of the big problems with the incumbent streaming industry is that artists are severely underpaid. Apple taking ownership of a label allows them unfettered access to existing systems of compensation for artists, and gives them the know-how to improve it. I think they are probably considering sustainable compensation for artists as a priority to this next generation streaming app. I think anyone who is building a new streaming app today will probably prioritizing this.
Exclusive royalty-free access to the BIS catalog is just a cherry on top IMO. And if they shut down the rest of the BIS business, I'm sure it will be for the better. Out with the old, in with the new.
Though who side with power are always suspect to me.
Apple will never care about you and your needs. Their goal is money and they will deny us water, energy and food if serves their bottom line. Why would music not be the same?
I think the comments here and in the article are unnecessarily vitriolic towards Apple, who albeit is a trillion dollar corporation, but has plainly proven over decades that their business model is based on delivering genuine value to customers, a handful of caveats and misdirections withstanding.
Theory #1 is the obvious motive for Apple and the least riskiest approach. Apple does not take overt risks and are known to be slow to move. I do not see them making any deliberate pursuits towards AI-generated music until that market has been well proven out. Today, AI music still amounts to novelty meme content that shows up on your feed occasionally.
They have been cornering the classical music market since they bought Primephonic, the niche classical music streaming service, in August 2021. Clearly they are just trying to buy into the classical music industry by buying a reputable classical music label. It doesn't need to be fancy or even profitable - just well run, with hard-earned experience among its staff and ownership. Whats valuable to Apple here is the access to knowledge and experience of working within the classical music industry, and being exposed to every step between artist to listener.
What is likely here is that Apple is making a bet towards niche streaming services for music (and probably other forms of content) as the way to profitability. One giant music app with all artists and all tracks is starting to seem like a nebulous and herculean approach that never quite satisfies the user. However - a niche streaming app dedicated to classical music? That would invite die-hard classical fans and casual ethusiasts alike and is much more likely to retain users over time. And to build a successful niche app that satisfies the die-hard classical music listener, you need deep knowledge and expertise. That's why they bought BIS.
Another good insight. Didn't Apple announce (or release) a classical music app rather recently? Classical music lovers have been complaining about the limits of iTunes and the Music app for decades now. Apple didn't buy Beats just for its brilliant headset design. It bought Beats for its expertise in aspects of the music business.
This fits with Apple history. Apple bought SoundJam and hired its designers to turn it into iTunes. SoundJam was the pre-eminent music software if your listening choice was a Rio or similar MP3 box. From the first, Apple bought in outside expertise in music to produce the iPod. They've been doing it since.
Yes, Apple released the Apple Music Classical app which makes it easy to search classical music by composer, musician, instrument, etc... Mr. Gioia asks, “how many music fans searching for Beethoven or Mozart on streaming are picky about conductors and orchestras?” It makes no sense that Apple would release this app in conjunction with a strategy of using little-known artists. It doesn’t fit in with “streaming is bad, corporations are evil” narrative.
The Apple Classical app shows an Editor’s Choice as the first pick when searching for works or composers. For Beethoven’s fifth it’s neither Berlin Philharmonic nor Minneapolis Symphony it is surprisingly Simon Bolivar Philharmonic of Venezuela, so maybe Ted is partly right that they plan on reducing their costs by defaulting to lower royalty recommendations.
The Simon Bolivar Symphony Orchestra has recorded 4 albums for Deutsche Grammophon. Their conductor, Gustavo Dudamel, also leads the Los Angeles Philharmonic and will become the music and artistic director of the New York Philharmonic in 2026. The conductor and orchestra have been persecuted for protesting the authoritarian government of Venezuela. This is not to say that money is not a factor, but they seem to be a quality orchestra deserving of recognition.
Apple has been dealing with the "classical music industry" for as long as the iTunes store has existed. At various times, they've had special deals with classical specialty labels like Deutsche Grammophon (who used to sell downloads exclusively through iTunes) and with orchestras like the New York Philharmonic, the Vienna Philharmonic, etc. They've been in the classical space, as a distributor of downloads, for a long time now. They didn't need to buy a classical label to get experience with that side of the business.
The only new expertise they get from buying BIS is how to actually make new classical recordings: doing deals with conductors, orchestras and music publishers on the program for a recording; actually making the recordings; and then manufacturing and selling the CDs or SACDs (yes, BIS still records in DSD and releases a number of new SACD recordings each year). And inventory management, I guess, since BIS famously never deleted a title from its catalog, and would sell you any CD they'd ever published.
The problem is... why would Apple care about any of that? I really don't think they're interested in operating their own classical record label, in the sense of making new recordings and selling them on CD (or even making them available for download). It makes far more sense that Apple wants exclusive, royalty-free access to the BIS catalog (and probably the catalogs of not-yet-acquired classical labels), and will shut down the rest of BIS's business. Which sucks.
RE: Making deals with conductors, orchestras, publishers ... I think actually Apple does care a lot about that. One of the big problems with the incumbent streaming industry is that artists are severely underpaid. Apple taking ownership of a label allows them unfettered access to existing systems of compensation for artists, and gives them the know-how to improve it. I think they are probably considering sustainable compensation for artists as a priority to this next generation streaming app. I think anyone who is building a new streaming app today will probably prioritizing this.
Exclusive royalty-free access to the BIS catalog is just a cherry on top IMO. And if they shut down the rest of the BIS business, I'm sure it will be for the better. Out with the old, in with the new.
Though who side with power are always suspect to me.
Apple will never care about you and your needs. Their goal is money and they will deny us water, energy and food if serves their bottom line. Why would music not be the same?