Apple offers statement on LaLa.com deal

Jonny Evans
|
December 05, 2009
|
Share

Apple has confirmed reports the company has acquired small digital music service, lala.com.

Terms of the deal weren't disclosed by Apple, which closed the deal Friday.

Lala currently enables users to stream any song in its 8-million song catalogue for free and purchase them for 10 cents a piece.

ITunes is the leading music service in the United States with more than 70 percent of all digital music sales and it is the leading music retailer overall.

A brief statement from Cupertino: "Apple buys smaller technology companies from time to time and we generally do not comment on our purpose or plans," Apple spokesman Steve Dowling said.

An anonymous source familiar with the matter told Reuters Apple is looking to ways to expand iTunes beyond its existing status as a download service for media.

"Apple recognizes that the [business[ model is going to evolve into a streaming one and this could probably propel iTunes to the next level," said the person.

The move follows July reports suggesting Apple plans a move into music streaming services.

The lala.com website continues to function as this story hits the wire.

Comments (18)

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 12:27pm

Maybe they're just buying up some competition.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 12:41pm

I don't really buy that the future of music is streaming. It's human nature to want to own the music and that won't end no matter what technology advances are made. Not that there isn't a market for some streaming services though, or that this is necessarily a bad investment by Apple.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 1:02pm

well since I discovered Spotify streaming service, my itunes has been collecting dust. I would prefer to pay for a streaming subscription than buying all the music.

So apple just go ahead and release it already :P

Jb510 (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 11:22pm

Exactly...  I have never WANTED to own music.  I have friends who do, but I've always prefered to have someone else do the programing for me.  I may have 200 GB of music on my media server, but I still listen to Pandora at home WAY more than I do my own stuff out of my iTunes... and in the car I listen to XM 90% of the time.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 07, 2009 - 5:10am

This is obviously very dependent on the customer. 

For example, streaming would have no interest for me. The only time I ever listen to iTunes music is on my iPod when I'm sitting in airplanes - when streaming would be useless.

 

If I'm sitting around listening to music, I'll either listen to a local station or an internet radio station - so paying a subscription for streaming doesn't interest me even at home.

Carey (not verified) | December 06, 2009 - 4:24am

You could both own and stream the music.

If the integration between lala and iTunes is smart enough, it could offer to stream to your ipod/iphone/iwhatever the music that you currently own and have stored on your computer at home.

This would enable apple to build smaller portable music devices that would require less flash memory inside, as the delivery of the music would be over the air. This would also enable apple to keep costs under control as they will be less affected by the volitile cost of flash memory.

Music that you don't own could perhaps be streamed once or twice - if you like it, you could tag it for purchase and a full copy of the song could be parked in your itunes download queue, ready for when you get back home.

As mobile internet gets better, which it is in most countries around the world (can't answer for the US as I don't live there, but from what I'm reading there seems to be some debate over AT&T's coverage), the idea of streaming music over a cell connection becomes more plausable.

 

Just speculation, of course. But I'd bet that whatever it is they are planning on doing with lala's technology will be targeted towards their mobile device business.

drSpace (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 2:47pm

"Lala currently enables users to stream any song in its 8-million song catalogue for free and purchase them for 10 cents a piece."

 

This is wrong. Lala allows registered users to stream any song for free once. After that you get normal 30 second samples. For 10 cents, you can turn it into a "web song" and add it to your collection. You gain the right to unlimited streaming of that song from Lala. Downloaded tracks (purchases) typically cost 89 cents, from which the 10 cent unlimited streaming cost is deducted if you've already paid it, so those songs cost 79 cents.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 8:00pm

The Lala model seems fair to me although listening free once seems limited when I can record from web based radio.

Streaming a lolo quality for free and purchasing good quality?

Apple adds wifi to iPod Nanos and allows streaming to all iPods with a screen.

 

I read that the license is non transferable but it would be nice if Apple did this anyway.

Jb510 (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 11:18pm

Thank you...  I was going to correct the same thing... whoever wrote for this for 9to5 did a poor job scraping the story from elsewhere.

Bubbles (not verified) | December 06, 2009 - 4:40am

whoever wrote for this for 9to5 did a poor job scraping the story from elsewhere.

 

I wouldn't worry about that.  This being 9to5, they'll just read your comment, edit their story to correct their mistakes, and make your post seem redundant.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 6:50pm

Looks like Apple is buying up competition, one hell of a strategy.

 

~fin~

Jb510 (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 11:20pm

There has always been a very good reason that Apple has been sitting on a HUGE pile of cash... last count $31 Billion...

iphonerulez (not verified) | December 06, 2009 - 8:24am

You're a little bit behind in Apple's cash reserve.  It's understandable, since it grows so quickly.  The cash reserve is supposedly $34 billion.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2009/10/20/apple-is-cheating-you.aspx

Anyway, I think that Apple is basically going to use the technology so you can load you're own music to the cloud and do the streaming back to yourself.  It seems a little counterintuitive for Apple to cut into it's own iTunes franchise by streaming music.   Or maybe Apple isn't going to rely on it's purchased music to drive hardware sales.  Maybe it's using apps now to do that.  I think it's wise for Apple to keep all the bases covered and not fall behind in any technology.  But even if Apple isn't going to use the technology anytime soon it's better to stop Google from grabbing it up.  Google is going to grab everything it can to cripple Microsoft or any other competitors from getting an edge.  I know it aims to take over the smartphone market with low-priced Android devices and it should do it rather easy in emerging markets where Apple can't make an impact.  Google basically wants ad clicks and all this peripheral stuff will lead to that.  Everything cheap or free just so billions of users will click on ads.

JulesDM83 (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 7:32pm

This seems like a smart move for Apple. It makes sense for them to go out and buy competitive or complementary services. It just broadens their assets in the digital music space.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 05, 2009 - 7:50pm

Why did Comcast buy NBC? To have more control over tv. Why did apple buy lala.com.....? Exactly.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 06, 2009 - 2:27am

To be honest, Apple seems to be one of those companies who acquire companies only for the engineering talent, those some of the features of Lala may get folded onto iTunes.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 06, 2009 - 4:30am

I do believe that streaming is the way to go. Right now, on your iPhone or iPod your are limited to hard drive space. Apple has always been a company that has maximized it's resources, so to have an unlimited source of music will sell. Jobs said at his most recent address, in reference to the iPod Classic, that they have users that have up 120 gb of music on their iPod, and I have to agree. I have a classic that I am not ready to give up to a Touch simple because of space. I have said this before on here that media servers is the way to go. Streaming media to an iPod Touch or iPhone only makes sense.

9to5Mac Noob (not verified) | December 06, 2009 - 6:55am

You can already stream for free on a Nano - with the radio, which is essentially streaming music. While it might have its drawbacks such as ads and the occaisional song you don't like, it's free and makes you feel more socially connected than napster and spotify.