Are Apple Deliberately Late to The Cloud Music Party?

The quality of thinking at The Register seems to be tumbling ever lower. They are allowing their committed anti-Apple bias to take precedence over engaging brain and as a result are losing the opportunity to make insightful analysis.

Their latest Apple post “Apple Plays Cloud Catch-Up”, they claim Apple has failed to launch a cloud based music service and are scrambling to catch-up with their competitors. But is that the most likely truth?

It is inevitable a company now the size Apple are will at some point fall behind the curve in many areas they once lead, but my educated guess is that coming second here is by design more than anything else and there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to back this up. Not least the clear repeating pattern of how Apple operate with their partners whilst at the same time introducing disruptive technologies that will inevitably cannibalise their partners business models. Greg Sandoval wrote this excellent, well read piece, on the storm Amazon are stirring up with the music labels and we shouldn’t forget Apple has iTunes and so has a lot to lose by falling out with the same.

When Apple first introduced iTunes, they were disruptive, but not through being radical or, indeed, the first mover (Napster was, of course, earlier and far more the disruptive “root” and Archos provided the necessary music player hardware before the iPod). Apple’s strategy was to side the with the main-stream incumbent music labels and drag them into the realm of cheap digital music supply (I know it doesn’t seem so cheap now - but it was at the time when the only option was to buy an entire CD). Their plan of attack has always been to partner and then lead their partners like the Ghosts of Christmas Past, Present and Future to understand the inevitable and accept it and adopt a new strategy to take account of it.

Beyond digital music distribution they repeated the pattern with the iPhone. They first developed a killer device, then partnered effectively with the carriers. Like the need for partners of iTunes to allow digital music distribution, they ensured their iPhone partners acquiesced on one key strategic point; unlimited data (probably at the cost of an exclusivity deal with AT&T). But like a hanging thread on a home-knit jumper unlimited data is leading inexorably to a future the carriers don’t want to see, the unravelling of the per call charging model. Apple knew full well where the path lead, but hung back letting the inevitable play-out and avoiding rubbing their partners noses in it. They waited for other phones to allow Skype to supply voice over the data connections when they could easily have allowed it themsevles. And more recently waited for others to provide internet tethering [edit: and personal WiFi hotspot] when there’s little doubt they could have provided it from day one with the iPhone 3G and 4 had they wanted to.

Apple have a huge asset with iTunes and big partnership deals. So it is entirely in their interest and in line with their strategy to wait again. Indeed, I wouldn’t be surprised to learn if they have been frustrated at how long it has taken other’s to lead the charge and draw the fire. I don’t know this is what they are doing, but it makes a hell of a lot of sense if they are. There can be little doubt Apple will be entering the market with far bigger guns.

The partner and move slowly but surely strategy has the added benefit of helping defend against the possibility of “anti-trust” investigations. The last thing a company the size of Apple needs is for one or more of its’ partners to take sufficient offence they refer them to the DOJ. As I have previously written, they are already getting rather close to the line on that score. Quite naturally, a reference to the DOJ by a partner will raise more questions than a similar reference by a pure competitor.

[Edit, in case it be thought I'm being unfair on The Register, yes I readily admit they have annoyed me somewhat for censoring the post below when I commented on an article they published on this very subject soon after Steve Jobs had again left day-to-day work at Apple for a second time due to Illness. So now I tend to question their intentions.];



It's all very well banning profane insulting or inflammatory remarks - but to ban my comment simply shows a lack of journalistic integrity. The picture of Jobs was the usual one the Register use with an X through it.

Paul Lancefield on Twitter