Apple is thrilled, Shazam is excited

Apple confirmed Monday that it has snapped up one of its most popular third-party apps. What the commentariat is saying:

Ingrid Lunden and Katie Roof, TechCrunch: After we broke the story last week that Apple was acquiring London-based music and image recognition service Shazam, Apple confirmed the news today. It is purchasing the startup — one of earliest players in the world of mobile music — as part of its bigger ambitions in the music business.

Mark Mulligan, Music Industry Blog: Shazam is Apple’s answer to Spotify’s Echo Nest… Apple Music is adding around half a million new subscribers a month, while Spotify was adding close to two million a month up until it announced 60 million subscribers in July.

Buster Hein, CultofMac: At one point Shazam was valued around $1 billion, but according to Techcrunch’s sources, Apple only paid around $400 million for the company.

Kia Kokalitcheva, Axios: Shazam’s technology is a natural fit to continue driving downloads to iTunes, subscriptions to Apple Music, and to help with music (and voice) recognition as part of Siri and Apple’s upcoming HomePod home speaker.

Jason Cross, Macworld: What if HomePod could listen to your TV or other ambient audio and automatically produce a list of all the songs you heard when watching your shows each day?

Ben Bajarin, Creative Strategies: Shazam is a good buy for Apple. Good data and will get good data on Android owners as well. Next up Snap…

Zac Hall, 9to5Mac: Following Apple’s Beats Music acquisition, the company maintained its Android client then released Apple Music for Android so it’s not unlikely that could happen here as well. My guess: integrate Shazam’s music tagging feature in Apple Music for Android and sunset Spotify for Android (sorry other music services).

Peter Kafka, Recode: One other thought: While Shazam has played up its ability to do more than just recognize a song that’s playing — it has a “visual Shazam” capability that lets you use your camera to ID objects — my hunch is that Apple is interested, first and foremost, in Shazam’s core utility. I imagine it will eventually be integrated directly into the iPhone’s iOS.

Micah Singleton, The Verge: Shazam has visual recognition tech and an AR platform for brands that could help in the development of a Google Lens-type feature and improve its ARKit efforts.

Neil Cybart, Above Avalon: Apple isn’t buying Shazam for music. Instead, Shazam is an augmented reality (AR) play.

More as they come in.

7 Comments

  1. Ken Cheng said:

    “Apple only paid around $400 million for the company.”
    Nah, they paid less, since it’s a UK-based company. They used pre-tax dollars.

    2
    December 11, 2017
    • David Drinkwater said:

      Yes, actually quite brilliant. (Although technically, in all likelihood, Euros in Ireland would have to be converted into British Pounds for the purchase.) Hopefully, we will pay more attention to Apple using un-repatriated profits for extra-national purchases as time wears on. I’ve been thinking this was an obvious plan of action for quite some time. (And it need not be corporate acquisitions: integrated supply chain expenses also cost money.)

      1
      December 11, 2017
  2. Fred Stein said:

    Great acquisition. I’m thrilled.

    The moat just got 10 feet wider. (parody, not admiration, of DJT)

    2
    December 11, 2017
  3. Richard Wanderman said:

    Brilliant buy. It will be interesting to see how they integrate the technology. I wonder if it will only be available to Apple Music subscribers?

    0
    December 11, 2017
    • David Drinkwater said:

      Hint: it’s not at all just about music. That’s a fog screen.

      1
      December 11, 2017
      • Richard Wanderman said:

        Good thinkin’.

        0
        December 12, 2017
  4. David Drinkwater said:

    I agree completely with Neil Cybart, with a slight distinction: this is not a music play for Apple; this is an AI play for Apple (as opposed to AR). I am sure Shazam has a nice collection of IP that Apple will be gobbling up, and I suspect that some of it is not patented, but is, in fact, trade secret.

    1
    December 11, 2017

Leave a Reply