The Verge says Apple is still “bogged down in licensing talks” with music publishers. Two of the big ones are still holding out, Sony/ATV and BMG, according to the Verge’s sources. That’s partly because what Apple is trying to do is not the same as Google Play Music All Access. Google’s service is a standard subscription service, like Spotify, and it will cost users $10 per month. It’s also not clear what the music catalog will look like for that service because Google has not yet announced which publishers have signed up.

iRadio is reportedly more complicated because of what Apple is trying to build and how it likes to do business. iRadio won’t be a straight-up web radio service; there will also be some on-demand aspects to it. And Apple also isn’t willing to pay music publishers an advance for access to their catalogs. Instead, Apple has agreed to give them a share of ad revenue, per-play fees and a guaranteed minimum payment, according to the Verge.

Apple already makes billions from its current content service, iTunes. It’s not essential that Apple have its own streaming music subscription service as answer to Google in a few weeks. But the company does need to acknowledge that times and habits have changed when it comes to music ownership. The developers conference seems a perfect place to debut it, but a fall event later this year when new hardware is set to be announced would be fine too; three more months doesn’t make that big of a difference at this point.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Monetizing music in the post-scarcity age
• Forecast: the future of the digital music industry

Cook told the Washington Post that he has ideas for how to help convince companies like his own to bring back their overseas earnings to the U.S.:

 “If you look at it today, to repatriate cash to the U.S., you need to pay 35 percent of that cash. And that is a very high number,” Cook said in an interview Thursday. “We are not proposing that it be zero. I know many of our peers believe that. But I don’t view that. But I think it has to be reasonable.”

Apple is set to pay $7 billion in taxes in the U.S. this year, he told the paper. He also said he believes that Apple is “likely the largest corporate taxpayer in the U.S.”

But the company has — along with a lot of its peers — found creative ways to make sure that number is not any higher. Apple has $145 billion in its coffers, and $100 billion of that is from profits derived from sales overseas. But the company has not brought that money back to the U.S. because of the current corporate tax rate. Even when the company decided to issue a larger dividend for shareholders, Apple elected to borrow money rather than use profits from overseas to fund that, partly because of the tax burden.

This will be Cook’s first testimony before Congress, but not his first trip to Washington in an official capacity. A year ago he visited with House Speaker John Boehner, signaling his interest in engagement with Washington and public policy would be somewhat of a departure from his predecessor’s.

Cook also told the Post Apple believes “in good corporate citizenship.” And he has made some good U.S. corporate citizen moves since becoming CEO. In addition to instituting a charitable-giving matching program for employees, he’s also laid out plans to bring production back to the U.S. of one model of Mac. Cook told Politico that it would be an existing product that will be made here. Not only will it be put together in the U.S., he said some of the parts would be manufactured in Arizona, Texas, Illinois, Florida and Kentucky.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Flash analysis: Steve Jobs
• Forecast: Tablet App Sales To Hit $8B by 2015
• How consumer media will change in 2013

Apple’s App Store downloads and downloads from the Google Play store became roughly even last fall, as Erica Ogg wrote recently, and then in the first quarter of 2013, Google pulled ahead in sheer number of mobile app downloads worldwide. However, Apple got 74 cents for every dollar spent on apps during the that quarter, according to a report by Canalys published in April, and the 50 billion downloads now puts Apple back with a slight lead.

The company announced the number of downloads on the first day of Google’s I/O conference, as Google announced that its Google Play store has seen 48 billion app downloads since launch in late 2008. However, it’s good to remember that app downloads only tell part of the story — someone could download an app and never use it again.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How to Market Your iPhone App: A Developer’s Guide
• An overview of the photo and video app market
• OTT technologies and strategies for broadcasters

In a class action suit filed in San Jose, California, Debra Hilton claims that Apple knew about a defect in a flex cable that controls the on-off button, but chose to stay quiet about it so as to sell more phones.

As evidence, she points to Apple discussion forums viewed by hundreds of thousands of visitors on which users complain of “wiggly” power buttons. Hilton also points to a fix-it video on YouTube and comments by a self-described iPhone repairman who says the power button defect is prevalent on the iPhone 4 which went on sale in 2010.

Apple did not immediately return a request for comment.

The lawsuit claims that the defect typically arises shortly after one year at which point the warranty has expired, forcing consumers to pay $149 for repairs.

Hilton is suing under the RICO statute, a federal racketeering law that has become a vehicle for national class actions. The lawsuit also accuses Apple of violating California’s unfair competition laws.

You can read the complaint for yourself here:

Apple Power Button Lawsuit

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues
• Why iPad 2 Will Lead Consumers Into the Post-PC Era
• Mobile App Developer Survey: Profiles, Platforms and Monetization

This means you could create an IFTTT recipe that lets your Hue bulb turn a different color, or blink when a file is uploaded to your Dropbox, an email comes in or it’s going to rain. IFTTT already has a partnership with Belkin’s WeMo, so hooking it up to the Hue seems right on track.

To me, the IFTTT partnership is the most exciting, but others may like the geofencing aspect that can automatically turn on or change the light’s settings as a Hue user arrives home — without the user even having to take their smartphone out of their pocket. That, plus a feature that lets users schedule their use settings on a calendar as opposed to resetting them every day were added in response to user demand.

Philips has been riding a wave of success in the developer community since launching the lightbulbs last October. Despite the $200 price tag for a starter kit containing three bulbs and $59 price tag for each bulb, many tech-savvy people are picking them up and playing with them. In March it opened up its software development kit to make that play easier and give larger companies the tools and support to integrate the bulbs into their own connected home products.

Today’s features just tie it even more into a developing network of connected devices that can communicate with each other over the web — a vision the creators of the Hue seem to embrace based on my discussion of how they view the internet of things during a podcast in March.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• Connected world: the consumer technology revolution
• Siri: Say hello to the coming “invisible interface”

Despite the love people have for email, Twitter and even Facebook, the real star of the web in terms of sheer traffic is video. And not only is all this real-time video streaming possibly rotting our brains, congesting our broadband networks and threatening our pay TV businesses, it’s driving wholesale changes in how we pay for broadband and the future of television.

A great illustration of these changes comes from Sandvine’s Global Internet Phenomena Report: 1H 2013. Sandvine provides deep packet inspection and networking management tools to wireless and wireline ISPs, which is how it gets some of its data. While, many people already knew that Netflix traffic comprises about a third of the web traffic in the U.S., they might not know that YouTube is gaining rapidly with 17.11 percent of web traffic downloaded on wireline networks, up from 13.8 percent a year ago.

Video makes bandwidth hogs of us all

Few people are immune to the siren song of cat videos or Arrested Development. In fact, it’s changing the profile of what broadband usage looks like to the point where it’s normal to be a bandwidth hog. According to the Sandvine report in North America, the top 1 percent of subscribers who make the heaviest use of the network’s downstream resources account for 10.1 percent of downstream traffic.

However, those top 1 percent of users don’t look too much different from the top 30 percent. At the bottom, the network’s lightest 50 percent of users account for only 6.4 percent of total monthly traffic. In fact it’s those laggards at the bottom we should be worried about. Did they somehow miss Gangnam Style?

The average and median usage on both wireline and wireless networks in North America is on the rise. On wireline networks mean usage was 44.7 GB, a 39 percent year-over-year increase from 32.1 GB. Over the same period, median monthly usage increased at an even by 56.5 percent, jumping from 10.3 GB to 18.2 GB. On mobile networks mean monthly usage increased by 25 percent from 312.8 MB to 390.1 MB. Yet, median usage more than doubled from 25.5MB to 58.7 MB over the past year, driven in part by more people buying smartphones.

And mobile is even bigger than these numbers make it look like (or something like that). One out of every five bits — or 20 percent of the traffic on wireline network is generated by a smartphone or a tablet. And as Wi-Fi expands and is easier to connect too, that number should continue to increase.

Yes, video traffic will always be big, because videos are big

Before people accuse me of being unfair, let me note that sending video is one of the most data heavy options around. A two-hour HD movie file can contain 4GB of data or more, while a book that might also take two hours to read would top out at several megabytes.

The sheer volume of data is one reason video strikes fear into the hearts of both wireless and wireline network operators, while the loss of revenue from pay TV subscriptions keeps wireline providers up at night. Unfortunately for those implementing usage-based billing plans perhaps in hopes of influencing subscribers to keep their pay TV subscriptions, Sandvine shows that real-time entertainment usage goes up on networks with usage-based billing. In fact, the only thing reduced appears to be file-sharing traffic.

The rest of the report is chock full of great data such as this tidbit that confirms North America’s love of Apple products:

So what single home roaming device consumes the most Real-Time Entertainment traffic at over 10percent? It’s the iPad. In fact, Apple devices as a whole play a large role in the consumption of Real-Time Entertainment. If you add up all Apple manufactured devices (which includes iPads, iPhones, iPods, AppleTVs, and Mac computers), they consume over 35% of all streaming audio and video on North America fixed access networks.

There’s also some good data from Europe that shows that the lowered availability of over the top options like Netflix or the BBC’s video player cause the amount of real-time streaming traffic to drop. Additionally the report shows that in Europe file sharing is higher than in North America, something the report’s authors attribute to a lack of access to certain popular content because of geo-blocking.

But taken in its 40-page entirety, the data and case studies show how our love of video is causing both wireline and wireless ISPs to get creative to boost revenue and meet the challenges posed by the demand for video. Just like we said it would.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• What Amazon’s new Kindle line means for Apple, Netflix and online media
• How consumer media will change in 2013
• Who and what to watch in the new era of the living room

The charts show how iTunes content revenue has been steadily growing upward and to the right. But they also show that Apple saw an increase in iTunes net sales by $300 million just from the holiday quarter (when Apple always sees its biggest concentrated pop in downloads) to the March quarter, making $2.4 billion in sales. This is also up from $1.9 billion during the same quarter a year ago.

Relatively, this is still very tiny compared to the $23 billion in net sales Apple derived from its most essential business, the iPhone. And to the $8.7 billion from the iPad last quarter. But iTunes alone is close to half of Mac net sales, which were $5.4 billion.

The reason for the increase is mostly due to Apple’s steady expansion of the iTunes Store to new countries around the world in recent quarters. iTunes Music sells in 119 countries, videos in 109 countries, while the App Store and iBookstore are both in 155 countries.

According to Asymco’s calculations, this wider availability in the store has driven up the amount the average user is paying Apple for content:

In March Apple reported that they have 500 million iTunes [users] so one way to think about the iTunes business is to say that  iTunes users purchase content and services at the rate of about $40 per year.

This is really interesting in the context of the long-rumored Apple video subscription deal and the still-being-hashed-out “iRadio” service for subscription music content. Imagine if just in just some of those countries Apple introduced a $10 per month streaming solution. So instead of $40 per year from a user, Apple started getting more like $120 per year. And that would be just music. If there was a separate video package some day that figure would get even larger. Plus, that doesn’t include money spent on and within both Apple’s own iOS and Mac apps and third-party apps.

iTunes has always been more of a bonus source of revenue than a meaningful contributor to Apple’s bottom line — the songs were originally there to sell iPods, in the way mobile apps are there to sell iOS devices. But software and services — from iCloud and Maps to Siri — have begun to play a more prominent role at Apple, and in its customers’ experiences. A subscription service of digital content, if deployed and priced correctly, could actually turn into a meaningful new source of revenue for Apple.

If current trends continue, with software and content sales going up and laptop and desktop sales dropping off, it’s not impossible that Apple’s content business could someday soon outpace the Mac segment as its third-largest business.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• How social discovery is transforming entertainment
• CES 2012: a recap and analysis
• Forecast: the future of the digital music industry

With what most perceived as a minor update in 2012, the Mac Pro had gone two years prior to that before receiving a meaningful upgrade. Still, Apple has a loyal following among Mac users looking for power. Apple CEO Tim Cook stated last year that Apple is working on “something great” in reference to the Mac Pro, and we’re still waiting for that.

While things are not quite what they used to be, the company does still have a shot at impressing its seemingly forgotten Mac Pro customers by putting the power back into its Macs.

It was not too long ago when part of the Mac versus PC debate took place in the lab with a series of benchmark tests. Try to find such a comparison since Apple switched from IBM’s PowerPC chipset to Intel; you will be hard pressed to do so. When Apple first introduced the PowerMac G5 we witnessed the worlds first 64-bit desktop computer.  Those days are long gone, as Apple has apparently elected to step out of the computer chip speed race.

To see how big of a gap we are talking about, we must first look to see how much faster today’s PCs are when compared to the Mac.

Benchmarking the current gap between Macs and PCs

Comparing Macs to Macs - If you look at Primate Labs, a long standing provider of benchmarking software on the Mac, you can see how each of Apple’s computers stack up against each other. Looking only at this list, one would think that Apple’s older lineup of Mac Pros is still doing quite well being situated at the top of the GeekBench’s performance list. That is until you look outside of Apple’s product line and see how the Intel Xeon X5675 chip that powers the top performing Mac Pro compares to other Intel chips.

Intel chipset benchmarks scores - One such benchmark to look at when comparing Intel chip performance is the PassMark CPU Mark. Using EveryMac.com as a guide to figure out what Intel chips are used in each of Apple’s Macs, you will find that the chips being used in today’s Macs are not among the fastest currently available. With a CPU Mark of just 9,382 for the fastest chip available in the Mac Pro, and a score of 9,461 for the fastest iMac chip, Apple comes in at roughly two-thirds the performance of the top rated Intel chip scoring 14,969.  Keep in mind that this top performing chip is Intel’s Xeon E5-4650 with a street price around $4,000, for just the chip.

Intel PassMark CPU Mark Scores

A fair comparison to PCs - Looking at the chips used in last years round up of top performing PCs from both PC World and PC Magazine, the Falcon Northwest Mach V and the Maingear Shift Super Stock both used Intel’s Core i7-3960X processor.  Since then, each PC company now offers an updated configuration with the slightly faster Intel Core i7-3970X. It is also worth noting that the newer i7-3970X is currently available in Dell’s own Alienware line of desktop computers. Each of these new systems sell at prices comparable to Mac Pros. With a CPU Mark score of 12,976, the i7-3970X is still faster than the CPUs used inside of Apple’s top performing Mac’s.

And that’s just the current state of where Macs and PCs in the CPU performance race. The GPU race doesn’t look any better for Apple.  What may surprise many is that Apple does in fact support the latest drivers for many of the fastest GPUs on the market in each updated release of OS X.  It is just not an option when you build your own Mac in Apple’s online store.  You have to look elsewhere to get one added to your Mac after you buy it.

Why Apple should design its own Mac chips

Apple has two options to consider when it comes to increasing the performance of its Macs.  A short-term tactical play where it catches up with the PC by continuing to make modest upgrades to its existing lineup of Macs, or a long-term strategic play to surpass the competition by boldly stepping away from the component-based chip market all together.

Matching the competition - The first option is to simply match the fastest PCs in performance by updating the chips being used inside Apple’s Mac lineup.  This tactic of adamantly keeping pace with Intel’s release schedule has been employed by Apple in the past and every other computer vendor to keep making their machines performing slightly faster each year.  So long as Apple continues to use off-the-shelf chips from the likes of Intel, AMD, Nvidia and ATI, Macs will never again be faster than PCs since everyone uses the same exact chips.

Surpassing the competition - The other option open for Apple is to follow the same path that it has taken with its mobile chips. That is to optimize the chip specific to Apple’s own software and hardware design specifications.  Adding to this strategy, by continuing the complete adoption of Thunderbolt technology, Apple will likely be among the first to adopt Intel’s new Falcon Ridge Thunderbolt controller later this year.  And finally with the advent of integrated SSD technology directly on a logic board rather than conforming to a more modular SATA design standard, the design of desktop powerhouse systems should start to change dramatically. Breaking from the modular design that has dominated the top performing computer market for decades now, a radical new design that maximizes the potential of all of these advances in technology is in order.

Steve Jobs and Phil Schiller Benchmarking the A5 and A6 Processors

Apple is not only not losing the laptop and desktop speed race versus the PC at the moment, it appears that it’s not even interested in competing in it. Apple’s own marketing shows how its newer hardware is only faster than its older hardware; as old Macs race against new Macs, PCs have meanwhile moved ahead in a race all their own.  If Apple truly does want to get back out in front of the PC market, and produce a lineup of Macs or even one Mac that outpaces the fastest PCs available, it will have to leave the off-the-shelf chips behind and show the world how to best take advantage of all of the changes we have seen in technology over the last few years.

Taking a chip design and making it your own is not something that just any company can do.  Apple has proven that they can do it with ARM-based chips on its mobile platform.  The question remains if Apple can successfully pull off the same feat with a chip design that places them in the forefront of desktop processor speed.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Who and what to watch in the new era of the living room
• New challenges for the IT organization
• The new IT manager, part 1

Apple’s issues with mobile photos and cloud storage were brought to light this week with a great post from an app developer, Peter Nixey. In a widely circulated personal blog post, he expressed his frustration with Apple’s current approach to managing photos on the desktop and on mobile. He presciently noted there would be a time when competitors — he named Google or Dropbox — would come along with better cloud-storage options for mobile photos.

Well, here comes Amazon with one such solution. Cloud Drive Photos, already available on Android, is a place to store all your photos (“thousands,” according to the company). Images taken with an iPhone or iPod touch get uploaded automatically to Cloud Drive when the app is opened. And you can also see any of your photos stored in the cloud on the device with the app. It’s free, and available on the iOS App Store now.

Just like Google with Maps, Search and Mail and Facebook with social things, Apple’s biggest and most important competitors are repeatedly besting Apple on its own platform when it comes to producing well designed, popular basic apps that are core to the mobile experience.

This Amazon app is different than, say, Yahoo being better at making a weather app than Apple. Or Kindle being a better ereader app than iBooks — sort of embarrassing, but not really areas Apple considers its core mission.

But the secret behind Amazon’s cloud-based photo storage is something at which Amazon is verifiably awesome, and something at which Apple is not: the cloud. Even with its billion-dollar data center and more on the way, Apple repeatedly struggles with keeping its cloud-based services reliable for users. And even when things are added to iCloud, like photos, some users still run into problems, as outlined in the link above, with multiple copies or confusing organization.

The more troubling part of it all is that Apple’s cloud services aren’t just supposed to be something added on to its hardware offerings. Linking users’ data, whether it’s photos, music, videos, documents, email or messages, and making it accessible regardless of device, is part of Apple’s plan for growth.  As CEO Tim Cook has said, it’s at the centerpiece of its strategy for the next decade.

Apple’s going to have to start offering far better core mobile apps that connect with its cloud if it doesn’t want Amazon and others to peel users off to their own services.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Analyzing the wearable computing market
• The future of mobile: a segment analysis by GigaOM Pro
• Mobile Q2: Smartphone growth surges; iPad’s rule continues

The partnership, which comes a year after a similar deal between Flipboard and the New York Times, will grant full access to FT subscribers while casual visitors will be able to read a smattering of FT blog posts and cultural stories.

Rob Grimshaw, managing director of the FT.com, said by phone that the deal will involve the FT and Flipboard sharing advertising revenue, but would not disclose what the exact revenue split is. In the past, the ad splits have been a source of contention for some publishers, including Condé Nast, which pulled back its advertisements from titles like New Yorker and Wired. (A Flipboard spokesperson said the company has an “excellent relationship” with Conde and is partnering on ads for six other titles).

Grimshaw also said that the FT is exploring selling subscriptions through Flipboard, and would be willing to share some of the proceeds with the platform. This is significant because the FT made waves by leaving iTunes in part due to the 30 percent commission (or “vig,” as the Brits call it) that Apple takes from every publisher.

So why is the FT willing to partner up with Flipboard so soon after leaving Apple? Grimshaw says the difference lies in how the two platforms treat customer relationships.

“The issue is not so much a percentage, it’s the relationship between publisher and audience. Paying a 30 percent finder’s fee is okay. Paying 30 percent in perpetuity and not knowing who the customer is not okay.”

The Flipboard partnership also reflects the fact that the FT and other publishers are keen to get their stories in as many places as possible at a time when readers are consuming more and more content on mobile. As for the future role of Flipboard, which some describe as a “giant iceberg” in the way of publishers, Grimshaw had this to say:

“I think the really interesting aspect to the platform is the way they’re giving readers the ability to create a bespoke user experience. I personally think this is going to be a strong strand in publishing and consumption of news in the digital space.”

Correction: This article was updated at 2:40pm to state that Conde Nast titles had pulled ads from certain titles; Conde did not, as previously stated, break off the relationship.

Related research and analysis from GigaOM Pro:
Subscriber content. Sign up for a free trial.

• Building a better paywall: strategies for monetizing news content
• Report: Monetizing Digital Content
• Evolution of the E-book Market