Amazon to Launch Amazon Music Unlimited and Echo-Only Music Streaming Service

Amazon Set to Launch Amazon Music Unlimited and Its Echo-Only Music Streaming Service

Code image by Austin Gruenweller, licensed under Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 Generic (CC by 2.0)

Amazon is finally pushing into the music business.

Amazon has long since been rumored to be preparing to enter the already crowded American music streaming market. However, a new post from German blogger Carsten Knobloch points to a clue hidden deep in the code for the Amazon Music app for the Fire TV media streamer that shows the company is due to launch their new music service soon. It will be named Amazon Music Unlimited.

The service will have a $9.99 per month price tag, similar to Spotify and Apple Music. There are also clues that point to a discounted price of $7.99 per month for Prime members. Now, the prices are in euros, but with most streaming services, the prices tend to stay the same in dollars. Spotify, however, does have different prices in some European countries. You can check out a Tweet below with the code that Knobloch and AFTV News found, along with the specific images.


Image by Carsten Knobloch

Image by Carsten Knobloch


Knobloch also found code which shows unlimited storage music space on Amazon’s Cloud Drive for Prime users. Currently, Amazon customers can store up to 250 songs in Amazon Drive for free.

Image by Carsten Knobloch

Image by Carsten Knobloch

There’s also a mention of alternative pricing in the code, which may refer to a pricing plan for Echo users. The Verge received news from its sources that the Echo-only music streaming service will launch in a few weeks at the discounted price of $5 per month, which is similar to Pandora Plus. Knobloch was unable to find any specific reference to the date of the launch. However, the service is expected to arrive in early 2017.

6 Responses

  1. N.B.

    Doesn’t the Echo (and it’s other Alexa-based relatives) already support music in Prime Music?

    • Daniel Adrian Sanchez
      Daniel Adrian Sanchez

      From what I understand, they support other music streaming services, of course, but with this story, we’re seeing a push for an Amazon-only Echo-only service for customers.

  2. Nicky Knight's Weekend Thoughts..

    Every Tom Dick and Harry is after cash from the streaming model but they forget that consumers only will pay for one music streaming service and one that they can take anywhere and use on multiple devices.. and also the $10 monthly price point is a huge putoff to most people… They’ll never get critical mass, none of them.. because normal regular people have too many bills to pay each month and another ten bucks a month to rent music when it’s free already on YouTube and Free on Spotify Web Play .. you’d be nuts to throw ten bucks at a streamer.. That’s how the public feel and that’s why you’ll never get a true Hundred Million or Two Hundred Million paying subscribers.. The world is a big place.. but most people are cash strapped… Make it $2 a month for unlimited on all devices and get rid of free streamers like YouTube and Spotify Web Play and you’ll have a global empire…

    • Anonymous

      I agree that free streamers as they currently exist should go away. Youtube and Spotify free services should be platforms for the promotion of music, to entice people to pay for a subscription service or download. It shouldn’t be the sole way people consume music.

      I’m ok with cheaper services, provided that the cheaper the service, the more limited the content. For something that is $2/month, it shouldn’t include anything less than 3 years old. If you want to listen to new music, you need to be paying $10 minimum. If we give away the farm at $2/month, the industry is screwed, and the higher subscription numbers won’t make any difference.

  3. Nicky Knight's Weekend Thoughts..

    How it would work.. customers would buy a 6 month ($12) or a 12 month ($24)
    unlimited pass to all the music they want. This way the transnational costs can easily be absorbed.

    Getting customers to pay $24 a year is $24 better than what most people in the
    western world are currently paying.. (people in other parts of the world won’t pay a cent because they’re too busy trying to afford food..) we all know that most people don’t spend a dime on music anymore.. so you’re already in-front by a long shot by making it so affordable so that even welfare recipients and blue collar shift workers would consider taking it up.

    You still have to kill off free streamers like YouTube and Spotify Web Player because they’re the real destroyers of an economic recorded music business.

    Imagine if there were no hit music on YouTube and no hit music on Spotify …
    YouTube is best an an amateur hour showcase for people who want to make vanity show-off videos..

    Record labels giving away their content for free on YouTube are guilty of a few

    1. Being desperate and thinking that they have to in order to build numbers
    2. Destroying their own business by taking the commerce out of the transaction
    3. Causing a domino affect that everyone follows because everyone is desperate and are afraid they’ll miss out on an attention deficit audience that bounce around content like bees to the honey pot..

    Do movie companies give away their prime product for free on YouTube?
    Of course not.. so why do we in the record business…

  4. Made Up Name!

    $2 for unlimited is way too low man… Spotify free probably already makes nearly that OFF OF FREE USERS from ads they have to listen to. YouTube as well. I’m in the business and if a free user listens to 225-250 songs a month on YouTube they’ve already made as much money as your $2 fee would.

    You also forget that you need 5 $2 subscriptions to replace one $10 subscription. So you cannibalize all the people who ARE willing to spend $10 bucks. Also if you do away with all the free options (or severely limit them, which is as it should be), the number of people who ARE willing to spend $10 a month would go through the roof.

    Example: I’m willing to pay 2 bucks for a soda at a convenience store… But in a world where you were offered a 19 Oz Soda for free, or $2 for a 20 Oz bottle of soda, I would never buy a soda ever again, because what’s the point? So your argument is all 20 Oz sodas should be $.25 because nobody will pay $2 for one… Which is a false premise. It is only because the free option is sooooooo close in quality that going from free to $10 a month is not worth it to a lot of people. Make free a lot less good, and offer something in between at $5 or whatever and a LOT of people will shell out far more than $2 a month.

    There needs to be cheaper tiers, and more limited tiers. That is a fact. But all you can eat for $2 would never provide enough income overall for the industry or artists to survive. Maybe $2 in developing countries like India or China or something, but not wealthy ones. A $5 tier where you get 250 ad free spins a month, and then it switches to playing you ads again or something like that would be fine. Many ideas can be come up with. Just not $2 all you can eat.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Verify Your Humanity *