Apple Pushing for $5 Beats Music Subscriptions as Spotify Debuts Discounted Family Plan

JarScott said:

Profound.

Click to expand...

He was the best of what he did.

Who care about a few dollars more or less ?
What's really important are the quality of the encoding, the size of the catalog, the quality of the applications, whether it's multiplatform (iOS, Android, Windows, OSX...), whether the protocol is open or closed (for instance, I can listen to Qobuz on XBMC)...
I would rather pay a little more for a service that provides all this...

macduke said:

I was unaware that most families don't mind sitting around listening to faux orgasm sounds with grandma on Christmas morning. My apologies, we are clearly prudes.

Click to expand...

It's ok to laugh a little, I promise.

bounou said:

Just switched to Spotify from Rdio, mostly because i wanted to be able to manage my music all from one app, the stuff i already have and the stuff i stream.

What i need is a streaming service that lets me use the music i already have and lets me buy the stuff that is not available from the service (for whatever reason not all songs/albums are at all times).

I want one app to run my music, for the stuff already on my computer and the stuff i stream.

If Beats does that and it plays nice with Sonos i will be switching over.

Click to expand...

Google Play Music does all of that.

DerekRod said:

You do realize companies like Spotify have yet to turn profits?That the more customers they get the more their costs go up?The recording industry has screwed Satellite and internet radio

Click to expand...

is that good or bad that they not make money?

However that is usually the case with all new stuff, if Spotify had been in USA at the same time as in Europe they would have been much much bigger and probably would be making more money.

mrunix said:

is that good or bad that they not make money?

However that is usually the case with all new stuff, if Spotify had been in USA at the same time as in Europe they would have been much much bigger and probably would be making more money.

Click to expand...

Its difficult for them to make a profit because the more customers they have the higher the royalty rates get,Its not a late rate.According to their last financial report they paid 60% of revenue to royalties

http://www.businessweek.com/article...-the-streaming-music-industry-cant-make-money

DerekRod said:

Its difficult for them to make a profit because the more customers they have the higher the royalty rates get,Its not a late rate.According to their last financial report they paid 60% of revenue to royalties

http://www.businessweek.com/article...-the-streaming-music-industry-cant-make-money

Click to expand...

They pay more but they don't pay more in %!

iTunes and Apples efforts are doomed, you can't in a commodity market force people to a certain HW brand like Apple is trying it's best.

Just look in Apples Office suite, i looks great but I't can't read and write MS or Openoffice files so it's doomed thats why it's free!

cleirac said:

Link to me the would be next full album of Arcade Fire, Belle & Sebastian, Franz Ferdinand, Kasabian, Arctic Monkeys blah blah by which these quality free streaming sites pay the artists and they will be streaming unlimited (not for a few days) before and after the release dates. I am not talking about some shifty music which should not be listened or streamed at all by anyone. For the love of music... Whatever floats your boat- I rather pay, listen and support great music artists than listen to whatever is free available out there.

Click to expand...

I'm not in this group, but it's clear that there are plenty of casual music listeners out there who don't need a music-on-demand product. They don't listen to full albums, and as long as the songs that are playing are reasonably congruent with their tastes, then free music is good enough. I've had to share office space with many coworkers who are totally cool with listening to the same 20 songs on Pandora for eight hours.

We're reaching the point where artists who don't put their music on free-tier streaming services will simply be off the radar for most consumers. Right now, if incumbents like Thom Yorke want to avoid Spotify, they have enough of a fan base to purchase their albums. Digital native artists won't have that kind of leverage ("Hey, that band sounds cool! What, they're not on Spotify? Oh well, moving on.").

In one generation, there won't be enough individuals willing to pay for singles and albums to make independence from streaming an option. Artists will have to earn their living almost entirely from live performances.

MaxSB7 said:

Expand the library, integrate the streamable beats music seamlessly with the rest of my iTunes library, and I'd be glad to pay $10 or more per month. That's the only thing keeping me away from these streaming services. None of them let you integrate music you own into their libraries. I know you can add stuff to spotify in playlists, but that isn't the same as adding music directly to the library. That's so unorganized and obligatory.

Click to expand...

Either you've not looked at the Spotify client recently, or there's something about your requirements I'm not understanding.

On the Mac version of Spotify at least, Spotify will identifiy a few "sources" of music when you install it (Mine looks in "Music", "iTunes" and "Downloads"), and you can add a new "source" via a button which prompts you to select a folder (and then presumably scans it and adds it to the "local music" segment under "YOUR MUSIC".

As best I can tell, local music doesn't appear automagically in the Albums, Artists and Songs views in YOUR MUSIC, but you can add them in the same way you do Spotify tracks/albums/artists, and then they show up.

Does that do it?