talk about pedantic, its obvious the _full album_ wont be long before its streaming, as a track from the said album is on apple music & GPM
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adele's New Album Won't Be Available on Apple Music
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
talk about pedantic, its obvious the _full album_ wont be long before its streaming, as a track from the said album is on apple music & GPM
We agree and we are saying the same thing. The article implies that restricting Taylor Swift's album from streaming didn't affect her popularity. But that point is really inconsequential when her previous albums sold around the same and were available on streaming platforms at the time of release. She's always been popular; she always has great album sales, streaming or not. It was all about artist pay for Swift. We have yet to see if Adele is fighting for some similar cause (doubtful) so this is a false comparison on MR's behalf.
My entire point was this is a poorly, poorly written article overlooking major facts.
For this decision to have any effect on people, they have to be a subscriber to a streaming music service.
I just don't see someone for whom US$10 bucks is a truly a significant portion of their disposable income as being the person who chooses to pay US$10 monthly to subscribe to streaming music service.
IMO, if anything, you are describing the folks that are going to buy the CD and play it in their car/home.
Wired published an interesting article about this topic this morning.
Sounds like the labels are out to prove something with this album.
Adele’s Album May Break Sales Records—Even Though It’s 2015
Sounds like the labels are out to prove something with this album.
Adele’s Album May Break Sales Records—Even Though It’s 2015
I agree with you. I have not set up my Apple Music service because I do not want to pay $10 a month on music I cannot keep.
With all the free music services, I can always find the genre I want. Although, since Apple Music came out, some of my iTunes Radio stations have disappeared.
I pay for iTunes Match, and that is well worth the cost, but Apple Music and the other pay-for services, no thank you.
I think a lot depends in how much you spend on cds / downloads each month v 9.99
I was buying 3-4 cds a month in the old days so GPM is well worth it. I found the apple music a bit confusing.
My frustration with the free music services was when they'd help me "discover" (or rediscover) an artist that I was interested in, which lead to... nothing.
Nothing, in the sense that now I was interested in someone, and my options to hear more are limited to listening to the small free snippets of their songs in iTunes before gambling on whether the album was worth buying. I've lost that gamble enough times that I'm hesitant about buying albums like that.
For me, the $10 I spend on Apple Music each month lets me do deep dives before I make any purchases. Or lets me listen to stuff that I like, but not enough to buy. But if I truly do love something, I buy it. And Apple Music, in the few months I've been using it, has helped me find more stuff that I love than any of the free music streaming services have.
I agree with one note, not forever. For your lifetime, then all your purchases go away.
Lol, Steve jobs the movie would like to have a word with you
You're just trolling right.
In order to see a movie (crappy or otherwise), you have to be able to find it in a theater.
Not so with the Steve Jobs movie. I think it was in my area for about a day and half.
As far as Adele, I say good move. Now there's no risk of me accidentally listening to one of her songs and ruining my drive into work.
Cause she ain't got enough money already.... these music artists are so greedy and short sighted. These streaming services are designed to open you up to new music artists, so maybe you become a fan, maybe you watch their videos on Youtube, maybe you go see them live a as a result.
Adele is worth $75 million and she is complaining?
They claim they work so hard... ********, you're not working 12 hours a day doing manual labor in **** conditions for min wage with no future and no money to have a life. You're off making millions and having the time of your life doing it, sitting around doing nothing most of the time..
They always want more money out of people who don't have it. Maybe children use their parents service, what do they do then? Pirate it and then they'll cry piracy and fine that family crazy amounts just for that kid downloading the music.
Adele is worth $75 million and she is complaining?
They claim they work so hard... ********, you're not working 12 hours a day doing manual labor in **** conditions for min wage with no future and no money to have a life. You're off making millions and having the time of your life doing it, sitting around doing nothing most of the time..
They always want more money out of people who don't have it. Maybe children use their parents service, what do they do then? Pirate it and then they'll cry piracy and fine that family crazy amounts just for that kid downloading the music.
$10 a month for *unlimited* music vs. $10 to $15 for each individual CD?
I know way more college kids and and minimum wage earners who subscribe to Netflix than who purchase DVDs; or who subscribe to Spotify or Pandora than purchase CDs.
Pandora is $5 a month per person. Our Spotify is like $15 a month for my entire family.
TMobile - one of the cheapest cell providers (and their prepaid services and also MetroPCS) does not charge data for music streaming.
So I know lots of kids who pay like $5 a month for Pandora or Spotify and then have a very inexpensive TMobile phone & plan : and get unlimited music. Thousands of artists and albums, on demand any time they want.
But hey, paying $10 for a single album from a single artist is cool too. If I don't subscribe to Pandora for two months I can afford that...
"Can get" is very different than "is".
There is zero reason Adele would need to have a "very expensive to record" album.
Band members of all talents would be falling all over themselves to record on an Adele album - and most of the studios in the world with the very best acoustics are low rent.
It's a money grab pure and simple.
Some of the most important, influential, and popular artists in history have recorded low cost albums.
So we have criticism about her appearance, comments about her personal wealth, suggestions that the artist is greedy and open discussions about stealing the album.
All because the artist or her record label have committed some perceived slight against the world's most valuable company.
Let's not forget the entire recording industry revenues in the year 2014 wasn't that much more than Apple's profit in the last quarter alone.
Some of you guys really need to put things into more reasonable context.
All because the artist or her record label have committed some perceived slight against the world's most valuable company.
Let's not forget the entire recording industry revenues in the year 2014 wasn't that much more than Apple's profit in the last quarter alone.
Some of you guys really need to put things into more reasonable context.
Good, thats how it should be, if you really want it buy it and if not move on.
Usually if I like a band I'll buy their music regardless of that I'll stream their music anyway to offset the streaming pay.
What the labels don't like is that unlike 10 years ago they no longer have total control over the music industry (similar to the diamond industry) by limiting the flow of artist to a top 40 list to maximize profits. They had better get used to the money being spread around because streaming is here to stay.
These comments about "greed" are pretty strange.
Apple fans are usually the first to defend the right to premium pricing whenever someone criticizes the company for their jawdropping margins. No matter if it's mass manufactured in China or uses older/cheaper components than the competition, it's still "hey, it's Apple, they're worth it, so there".
Well, Adele is the Apple of artists right now. Applying the above line of reasoning, she's worth it and has the right to ask for a bit more than the Samsungs, Microsofts and HTCs of musical artists do. Ergo she shouldn't have to settle for fractional nickels and dimes from streaming services. You certainly don't have to fear that she'll end up a billionaire like Tim Cook. She'll make millions, sure. So what?
I find this love-hate-relationship with music and the people who make it rather puzzling. A whole lot of people claim that they "can't live" without music, that it's massively important to them, second only to family, food and shelter. And yet, few things provoke them more than artists wanting to make good money. Music should be free, like oxygen. But the companies that make the hardware (that would be worthless without music), now those guys deserve the world!
"Beats headphones for $300? TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE! What, you want $10 for a music album? You unbelievably greedy swine. I bet you'd kill homeless people for a few cents, you subhuman vermin. You're a bottomless pit of unspeakable evil. Great album though!"
Apple fans are usually the first to defend the right to premium pricing whenever someone criticizes the company for their jawdropping margins. No matter if it's mass manufactured in China or uses older/cheaper components than the competition, it's still "hey, it's Apple, they're worth it, so there".
Well, Adele is the Apple of artists right now. Applying the above line of reasoning, she's worth it and has the right to ask for a bit more than the Samsungs, Microsofts and HTCs of musical artists do. Ergo she shouldn't have to settle for fractional nickels and dimes from streaming services. You certainly don't have to fear that she'll end up a billionaire like Tim Cook. She'll make millions, sure. So what?
I find this love-hate-relationship with music and the people who make it rather puzzling. A whole lot of people claim that they "can't live" without music, that it's massively important to them, second only to family, food and shelter. And yet, few things provoke them more than artists wanting to make good money. Music should be free, like oxygen. But the companies that make the hardware (that would be worthless without music), now those guys deserve the world!
"Beats headphones for $300? TAKE MY MONEY PLEASE! What, you want $10 for a music album? You unbelievably greedy swine. I bet you'd kill homeless people for a few cents, you subhuman vermin. You're a bottomless pit of unspeakable evil. Great album though!"
Of course. But the music is available on Apple's other services. You can buy the album and have it stream just like it was on a streaming service, except you "own" it. So why don't these people who clearly want to listen to her music not want to pay her so she can continue making more music?
I'd say the pricing is still wrong on the iTunes Store. And by that, I don't mean just the dollar amount but also the value.
$1.29/song is a bit much. I thought the price was more compelling when songs were $0.99. Also, $11 for Adele's new album is also a bit much for what you get. No bonus material or extra content, no behind the scenes, no music video included. I think someone willing to actually purchase the album should get some value-added feature (besides the music) to justify the purchase. Again, it's about competing with piracy. Some bands give access codes to concert pre-sales with the purchase of an album. That is an example of an excellent value-added feature that cannot be pirated.
I agree with the principle idea you are trying to convey. It seems with sports and music, if you GET LUCKY, you wind up making more money than you could ever spend (and more than they're worth). Not to say they don't work hard (as we all do), but really...sports players making $90K per game? And, because you can sing, you're worth millions of dollars? It's a voice...many people have great voices and make nothing. Media and marketing. Period.
I'm sure they offered both Apple and Spotify a chance to change their streaming rates during an initial release period and both companies declined. Artists make much more through Album sales. So for the first two weeks or maybe months the fans just have to buy the album. Later it will go into the streaming rotation.
But setting up a process where the hotest acts get more during their initial release period seems to make a bit of sense. So does holding back for a few weeks to extract money from your most rabid fans who can't wait. At least that makes business sense.
I was looking forward to this album since her first two were so good. I may be part of the group that just buys it anyway. It is $11 to buy it on itunes. It isn't like I'm going to notice that cost at the end of the month when I pay my credit card bill.
But setting up a process where the hotest acts get more during their initial release period seems to make a bit of sense. So does holding back for a few weeks to extract money from your most rabid fans who can't wait. At least that makes business sense.
I was looking forward to this album since her first two were so good. I may be part of the group that just buys it anyway. It is $11 to buy it on itunes. It isn't like I'm going to notice that cost at the end of the month when I pay my credit card bill.
Stop whining! you sound like spoiled entitled child!
You do NOT have to buy her album or any other album. EVER.
And artist are not obligated to make their music available to you how you want it.