Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Aiming to End iTunes Music Downloads in Two Years [Update: Apple Says 'Not True']

macfacts said:
You can't inherit the music you buy on iTunes neither. If you do a internet search for Bruce Willis Apple music, you'll see the problem about trying to do that.
Click to expand...
I'm well aware of Bruce Willis' attempt to get the fine print changed.

My point was more in the context of owning physical media: books, CDs, Records, etc.
Since iTunes allows you to burn up to 7 copies on CDs, you could legally inherit those CDs.
Further, to make them digitally legal again, you could use iTunes Match for a single fee and legally match that entire library to your own AppleID. Alternatively, you can store your digital accounts & password with an executor in trust.
 
CelestialToys said:
It's already becoming a problem. The only people making any money from streaming are the big labels and big pop artists.
A few years ago I was happily making a humble living from putting out four or five records a year on my small label, selling between 2000-3000 copies of each, this year I've put out two records so far and sold less than 100 copies of each. Even though both have been streamed almost 50,000 times on spotify I haven't even made a third of what I would have done with the old sales and I can't really afford to keep the label that I've been running for the last 15 years open.

We're on a race to the bottom in the music industry and only the big fish are going to survive. If things continue the way they are, with small independent labels closing every day, then within 10 years, maybe less, the only new music will be the lowest common denominator dirge put out by the major labels as genuine artists just won't be able to survive.
Click to expand...

Or people will put music out to streaming services themselves without involving labels. As let's face it, the artist should be paid as they are the ones that made the music. And with stories from most musicians I know [speaking as an ex rapper / composer who has placed tracks on iTunes / Spotify myself] - the contracts with lablels end up them receiving less than 10% of the total revenue. It's 2016, things need to change. This rumour is bull but the points are still valid.
 
sMiK said:
couldn't care less if they did that, but financially that is bringing them too much money - so they don't. I really cannot understand why people still want to "own" the actual files. I really don't.
Click to expand...

1. Because subscription based music may have huge libraries but they don't have everything or the exact version you purchased a while back.

2. Owning the music gives me flexibility. No strings attached. It will be better quality than the streamed version and I can convert it to any format I choose.

3. Paying a subscription fee puts you at the mercy of the provider. Some us pay for downloads every so often which could equate to $20 a year. With a subscription you are paying $120 a year just to have access to the music and the price could and will change when you have no choice. Next thing you know you are paying $20 a month.

4. If I'm traveling, I don't want to have to add an additional task to make music offline to have access to it. Just another inconvenience.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Burger Thing, beebarb and BJMRamage
Black Magic said:
1. Because subscription based music may have huge libraries but they don't have everything or the exact version you purchased a while back.

2. Owning the music gives me flexibility. No strings attached. It will be better quality than the streamed version and I can convert it to any format I choose.

3. Paying a subscription fee puts you at the mercy of the provider. Some us pay for downloads every so often which could equate to $20 a year. With a subscription you are paying $120 a year just to have access to the music and the price could and will change when you have no choice. Next thing you know you are paying $20 a month.

4. If I'm traveling, I don't want to have to add an additional task to make music offline to have access to it. Just another inconvenience.
Click to expand...

I travel every day and this doesn't stop me from streaming music - my commute is up to 3hrs daily. The convenience factor is worth paying for. I listen to a lot of music, most of it I might only every listen to once. I would be unable to check as much stuff out without having to pay for it if it wasn't for streaming. Like I want to listen to this album, if I didn't like it and paid for it - it's a waste of money in my opinion.

I do own versions of songs from the past when there was no streaming services. Nobody however is taking that away from you. You just can't add more if you can't buy it :)

It works for some and not for others honestly. If you only ever listen to the same stuff then buy it, and don't subscribe. If you like to explore and listen to new stuff constantly like I do it makes total financial sense. As I can just pull up my phone and listen to any song at any moment.
 
I've been a Mac user since 1987, and an Apple // user before then, but...

I've never bought a single song from iTunes.
Not one.
Not ever.

I -have- bought music from amazon.com.

I have over 65gb of music, all in mp3 format.
I've never had a single track in Apple's format.

Safe to say, I won't miss the iTunes music store.
 
  • Like
Reactions: macfacts
Amazing Iceman said:
What a relief...! :cool:
Click to expand...
Apple denies rumors that turn out to be true ALLLLLL the time.

And before everyone gets their panties in a knot (too late apparently), according to the latest Apple Music redesign rumors they will integrate a "Buy" option in Apple music. If they really want to make Apple music the best place for music, it makes perfect sense to do this and just make it all in one app. As long as they can get it right......thats the big question.
[doublepost=1463063961][/doublepost]
daniel1948 said:
Of course you can count on Apple: You can count on them (and every other corporation) to do whatever they think will make them the most money. That's the free market system. In fact, they have a legal obligation to their stockholders to do whatever seems likely to make them the most money. Why would they care what a minority of their customers want? If you owned a business, would you cater to the minority of your customers, or to the majority? It would be silly to expect otherwise.
Click to expand...
Very valid point. Except the majority of people are dopes and thats why Apple exists. So we aren't all still using Windows XP.....and flip phones.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Amazing Iceman
Slix said:
This would be a big mistake I think.

I have no plans to ever subscribe to Apple Music or any subscription service, so if they shut down paid iTunes downloads, they'll be losing money from me every month, and my money would be shifted to other companies to buy my music, like Amazon or the physical CDs.

Don't do it, Apple.
Click to expand...

You don't really think this is only going to be Apple, do you? This is an industry push, and the Amazons, Googles, etc. of the world will be following suit. Face it. The paradigm is going to shift.
 
coolfactor said:
You listen to streaming radio, even digital radio exists. Technology is improving, and there's no reason to believe that Apple won't be part of evolving the delivery of over-the-air media in the years to come. Things are not static. Streaming didn't make sense for anyone 10 years ago, but it does today for huge numbers, and in a few years, it will make sense for even more.
Click to expand...

I never listen to the radio. I listen to my music from my iPod Touch connected to the car stereo. My next car will probably have a USB port so that I don't even need the iPod.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slix
They do that and I'll drop Apple faster than the one that fell on Newton's head. .... even though they say that 2 falling objects regardless weight or mass fall at the same time.
 
sMiK said:
Or people will put music out to streaming services themselves without involving labels. As let's face it, the artist should be paid as they are the ones that made the music. And with stories from most musicians I know [speaking as an ex rapper / composer who has placed tracks on iTunes / Spotify myself] - the contracts with lablels end up them receiving less than 10% of the total revenue. It's 2016, things need to change. This rumour is bull but the points are still valid.
Click to expand...

The problem is that individuals get a worse deal from the streaming companies than small labels. I started my label in order to release my own music 15 years ago. My first release sold 3500 copies on vinyl and made me enough money to kit out my own studio and pay rent for 6 months. Which in turn allowed me to work full time as a musician. As things stand today I would have to have my music streamed a minimum of 2.5 million times on Spotify to earn the same money...That's UK number 1 quantities, not going to happen for a new and unknown act in a fairly niche market.
The digital age really should have been a chance to democratise the music industry and allow independents to flourish, indeed for a while it seemed as though it was going to happen until streaming became a thing.
The simple fact of the matter is that streaming is pushing all the power back to the big labels and pop acts whilst everyone else is left to scrape up the crumbs. This really isn't a good thing for music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: beebarb and Kate.
sMiK said:
try offline mode... save the playlist that you want to be available offline and no buffering.
Click to expand...

Given that Apple is denying this story I'm not going to complain too much, but I get sent on business trips to places that don't quite rise to Middle of Nowhere status. If I'm there for weeks streaming usually isn't reliable or cheap. I currently store as many songs on my phone for that reason.
 
tentales said:
I'm well aware of Bruce Willis' attempt to get the fine print changed.
Click to expand...

Actually, that rumor wasn't true. It was very believable: Bruce Willis is a recording artist himself; I don't know how much he is interested in music but if he spent $100,000 on music I wouldn't be surprised, and he is famous enough that he would be listened to. In reality I think nobody cares whether downloaded music can be inherited or not; everyone interested can just copy what I have, and nobody will be any wiser.
[doublepost=1463077861][/doublepost]
davidhands said:
The Corporate dream - millions of customers with no choice but to keep on paying month after month after month. Got your cloud access device? It's not like this hasn't been intimated for the past few years. No more local hard drives, no more hard copies of discs - just subscriptions, subscriptions and more subscriptions.
Click to expand...
Except that if only _one_ place keeps selling music, everyone will stream to that place.
[doublepost=1463078233][/doublepost]
Adf85 said:
My iPod classic will be pointless then. Way to gut punch those of us who like to pay for music.
Amazon will be loving my custom.
Click to expand...

Why would your iPod Classic be pointless if Apple stops selling music? I'm sure all of my music collection will be just fine if Apple stops selling.
 
Explorz said:
So, if this were to happen, how do I listen to my music while on the beach in Baja with no Wi-fi or trekking in Nepal with no Wi-fi or in the beach bungalow in Bali with no internet?
Click to expand...

Before you go on vacation, you make your playlists available offline on your devices. Spotify I believe has a limit with a few thousands, but Apple Music is unlimited or at least 10 000 songs.

So with Apple Music you can have 10 000 songs on your device, downloaded via wifi at home before you go.
 
Not going to happen in the foreseeable future. It would almost be suicidal for their music business given (a) how small Apple Music's catalog is in comparison to the iTMS's catalog, (b) all of the negative feedback there has been over Apple Music, and (c) the iTMS's longtime standing as the most popular music retailer in the world. Though, it would give them a convenient reason to finally do away with the entire iPod line (though, there are already enough reasons for them to do that from a business standpoint - not that I'm at all pleased about that).
 
I would be kicking myself for choosing iTunes over the years if this happened. On the music we've already bought, we expect it to be there, available to download. We also expect it to show up automatically on our devices.

At one time I started going to Amazon (which would have been smart for things like Echo). However, I ended up going exclusively iTunes (or CD if my favorite artist) because I knew I could count on it being available and on all my Apple devices automatically.

If they do this, they need to keep what we've already purchased available to us indefinitely. We have come to expect it there.

I also want to be able to download music and convert it because I'm not someone who buys a new car every 2 years (I'm passionate about the two cars I already have), so I burn CDs with MP3s for my old fashioned 6 disk changer, you can have quite a lot of music across 6 MP3 disks. ha.
 
What you may be seeing is the end of ownership of copyrighted materials. Copyright owners have been pushing the congress and the courts for years to restrict ownership of books, libraries for books -- such physical items are sold there is no income stream, and one can sell books and cds to others and companies don't see a dime. (First Sale doctrine).

Corporations lobbying Congress have been at these changes for over 30 years.

That Apple may be cutting off music downloads is likely part of this bigger picture. You can believe Apple, literally only, when they say that they are not stopping iTunes downloads in two years. Depending on these trade deals and corporatization of not only the US but other trade-deal signatories, the timing of these new laws' implementations will determine when Apple has stop allowing music downloads, book downloads, movie downloads.

And, if you think Amazon, Google etc are going to be an alternative resource -- you're sadly mistaken.

The 1% want even more money.
 
By saying 'No' they mean not in two years but three
If your music is in the cloud then you don t own it but just rent it. If your music is on CDs THEN you own it...not hard to understand which is why I only buy music in physical form
 
So happy that iTunes downloads are not going anywhere. I have always liked buying music only on iTunes. Glad to hear this was all untrue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back