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.
Apple Asking Music Labels to Cut Prices on Music Streaming Subscriptions
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I have never used beats music before , is it just like Google music and spotify? As in you look at any artist or song/album and boom you can then play it? Or is it similar to iTunes radio as in its a stupid concept were they give you tonnes of tracks you don't want to listen to or never asked to listen to and you simply don't have a choice what to listen to?
The point is the music industry failed to recognize the future when napster came around. Low quality cds and 'audiophile' 160gm pressings//gmafb. The music industry brought this on themselves.
Apple at this point has the largest collection of 96/24 files and will crush all other competitors on quality alone.
These attitudes are arguably part of the problem. People just don't want to pay for content anymore.
I just signed up for Spotify, we'll see if I keep it past the 30 day trial (now that it's finally available in Canada). Personally, maybe I'm old fashioned but I like owning content.
beats has a big library and you have access to it in basically the same way you have access to your personal music library.
play a song. play an album. make playlists.. listen to other people's playlists (which (in my opinion) are generally very good/well edited.. humans edit them instead of algorithms(?)).. download for offline listening.
that's the basics i guess.
Really I couldnt tell you whether thats fair or not. Bear in mind that you are probably not even close to being the only listener. There needs to be another way.
1 penny a play per record could quite easily be 100,000 people a day listening to that do you not think?
$1,000 per track per day.
10 tracks on a single album of which 5 are any good = $5,000 a day or $1,825,000 a year seems like a good living to me?
My figures may be way off of course.
artists realize the money is made on live concerts, events, appearances, and re-plays on the radio and satellite radio and movies/tv shows. artists realize the money made on actual album sales isn't there anymore
its possible for it to decrease more.....
And I thought it was down to shows like X Factor....
If I could ensure that more of the money would go directly to the artists, I would buy more music. When it comes to streaming, I don't intend on paying for it. I haven't yet, nor do I plan on starting.
meh.. even the thieves are paying.. everybody pays these days. TWC/Comcast/AT&T/Verizon/etc --> they are the 'bad guys' here.. not the labels and not apple and not spotify or whoever..
You watch 20 movies per month.. $100 service + $10 netflix =110
Theif watches 20 movies per month.. $100 service +$10 file host =110
(software pirates being a separate issue here.. talking about consumption of entertainment)
Come on, Apple, $10/month is low enough, and I'm sure many of the lesser-known artists receive very little money for their music.
I'll stick with Spotify. I love it.
I'll stick with Spotify. I love it.
I have a place to study music at university next year in the UK. I currently have a job in the National Health Service so if I went to uni I would be giving that up. This news about trying to cut music subscription services depresses me greatly. It is already too low for many artists/musicians to make a living. It's because of this that I might have to give up my dream of making a modest living from music.
I'm not a performer so cannot subsidise my income with that which is another way of supporting yourself. I think this is killing new music. This probably won't matter to the relatively small number of artists who reach the top of the charts, but it's all the musicians, song-writers, engineers and producers below them who will be affected.
I'm not a performer so cannot subsidise my income with that which is another way of supporting yourself. I think this is killing new music. This probably won't matter to the relatively small number of artists who reach the top of the charts, but it's all the musicians, song-writers, engineers and producers below them who will be affected.
this is all cool, but I just come back to..where are these people to listen to musicians like me?
Everybody can access the WWW and all the exposed music on it in 5 different ways in 2014 yet this thread is chock full of ridiculous generalizations that absolutely scream industry ignorance.
"When we start hearing"...how about people start listening? You have COMPLETE FREEDOM to explore and expand your tastes on your own terms and YET most people still choose to hook into the radio..it's just a different radio now.
"The" labels, "the" industry, "the" music...as though there is one unified thing we all must do and there are only a few hundred bands in the world...give me a break............Apple is doing it because of things like this.....because it's so clear that so many people 1. Don't truly know all the bad OR the good, and 2. Don't care.
People should check out how fans, bands, labels, promoters work in my scene. Everyone should go to ProgPower USA some year. You'll open your eyes.....and start to respect this whole thing a lot more..
that's a helluva lot of work you're expecting people to do in order to understand your point.. pretty sure nobody is going to do those things
Last edited:
The flip side of all this "Apple is trying to underpay artists" backlash is that if Apple can lower subscription fees enough that they make subscribing something most people will want to do, then there will be much more money for the artists than if they charge a supposedly fair price to just a handful of subscribers.
Exactly. People don't want to pay for content any more. And why should they? They get it entirely free and this will never change. So trying all this weird stuff to try to get people to pay for content again, is simply
INSANE
Apple is now insane. This would scare the pee out of me if I was at all invested in Apple beyond being a regular consumer.
As an example, I just thought of a song to illustrate:
Here it is:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUecUKa_yqo
Did you listen to it? How much did you pay to listen to it?
I can't think of any music worth downloading illegally.
Same here. I've got everything I really like, and iTunes Radio gives me plenty of random classical, jazz, and country music for when I work for an extended period of time. No new music has come out since the 1980s that I'd want to keep... and I wasn't even alive then.
How about including with iTunes Match for the people who have that service I thought Beats was part of Apple now. No one is going to pay extra for music service that could just be included in iTunes, where is Steve Jobs when you need him Tim Cook just wants to play nice with this greedy studios.
Or maybe Apple was smart they would take iTunes in the Spotify or Amazon Prime music direction heck they would add movie streaming like Amazon Prime since we can not get Amazon Prime on Apple but only through iPhone as Airplay.
Or maybe Apple was smart they would take iTunes in the Spotify or Amazon Prime music direction heck they would add movie streaming like Amazon Prime since we can not get Amazon Prime on Apple but only through iPhone as Airplay.
For now. Maybe the movie industry will eventually suffer the same fate, but I can't say really.
There's a difference: Anyone good musician with a smartphone or a computer and a microphone has sufficient equipment to create a decent multitrack music recording. In other words anyone can make a "studio quality" musical recording with essentially zero money.
It still takes millions and millions of dollars to make a studio quality movie. I don't really see that changing anytime soon.
If Apple had spent billions on some kind of movie investment, well I could understand that. Steve and Pixar is a good example.
But billions on Beats in a dying almost dead industry? Insanity and stupidity at the same time, by definition.
This isn't really true, while I agree that it may be possible to create a decent recording, studio quality usually requires more. Just because you're a good musician doesn't mean that you're an awesome recording engineer and producer. Promotion is also a skill in itself that isn't inherent in being a musician. As to why people should pay, discoverability, curation, convenience and perhaps a desire to support what they listen to.
Also, cost has very little to do with things here. You can be a teacher with nothing but the clothes on your body, but that doesn't meant that teachers therfore shouldn't be paid.
Last edited: