Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
As a musician I hope iTunes sticks around too.

Why?

For my own music if someone buys a CD I get the majority of that.

I get pennies a month from Spotify streams.

We're talking like eighteen to twenty cents a month.

I shudder to think about major artists with Lady Gaga type success - they probably pull in a few hundred dollars per month.

But us indie guys who are below the radar. We'll starve.

That being said, it's great to be able to sample a lot of different types of music.

And yes, there's a lot of crap foisted our way in the 2013 music-space but there's plenty of excellent artists out there.

They just don't have the promotion budget of some of the "names" you recognize today.

The artists that get a lot of plays on streaming and don't see much money most likely have a bad deal with their record label. Many if not most certainly do, and that's not Spotify's fault nor streaming services in general. The system is a mess. But realistically, most of the artists complaining about streaming weren't making much money beforehand either and seem to want to conveniently ignore the fact that most artists have never made much money on recorded music, even the more successful ones. Live revenue and merch is where most artists have traditionally made their money, and it'll continue to need to be the case for a lot of acts as the recorded music industry continues to struggle.

Promotion budgets have a lot less to do with what makes or breaks an act than any of us would like to believe. It's easier that way, because it keeps us from accepting that some music is just more accessible to a large audience than other music. Now, I'm not saying budgets and marketing wizards don't help at all, but they're not going to make a non-hit a hit, and if something is truly worthy of being called a hit, it tends to force itself to the surface. The problem is, there just really aren't nearly as many hits out there as some of us would like to think.
 
Bad choice for use as an example as Toyota are recalling 6.4 million cars for 5 different faults :p

Yes, maybe bad timing! :)

But again, if you love Toyotas, and have had no issues with them, you'll see the recall as another sign that Toyota is looking out for their customers. (Unlike GM who refused to do this).

So, there are both sides to the coin there! :)
 
iTunes now has the WishList but you still can't buy the whole list. I still buy songs that I hear on iTunes Radio but it's only the one song and not the whole CD.

I did buy four Black Sabbath CDs through iTunes when they were released last month. I already had the physical CDs ripped but iTunes wanted to upload them instead of matching them plus, the ripped copies I made had a second of silence in between some songs that are continuous on the originals. I couldn't seem to fix that no matter how many times iTunes ripped them.
 
Not sure if you've heard but Toyota has had significant issues and recalls over the last 5 years. Probably not the best comparison to make with Apple unless they to are headed in to the same path.

Not sure why you'd say that? A recall does not mean people do not support the product - it HELPS the product many times. It shows the company understands their flaws and admits them. Unlike GM.

Apple gave out free bumpers - this (to many people) showed that Apple cared, and increased their Apple Loyalty. Of course, others took it differently - this will always be the case with anything. But I think that worked for Apple's advantage more than against it.
 
iTunes Radio was supposed to be out in early 2014. We're inching closer by the day to half way through 2014 without a word about iTunes Radio in other countries besides Australia and the US.
 
You know that. And I know that. But it sounds like Apple actually thought streaming would drive sales.

I think they thought iTunes Radio might, because there was somewhat of a chance that it would as it's based off of a discovery model at least in some part. But I don't believe for a second that anyone at Apple is (or was) thinking that offering a streaming service like Spotify is going to increase music downloads. I think they are thinking that it's time to change models and accept that streaming is going to be the revenue model for recorded music in the future and it's time to fully get on that train.
 
Serves them right! They have no business being in the music business if they're this slow to react.

Spotify isn't some cheeky upstart anymore; I remember back in 2006 when I was at University, it was all over campus. Everyone had Spotify.

It's been 8 (nearly 9) years, and throughout that time people have been screaming at Apple to do the same or have the rugged pulled under their feet. They totally ignored where the puck was going to be, and stubbornly stuck to it being where it was. "We don't think people want to rent their music" was their answer. Case closed.

Maybe it's a generational thing - maybe the decision-makers at Apple just don't get these services that can be delivered through the cloud. Either way, this has been coming for a long, long, long time, it was totally obvious what was happening, and Apple didn't just ignore it - they saw it and stubbornly refused to change a thing.

If you act like a dinosaur, you go extinct. Sorry, iTunes.
 
1. Having owned Macs for most of my life, I have only bought one iTunes album (maybe 10 songs). I want to own the music I buy, so I don't have to pay for it over and over. When I retire, I won't be able to afford it, but I will be able to listen to the music I bought while I was working. And I want the music I paid for to be good quality. Nothing in iTunes is good quality.

Now I know 20-something's think they will always have money to pay for subscriptions, rent, taxes, insurance, food, etc., but that is a risky assumption. The corporations don't want anyone to actually own anything of high quality, because if you own high quality stuff, you are not required to buy it again over and over and over.

As an example throwaway lawnmowers, most probably don't remember when lawnmowers lasted for 20+ years. My grandfather owned exactly one lawnmower for his whole life. Well not any more, why? Because it is common belief that cheaper or free is better. So instead of buying one or two lawnmowers in your lifetime, you will probably buy 6 to 10 at about one-half the cost. You do the math. Music will only be nearly free until ownership (the ability to purchase music outright) is prohibited, then you will have no choices but to pay through the nose and there will be no recourse (no freedom no competition).

2. Music quality. There are certainly good musicians today (at least that I would like to listen to), but they are letting the record companies destroy their work by applying bad production and mastering techniques. So we are training people's ears so they can not tell the difference. People today do not listen to music for hours at a time simply because it is grating and unnatural. If people don't listen, they don't buy.

3. itunes radio, what a joke. Have you ever tried to find a station that has the music you are interested in, in the variety your interested in. Good luck, because it is just not possible. Sometimes I want to be surprised and hear something I am not expecting, at other times I want what I want. Music satisfies the soul, unless you have iTunes, then it is impossible to get satisfaction.
 
3. itunes radio, what a joke. Have you ever tried to find a station that has the music you are interested in, in the variety your interested in. Good luck, because it is just not possible. Sometimes I want to be surprised and hear something I am not expecting, at other times I want what I want. Music satisfies the soul, unless you have iTunes, then it is impossible to get satisfaction.

Took me a few tries but I finally created the station that I was looking for that I listen to on SiriusXM. It is possible.
 
1. Having owned Macs for most of my life, I have only bought one iTunes album (maybe 10 songs). I want to own the music I buy, so I don't have to pay for it over and over. When I retire, I won't be able to afford it, but I will be able to listen to the music I bought while I was working. And I want the music I paid for to be good quality. Nothing in iTunes is good quality.

Now I know 20-something's think they will always have money to pay for subscriptions, rent, taxes, insurance, food, etc., but that is a risky assumption. The corporations don't want anyone to actually own anything of high quality, because if you own high quality stuff, you are not required to buy it again over and over and over.

As an example throwaway lawnmowers, most probably don't remember when lawnmowers lasted for 20+ years. My grandfather owned exactly one lawnmower for his whole life. Well not any more, why? Because it is common belief that cheaper or free is better. So instead of buying one or two lawnmowers in your lifetime, you will probably buy 6 to 10 at about one-half the cost. You do the math. Music will only be nearly free until ownership (the ability to purchase music outright) is prohibited, then you will have no choices but to pay through the nose and there will be no recourse (no freedom no competition).

2. Music quality. There are certainly good musicians today (at least that I would like to listen to), but they are letting the record companies destroy their work by applying bad production and mastering techniques. So we are training people's ears so they can not tell the difference. People today do not listen to music for hours at a time simply because it is grating and unnatural. If people don't listen, they don't buy.

3. itunes radio, what a joke. Have you ever tried to find a station that has the music you are interested in, in the variety your interested in. Good luck, because it is just not possible. Sometimes I want to be surprised and hear something I am not expecting, at other times I want what I want. Music satisfies the soul, unless you have iTunes, then it is impossible to get satisfaction.

I agree with your first two points, although I do buy quite a bit on iTunes, partly to save the space required to store CD's and DVD's/Blu-Rays. Things I really like I occasionally buy on disc. I'm not convinced by the the subscription model at all, it may be only £10 but it's £10 from now, until the day I die, unless of course they put the price up. I do find Spotify useful for music discovery however.

Your second point a really agree with, modern music is mastered terribly, with hardly any dynamic range. It's horrible to listen to for any length of time.

I can't speak to your third, as iTunes Radio is yet to be released in the U.K. Apple really need to get on top of that.
 
3. itunes radio, what a joke. Have you ever tried to find a station that has the music you are interested in, in the variety your interested in. Good luck, because it is just not possible. Sometimes I want to be surprised and hear something I am not expecting, at other times I want what I want. Music satisfies the soul, unless you have iTunes, then it is impossible to get satisfaction.

I didn't think I'd like iTunes Radio but once I actually started using it, I found I really enjoyed it. I actually hope they don't make it a separate app because I think what I like about it is that it is so well integrated into the current music app. I can have my 25k song iTunes Match library for when I want my stuff, and if I want to have something new or a more surprising playlist, I can hop right over to radio and up the discovery settings and have a real nice listening experience. Again, I'm surprised by it as well, but I really, really have liked iTunes Radio.
 
I didn't think I'd like iTunes Radio but once I actually started using it, I found I really enjoyed it. I actually hope they don't make it a separate app because I think what I like about it is that it is so well integrated into the current music app. I can have my 25k song iTunes Match library for when I want my stuff, and if I want to have something new or a more surprising playlist, I can hop right over to radio and up the discovery settings and have a real nice listening experience. Again, I'm surprised by it as well, but I really, really have liked iTunes Radio.

Good to know. When I tried, around the time it came out, it did not work well at all. Limited variety, repeated songs every 10 songs or so, and not intuitive at all. I'll give it another try. Thanks.
 
Maybe they need to reach out to today's artists and get them to make some better music. :cool:

There is some good music out there, but it's in such a sea of Soundcloud and Spotify noise that no one can find it. Electronic algorithms to recommend music don't work. We still need human tastemakers to find the gems. That used to be the job of record labels, but now that the internet has democratized music publishing, it's a sea of mediocre music. The second point is, when artists/labels have no money, they can't exactly spend much on making records like the old days. So you get music that sounds like it was made in someone's bedroom, because it probably was. So we need something to lift up the good stuff, and polish it. Maybe what I'm saying is Apple needs to start a label (I know there's contractual issues with the Beatles' Apple Records) and give money to bands that need a spotlight. Netflix is doing their own content now, why can't iTunes?
 
iTunes Radio is just like those other streaming services - they all suck big time. Why in the world would I want to listen to radio and ads when I can download and get whatever music I want for free for my iPod - bypassing the whole system? You'd have to be a nut job to fall for this. I also refused to use any streaming services as when I pay for music I want / demand something tangible in return and I will go to any lengths to get this, including bypassing / removing DRM etc. Plus using these services with my own data at my expense it not acceptable to me either.
 
Or maybe don't charge $1.29 per song?

I can pay $0.99 for an app that'll entertain me some hours or a $1.29 for a song that's 3 minutes long. It's just not a good deal.

In Brazil I once subscribed to a service called Sonora (from Terra internet services provider) which allowed me downloading up to 250 songs/month (256kbps mp3 files) for a USD 23,00 monthly fee. Everything legal and files were DRM-free.

THIS is a big deal. I just gave up because I didn't have time for listening everything I downloaded. Maybe someday I'll sign that up again.
 
Maybe they need to reach out to today's artists and get them to make some better music. :cool:

Or screw the major labels and actively engage and promote indie artists.
Help those guys make a living without the labels if all the labels want to do is talent show tracks.
 
Holy crap, AMEN!

I'm 25, and when I saw a special on the Beatles' 40th anniversary this past year I thought "Good lord....they had the Beatles back in the 60s. We have Justin Bieber."

I swear, I about cried.

As a university student graduating in September from a music course and going into the music industry...

Amen.
 
Those 3200 songs will be the same for infinity. Ask me how much I use that Captain Jack CD from the 90'ties... with spotify i can pick 3333 new songs every day. One flick go a switch and that playlist is available offline, flick again and its deleted off the phone. Deleted all my pirated mp3's and haven't downloaded anything since it came available in my country. At a party, you got 3200 mp3's to select between, i got millions.

Why would I spend more money a year for more music than I could possibly listen to? I don't need millions of songs when I have 3200 I like. I'm perfectly content even listening to free top 40 radio that plays the same 10 songs umpteen times a day. It works for me, and fits in my budget. If I paid for all if the subscriptions society says I need these days, I'd be broke very quickly. $1500 a month won't conver those kind of expenses. And I'm not even paying for the important things like insurance and cell service (thanks, parents). I suppose I can spend that kind of money when I make 5 or 6 figures a year (not likely on a teacher's salary). Just because you can afford such things doesn't mean the rest of us can.
 
Not skyrocket, but it would stop the bleeding. Why not offer lossless HD music? Because it will overload Apple's servers?

I agree, at present, customers asking for HD music are small in numbers. I don't know how small, but what about Apple's previous philosophy of "customers don't know what they want until we provide it". I do believe if more people knew about HD music and it's just as convenient, they would buy it.

Streaming is convenient because you don't even have to decide what artist to listen to, just choose the genre. But you can do the same with your own stored music. Streaming does expose you to new music that you don't own though.

You guys are saying that if Apple provides loseless quality tracks sales will skyrocket, that is simply not the case, as much as I love loseless music, the people who have the equipment, the knowledge, or simply can hear the difference is less than 2% of the people who buy on iTunes.

The only way for apple to stop the decline is:

1.- Major overhaul of iTunes, make it usable, stable, nice looking.
2.- The majority (not everyone), but the majority of people think the following: "Hey, instead of buying 9 or 10 songs for 10 bucks, why don't I pay 10 bucks to stream 20 million songs?", or even for free, since many people do not care for 160, 192 kbps quality songs, they just do not care because they do not hear any difference.
3.- if Apple wants to win customers over, they need to be cross platform, like Spotify, Rdio, etc., this is a MOST.

I WILL ditch Spotify in a heartbeat when Apple announces their streaming service, but if they do it in 3-5 years, they will fail, period, the service needs to be here by q1 2015 tops.
 
Seriously when you can turn a radio on, hook into a streaming service or whatever is new and enjoy fresh content, why buy?

By the way I don't want to dismiss the value of following a favorite artist with owned music. What I'm getting at is the value of owning for general listening. Life is just easier when you tune to your favorite channel.

There is usually a narrow period in people's lives in which they absorb all the music around them and establish their tastes. The desire to seek out the new and different all the time fades as most of us age. Eventually many are interested in nothing but the songs that defined their youth. Sometimes music that was originally rejected when we were young becomes favourite material when we get older.

I have everything from Motown to metal, baroque to blues, ragtime to old school rap, ABBA to ZZ Top. The one thing that unites my collection is the fact that less than 5% of it was recorded after I left college.

So for people like me fresh, new content is irrelevant and so are streaming music services. To each his/her own.
 
3-5 YEARS?

On-demand streaming is the name of the game, and the "game" will be over by then.

Apple needs two things to bring iTunes store back from the brink:

1) Lossless downloads - at least Redbook quality, preferably the 96/24 content they've been collecting for the past few years.
2) On-demand streaming for a reasonable monthly cost (e.g., $9.99).

With the size of their library and Apple name, they'd be unstoppable.

But 3-5 years . . . ? :confused:
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.