I love Spotify and will be hard pressed to leave it even if Apple comes up with a fantastic competitor. Spotify has nice social features and music selection is excellent for a streaming company. Besides anything that is not avabile on Spotify can still be added to your playlists. I have both the mono and stereo Beatles box sets from the 2009 remaster. Spotify only costs me five dollars a month and has broaden my music tastes in a significant manor. I have a large iTunes library that has not been added to since I have had Spotify. It is not like the artists get any money from sales digital or physical, the labels do.
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 Managers Didn't Know How Spotify Worked, Engineers Used Pandora Over iTunes Radio
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Same reason why Apple is late to the party with a large screen iPhone. Apple underestimated the popularity of big screens and flagships that cost half the price of an iPhone. Apple being behind is a common theme nowadays. Even internal employees recognize this.
----------
I have a hacked version of Pandora on Android; unlimited skips and no ads. Guess it depends on your platform.
----------
I have a hacked version of Pandora on Android; unlimited skips and no ads. Guess it depends on your platform.
By doing uneducated guesses they are not going to get far with this.
I like iTunes Radio but prefer Pandora because it has a larger song list per radio, and stays as close to the requested song category.
iTunes needs a larger song list and to avoid going to far away from the requested Radio.
I like iTunes Radio but prefer Pandora because it has a larger song list per radio, and stays as close to the requested song category.
iTunes needs a larger song list and to avoid going to far away from the requested Radio.
I hate to be that guy in this thread... but something like this wouldn't have happened under Steve!
Steve was on top of things. Only one Steve. He lived and breathed Apple. Such passion is not an everyday thing. We were lucky.
Not sure what you're referring to. I can get just about anything I want on Spotify. The only artist the font have that I have to from my iTunes purchases is The Beatles.
But by contrast?
I will never *pay* for Spotify!
I have no problem believing the story in the article, and I think Apple really did need to take streaming music more seriously, a lot earlier than it did.
But at the same time, I guess I'm one of the people who thinks like the original iTunes group thought ... that I want to pay once for a song and then OWN the ability to play it an unlimited number of times, copy it to other devices I use, etc. with no time limits or restrictions.
The whole "streaming music rental" thing doesn't do much for me at all. I like the model a lot better for movies, really. Most movies, I only watch one time anyway. Even for the exceptions, I could deal with just paying a reasonable price to stream it for another 24 hours, when I had friends over I wanted to re-watch it with or whatever.
With music, it's only 99 cents or so a song (or less for many albums) to just buy the right to keep the content on your own media where YOU have full control of it. If I like a song, I'll want to hear it again many times -- probably even years later when the mood strikes. I don't want it all to vanish as soon as I let some subscription lapse.
I will never *pay* for Spotify!
I have no problem believing the story in the article, and I think Apple really did need to take streaming music more seriously, a lot earlier than it did.
But at the same time, I guess I'm one of the people who thinks like the original iTunes group thought ... that I want to pay once for a song and then OWN the ability to play it an unlimited number of times, copy it to other devices I use, etc. with no time limits or restrictions.
The whole "streaming music rental" thing doesn't do much for me at all. I like the model a lot better for movies, really. Most movies, I only watch one time anyway. Even for the exceptions, I could deal with just paying a reasonable price to stream it for another 24 hours, when I had friends over I wanted to re-watch it with or whatever.
With music, it's only 99 cents or so a song (or less for many albums) to just buy the right to keep the content on your own media where YOU have full control of it. If I like a song, I'll want to hear it again many times -- probably even years later when the mood strikes. I don't want it all to vanish as soon as I let some subscription lapse.
Says who? The ones who prefer streaming might just talk about it more, that's not proof.
edit: thanks for the proof, OllyW. As I thought, streamers are just more vocal about it.
Except the reason Apple doesn't have a Spotify competitor right now is mostly because of Steve. Do you think Steve would have allowed 3rd party keyboards or inter-app communication in iOS? Seems to me most of the stuff announced on Monday is a direct result of Tim's leadership changes. One person now owns all software engineering. Executive team is actually collaborating, not creating silos and fiefdoms.
Apple has always looked at things from a business perspective first. They don't do low margin products even if consumers want them. People love OS X. They'd love to buy a license for the OS and be able to install it on commodity hardware and it is totally do-able but Apple won't because there's less money in it. That's there MO. They are being cautious with streaming because there's more money in downloads. It's become beyond apparent that streaming is the future so now they are getting onboard with it.
At then end of the day they are about profits. They'll do what's profitable. What's profitable generally aligns with what consumers want but not always. They've recognized that digital downloads aren't the future and are now moving on.
What ? They used Pandora instead ?
Good for them..... But it under-estimates a point...
Apple develops iTunes Radio for "us" (the users), not for them...
That tells you everything about a company,,, does not care enough to use their own software they created.
Good for them..... But it under-estimates a point...
Apple develops iTunes Radio for "us" (the users), not for them...
That tells you everything about a company,,, does not care enough to use their own software they created.
Welcome to what Steve Jobs called, the bozo parade.
Apple is flush with moron employees. This used to be limited to the Apple Stores, but now they've invaded corporate HQ.
Streaming music/video is the future. Apple wouldn't be spending $3B on Beats if it wasn't.
iTunes Radio is a junk gimmick that serves no purpose for user enjoyment but to just push iTunes sales
An internet service only in 2014? LOL
Even paying iTunes Match users don't have unlimited skips and have to listen to ads, pathetic
An internet service only in 2014? LOL
Even paying iTunes Match users don't have unlimited skips and have to listen to ads, pathetic
After Steve jobs got too sick to run things at apple and Tim cook took over people with MBAs started to take over, before it was engineers, artists, thinkers, who were running things
Quite pathetic top level employees didn't know anything about the leader in streaming music and to the point of refusing to use it
Tim cook era indeed
as in stand up comedy? if so what are the stations?
and damn..imagine what steve jobs would have done to those employees!
Yeah, stand up comedy. I tried using iTunes Radio for that but it kept mixing in stupid "comedy music" which I don't enjoy. It's GREAT for Classical and discovering new music though (I find my music Pandora stations repeat the same dang songs too often!)
I totally agree with this. I've just cancelled Spotify and will be going 100% Beats now it's the best music service of its kind on the planet. It's also hard to see how Spotify will survive once Apple begins integrating Beats into its products and services. I'm betting Spotify won't even exist in less than 2 years.
If you're a Spotify user who hasn't tried the whole Beats experience yet, I'd urge you to do so now.
iTunes sorta sucks. I gave it a massive chance. Several months of use, but ended up back with Pandora for streaming radio.
Google Play Music and Pandora is what I use 80% of the time. Then there is Beats which I don't use as often because I am too lazy to create new playlists
For the cost of one album a month though I think a subscription is worthwhile. Most services let you download everything you want for offline playback. I have frequently taken my Spotify playlists on the road with me for the past several months with no wireless connection. And I never hear ads because when you pay the monthly fee you don't endure advertising.
I still have my "owned" collection too. And if I really like an album I discover on Beats, I'll still buy it.
Pandora is a pile of crap in comparison to iTunes Radio and Spotify. I love them both and use them on a regular basis. Even Beats Music is a great streaming service.
I'm sure people inside Apple wanted a larger iPhone, just like some wanted a smaller iPad. But when your manager likes a small phone or large iPad your ideas won't get any traction.
I've never seen so much opposition to what is popular. I totally believe this story because Apple has opposed widgets, even though OS X dashboard.
The craziest part about all this is - they already have the product - it's called the iTunes Store.
They should have just included streaming as a new feature of the store, or rebranded that in some way.
What they have currently is 30 second previews of tracks. Just make those full tracks and they are away.
I don't know why the app stores aren't more browser like too - for instance being able to use tabs to view multiple products at once.
iTunes Radio and the Store should be integrated together as one service, where one can listen to a limited supply for free, buy tracks, albums and if they want to pay a subscription fee - they get the entire iTunes catalogue on tap.
But maybe Beats will do that for them. And iTunes Radio can go on being useless.
They should have just included streaming as a new feature of the store, or rebranded that in some way.
What they have currently is 30 second previews of tracks. Just make those full tracks and they are away.
I don't know why the app stores aren't more browser like too - for instance being able to use tabs to view multiple products at once.
iTunes Radio and the Store should be integrated together as one service, where one can listen to a limited supply for free, buy tracks, albums and if they want to pay a subscription fee - they get the entire iTunes catalogue on tap.
But maybe Beats will do that for them. And iTunes Radio can go on being useless.
Apple refusing to acknowledge what competitors are doing happened during Steve Job's watch. Steve Jobs opposed making a smaller iPad. Steve Jobs probably opposed making a larger iPhone.
The Maps disaster? I'll blame Steve Jobs for that too. The minute Google started pushing Android, Steve Jobs should have known that it would be a critical weakness to allow such an important service to be controlled by a competitor.
If you've ever seen how horrifying the windows software landscape is for software as complicated as iTunes is...then you wouldn't blame SJ. Honestly, there is so much that goes wrong in Windows. Anti-spyware software out there that incorrectly blocks anything and everything, you wouldn't even believe how often things can go wrong with the hosts file, firewall issues, user account types, USB driver issues...just take a look at Apple's support website for "iTunes update/restore errors" and you'll see what I mean.
I wouldn't blame him for wanting to make a complicated program like iTunes only on an OS it was designed to compliment.
The bottom line is the amount of money to be made selling music shrinks more every day. None of these services eating into iTunes are making anyone rich.
There seems to be hope from the industry things will magically get better, but it won't. Record labels want as much money as possible. The middle men are not making money and the pie is not going to get bigger.
It is good to make fun of execs for not knowing about spotify or pandora but neither of those businesses are very successful financially. I think one reason apple has not rushed into a spotify like service is because the business model does not necessarily work.
The price elasticity for buying music is non existent. There are too many ways to legally and illegally consume content easily that the amount the average person is willing to part with grows smaller every day.
As I have grown older I don't listen to near as much music as I used to, but if I overlay my old listening habits on today's world, I would pay just a tiny percentage as much for music as I did back then. When people are paying 80% - 90% less for the same amount of content, there is not much to be had, even if you factor in the decades the music industry ripped the consumers and artists off.
There seems to be hope from the industry things will magically get better, but it won't. Record labels want as much money as possible. The middle men are not making money and the pie is not going to get bigger.
It is good to make fun of execs for not knowing about spotify or pandora but neither of those businesses are very successful financially. I think one reason apple has not rushed into a spotify like service is because the business model does not necessarily work.
The price elasticity for buying music is non existent. There are too many ways to legally and illegally consume content easily that the amount the average person is willing to part with grows smaller every day.
As I have grown older I don't listen to near as much music as I used to, but if I overlay my old listening habits on today's world, I would pay just a tiny percentage as much for music as I did back then. When people are paying 80% - 90% less for the same amount of content, there is not much to be had, even if you factor in the decades the music industry ripped the consumers and artists off.