The future is being able to listen to what you want when you want without having to purchase every individual track you listen to.
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
The future is being able to listen to what you want when you want without having to purchase every individual track you listen to.
Wow. I actually feel really annoyed that Apple are so out of touch.
Spotify is awesome and is easily years ahead. They're well integrated, have good deals and have definitely come up with the best solution to the future of music streaming. £4.99 for all you can eat! (courtesy of NUS)
I'm done with downloading, organising, owning, transferring, licensing etc. I just wanna login and listen instantly.
Granted, they don't have EVERYTHING (who does?), but that will come with time. The point is, they're already in the game and their jazz, blues, rock, funk collection is more than I will ever listen to in my lifetime.
Wakey wakey Apple. There's an eagle flying over your head.
Why don't you just rent your whole life? Rent your living space, rent your furniture, rent your clothes, rent your shoes, rent your housewares, rent your car, rent your bike, rent your appliances, rent your TV, rent your computer, rent your phone, rent your tablet, rent your houseplants, hell you can even rent your intimate partners for that matter....
----------
I have used it, and I do use it (free version) for throwaway music that I want to listen to now, or am curious about, but know I won't want to listen to forever. But, I don't want to pay someone a monthly fee for life to listen to a song or album that I really like. Of course, this is what the corporations want. Rent/Subscribe to EVERYTHING so they have an unlimited stream of revenue from you until the day you die. I'd rather pay for that song or album ONCE and listen to it for the rest of my life as many times as I want, unlimited. 1.29 ONCE for unlimited plays versus a constant drain on my wallet forever? No competition.
This is the first time I even hear about Deezer, and I'm a french-Canadian living in Québec. That tells you how much their Web advertising is lacking.
----------
I can't compare prices when their websites won't even allow me to sign up for a trial account.
----------
Given that I can't even sign up for a trail account, I don't know how it works. That's good to know, thanks for the information.
----------
Video and music isn't the same. I usually only watch movies and TV shows once. I don't really care about watching them again later except for a handful of titles.
Music, on the other hand, is something that I don't want to lose. Obscure or older titles could disappear from streaming services.
I'll rent movies as I, like others, find I'll only watch them once.
I prefer buying music versus renting, in particular because I'm a big fan of creating playlists and use my iPod and iPhone for music nearly every day while I'm commuting, bike riding, hiking, working out, etc. On top of that I don't always have a good cell data signal, sometimes none at all. Also I'd prefer to use my cell data for things more relevant to my mobile activities, such as traffic information.
I do use streaming radio to find new music to buy, the same way I used over-the-air radio, albeit with many more options and the ability to search genres, and so on.
I prefer buying music versus renting, in particular because I'm a big fan of creating playlists and use my iPod and iPhone for music nearly every day while I'm commuting, bike riding, hiking, working out, etc. On top of that I don't always have a good cell data signal, sometimes none at all. Also I'd prefer to use my cell data for things more relevant to my mobile activities, such as traffic information.
I do use streaming radio to find new music to buy, the same way I used over-the-air radio, albeit with many more options and the ability to search genres, and so on.
Last edited:
I believe there is a lot of truth in this article. Apple has to grudgingly accept that the next step in music is streaming and not digital purchasing of songs and albums. Just like record labels had to realize with iTunes in 2003 that people were shifting from purchasing CD's to digital songs.
The real issue with Ping
Is that they didn't keep going. They limited it to only certain artists when it should have been everyone, should have included writers, actors, directors, TV shows and picked up all the features of Lala, which they had just bought, adapted for the non music items as needed.
They released a stunted Ping and then when it wasn't an instant success they let it die in a corner instead of trying to actually make something of it.
----------
Yep, there is a tone to the claims that sounds more like bitter employees talking smack because things weren't done the way they thought it should be.
For all we know, the folks at the top totally understand how Spotify etc work but also know the contracts required, the risk of lawsuit for wholesale copying of another system etc.
----------
The buying and killing of the actually awesome Lala service and the creation of Ping were under Steve's watch ( though the starving and killing of Ping were not).
Plus the Mobile Me launch disaster was under Steve. And so on. The man was not infallible. And before you say that he didn't do those things literally, he was the boss so it was his job to make sure they were all done properly. Just as Tim Cook and Scott Forstall were in both in charge, in their own ways, of the teams that created iOS 6 and iOS Maps. Both of which had major issues. Tim was willing to admit his role failed, Scott was not and apparently that was the straw that got him booted to a token job to ride out a few months until he would know nothing he could leak.
----------
And likely on a contract that is not ending for a few years and valid so long as Beats operates on its own. Otherwise Apple has to redo those contracts and will be asked for way way more money.
----------
Rumor has it those algorithms are what Apple really wanted from Beats because they are allegedly as good as Spotify. Feed in Genius, Also Bought and Match Playlists, Radio skips for more deets and they would hopefully get better. Bring back the Lala features of the similar artists, being able to follow other users playlists and you get more human suggestions as well.
----------
He trusted Scott Forstall to be doing HIS job. Tim wasn't likely looking at all the forums, bug reports etc because he had way more to do. So he trusts the head of the department to be monitoring and dealing with issues. Scott says everything is good, it's going to be great, Tim should be able to trust that.
Tim was wrong. And willing to issue a public apology. Scott was not. Apparently Scott was a major dick in general to all but a select few, including being a dick to folks like Jony Ive. But it was felt that being an ass wasn't enough to get away with firing him. Gross incompetence however would do it. Because he probably had stock options coming up soon that he might sue over and a desire to keep him under the no poach, employee NDA etc of the time, he was given that 'special advisor' position.
----------
Oh it likely will be. Well Iovine under Eddy's umbrella control of all services. As was likely the idea from the start and probably with Eddy's endorsement if not idea in the first place ( not this 'Eddy you suck' tone that you seem to be suggesting).
Is that they didn't keep going. They limited it to only certain artists when it should have been everyone, should have included writers, actors, directors, TV shows and picked up all the features of Lala, which they had just bought, adapted for the non music items as needed.
They released a stunted Ping and then when it wasn't an instant success they let it die in a corner instead of trying to actually make something of it.
----------
yeah right...It seems anyone can claim anything these days when it comes to
Yep, there is a tone to the claims that sounds more like bitter employees talking smack because things weren't done the way they thought it should be.
For all we know, the folks at the top totally understand how Spotify etc work but also know the contracts required, the risk of lawsuit for wholesale copying of another system etc.
----------
I hate to be that guy in this thread... but something like this wouldn't have happened under Steve!
The buying and killing of the actually awesome Lala service and the creation of Ping were under Steve's watch ( though the starving and killing of Ping were not).
Plus the Mobile Me launch disaster was under Steve. And so on. The man was not infallible. And before you say that he didn't do those things literally, he was the boss so it was his job to make sure they were all done properly. Just as Tim Cook and Scott Forstall were in both in charge, in their own ways, of the teams that created iOS 6 and iOS Maps. Both of which had major issues. Tim was willing to admit his role failed, Scott was not and apparently that was the straw that got him booted to a token job to ride out a few months until he would know nothing he could leak.
----------
And likely on a contract that is not ending for a few years and valid so long as Beats operates on its own. Otherwise Apple has to redo those contracts and will be asked for way way more money.
----------
Rumor has it those algorithms are what Apple really wanted from Beats because they are allegedly as good as Spotify. Feed in Genius, Also Bought and Match Playlists, Radio skips for more deets and they would hopefully get better. Bring back the Lala features of the similar artists, being able to follow other users playlists and you get more human suggestions as well.
----------
He trusted Scott Forstall to be doing HIS job. Tim wasn't likely looking at all the forums, bug reports etc because he had way more to do. So he trusts the head of the department to be monitoring and dealing with issues. Scott says everything is good, it's going to be great, Tim should be able to trust that.
Tim was wrong. And willing to issue a public apology. Scott was not. Apparently Scott was a major dick in general to all but a select few, including being a dick to folks like Jony Ive. But it was felt that being an ass wasn't enough to get away with firing him. Gross incompetence however would do it. Because he probably had stock options coming up soon that he might sue over and a desire to keep him under the no poach, employee NDA etc of the time, he was given that 'special advisor' position.
----------
Oh it likely will be. Well Iovine under Eddy's umbrella control of all services. As was likely the idea from the start and probably with Eddy's endorsement if not idea in the first place ( not this 'Eddy you suck' tone that you seem to be suggesting).
I hate to be that guy in this thread... but something like this wouldn't have happened under Steve!
Cuz Steve Jobs didn't know anything about willful ignorance!
This is the first time I even hear about Deezer, and I'm a french-Canadian living in Québec. That tells you how much their Web advertising is lacking.
----------
I can't compare prices when their websites won't even allow me to sign up for a trial account.
----------
Given that I can't even sign up for a trail account, I don't know how it works. That's good to know, thanks for the information.
----------
Video and music isn't the same. I usually only watch movies and TV shows once. I don't really care about watching them again later except for a handful of titles.
Music, on the other hand, is something that I don't want to lose. Obscure or older titles could disappear from streaming services.
I think maybe I learned about Deezer when I searched for Spotify in BlackBerry World.
It's all about choices!
Add me to the list of people who will resist streaming services as a complete replacement to purchases. It's not that I am against streaming; I use passive and on-demand streaming / subscription services for both music and video. I can safely say libraries offered on streaming services are nowhere near as rich as my collection, which includes audiophile grade recordings. However, I use both on a regular basis, depending on the situation. There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to both models. It's all about choices!
To me, my least favorite aspect of subscription services is the price lock-in. While trying to support a family, I can't always afford to add more and more subscriptions when my budget is already tight. Sure, one subscription by itself may not be that much, but as technology becomes more and more subscription based, it adds up. I find myself dropping subscriptions because I can't afford all of them. However, once I drop a subscription, I've suddenly lost access to all of the content I was relying on the subscription for. I'm glad all of the stuff I already own is mine forever, which means I will always have access to it even when I have to tighten my belt. And yes, while it's more costly to purchase content in the short term, it pays for itself when you can listen to it for free for the rest of your life.
I understand that the security of ownership doesn't matter to everyone in every situation, but that's my point. Choices allow us to stick to our own preferences and provide multiple revenue streams for the sellers. For me, having both purchased and streaming services provide the best of both worlds.
Add me to the list of people who will resist streaming services as a complete replacement to purchases. It's not that I am against streaming; I use passive and on-demand streaming / subscription services for both music and video. I can safely say libraries offered on streaming services are nowhere near as rich as my collection, which includes audiophile grade recordings. However, I use both on a regular basis, depending on the situation. There are clearly advantages and disadvantages to both models. It's all about choices!
To me, my least favorite aspect of subscription services is the price lock-in. While trying to support a family, I can't always afford to add more and more subscriptions when my budget is already tight. Sure, one subscription by itself may not be that much, but as technology becomes more and more subscription based, it adds up. I find myself dropping subscriptions because I can't afford all of them. However, once I drop a subscription, I've suddenly lost access to all of the content I was relying on the subscription for. I'm glad all of the stuff I already own is mine forever, which means I will always have access to it even when I have to tighten my belt. And yes, while it's more costly to purchase content in the short term, it pays for itself when you can listen to it for free for the rest of your life.
I understand that the security of ownership doesn't matter to everyone in every situation, but that's my point. Choices allow us to stick to our own preferences and provide multiple revenue streams for the sellers. For me, having both purchased and streaming services provide the best of both worlds.
One reason to intentionally avoid a competitor's application is so you can't be accused of copying it or stealing ideas from it.
Says me, a guy who has never seen spottify and has no interest in it what-so-ever. I can turn on a radio and get music for free already, why would I want to pay?
Maybe some middle managers didn't know how Spotify worked, but I am quite certain upper management did. You know, the ones actually making decisions.
The reason why iTunes Radio didn't offer on-demand access to music was because record labels didn't want to give Apple that much control over music, after Apple dominating music sales.
The reason why iTunes Radio didn't offer on-demand access to music was because record labels didn't want to give Apple that much control over music, after Apple dominating music sales.
Looking at things from a business prospective first and looking at things only from a business prospective are two different things. Clearly, nothing about iTunes Radio was for the user. It was only created to drive iTunes music downloads. Despite their intentions, if Apple truly understood how people used music these days, they could of been a leader not a follower in music.
After reading the above I have to paraphrase that famous quote during a reading of Tolkien's LOTR, "Oh no! Not another ****ing elf!", with "Oh no! Not another ****ing social platform!"
We'll see whether he sucks or not when iOS 8 and the new iPhones and iPads land. This WWDC placed a HUGE emphasis on the cloud, something Apple hasn't been so good at in the past.
I'm still amazed Cook was so unaware of the issues with maps. Did Forstall really keep that from him, or was he ignorant himself? All the demos Forstall did of maps were pretty much flawless. But it was a complete case of over promising and under delivering.
I still don't think maps was the reason he got the boot. All you have to do is watch last year and this years WWDC to see how Apple execs gel so much better without him. Scott seemed to be very much in the WWSD camp and that was hindering Apple's ability to move their platforms forward.
Listen to the most recent Debug podcast. A former Apple employee said after it was announced that Scott would be leaving people from his team called people on other teams to find out what they were working on. I was shocked by that. Of course now you have Federighi doing engineering and Ive doing design for both platforms. And by all accounts the two seem to work well together. When Cook announced the org change and pushed collaboration as a theme some people worried that it meant design by committee or that creative tension (Steve liked playing executives off each other) would be lost. I think we can clearly see now that Cook's org change plan was brilliant. You don't need to be an ******* to get things done.
One more...
Not just Pandora etc. play a main role in the world`s perspective of music consumption.
There are cultures outside america (obviously not understood even by guys like "dr. dre") that receipt music in different ways.
If Apple likes to get a bit of that cake too (asia, russia, africa and even europe), it should open its narrow, america-focused mind and recognize all the different distribution channels worldwide.
Not just Pandora etc. play a main role in the world`s perspective of music consumption.
There are cultures outside america (obviously not understood even by guys like "dr. dre") that receipt music in different ways.
If Apple likes to get a bit of that cake too (asia, russia, africa and even europe), it should open its narrow, america-focused mind and recognize all the different distribution channels worldwide.
Yes but if they went all in on streaming they'd have vastly cut into their iTunes store profits. Look, at the end of the day you're right, they failed to see where things were going and thus weren't ahead of the curve but I'd argue they rarely ever are the first ones out of the gate with any of their products and/or services when it involves a whole new product category.
They tend to sit back, let others make the mistakes, then enter a market when they feel they can do it "right". They were obviously late to the party on this one, and their first offering may not be the "right" way to do it when they unveil the Apple version of the Beats streaming music service, but my point was that they weren't going to enter the streaming market until it became readily apparent that was the future and they needed to move because they were making so much from paid iTunes downloads.
From a business perspective, which is the way Apple always looks at things, it makes/made perfect sense not to try and cannibalize sales from something they've already got going that is highly profitable unless/until they're certain they have to change course because that's where the market it is going.
Even though iTunes sales are down, it's still a hugely profitable area for them. It makes senses, from a business perspective, that they'd be cautious in entering the streaming realm if they feel it might ultimately be less profitable than their store. That's reflected in their strategy which appears to be to get into the streaming game but keep it separate, at least at first, from the iTunes store.
I mentioned that in my original post (although I know this thread is getting deep & you probably didn't see it) I tried Beats because Apple bought them & I am loyal to the companies I like.
When I tried it I liked the interface & I think it gave me better suggestions. The kicker was the offline listening.
So overall it is VERY similar, but the recommendations are better (IMO), & I prefer to stay in the Apple "family"
What are you banging on about? Spotify has 10+ million paying subscribers, that's $100M+ in monthly revenue, and add to that the ad-money from 40M+ active listeners and you'll come up with a very sustainable figure indeed.
They have over 20 million songs available and 20000+ added daily. I'd hardly call that a poor selection by any standards.
In case you haven't noticed, dumbass is pulling the old "über-fanboi-troll-play" here. Just look at his posting history. It was mildly amusing for a while, but it has been getting rather tedious for quite some time now.
----------
Soo... I can make an identical replica of an iPhone and sell that, as long as I just tell everyone that I've never seen an iPhone.
Yeah, I'm not quite sure it works like that.
