Apple Music Attracting New Streaming Subscribers to Aid in Music Industry's 'Fragile Recovery'

[oneMadRssn]

Of course, both Pandora and Spotify are losing a lot of money each year. Considering the financial situation of their costs, which don't go down the more subscribers they get, they will just be losing even more money.

I've been saying for some time now, that in the long run, the only companies that will survive in the retail music market are Apple, Amazon, Google and possibly Facebook, if they're interested, and also, possibly, Microsoft.

There has never been a successful music streaming company since the very beginning back around the year 2000. The only way it works is if there's a parent company that absorbs the costs out of other profit centers, because it believes that it benefits those other profit centers in their own sales and profits.

So those companies I mentioned can easily afford the several hundred million a year in losses both Pandora and Spotify are suffering. But neither Pandora nor Spotify can, in the long run.

I think this is pretty bad. As you said, none of the current music streaming ventures are profitable. Spotify is not profitable, and neither is the Apple Music division of Apple. The difference is that companies like Apple have the deep pockets to maintain unprofitable divisions long enough to build market share and then jack up the prices. It's a strategy straight from Walmart's playbook: match low prices until the competitors are gone, then when your customers have no other choice, turn them upside down and shake. Do people really think that Apple Music will remain $10/month after Tidal, Spotify, and Pandora are out of business?

 

[Rigby]

I think this is pretty bad. As you said, none of the current music streaming ventures are profitable. Spotify is not profitable, and neither is the Apple Music division of Apple. The difference is that companies like Apple have the deep pockets to maintain unprofitable divisions long enough to build market share and then jack up the prices.

Spotify has some investors with very deep pockets. As long as they can keep growing, I don't see them going anywhere. The labels also have no interest in another Apple quasi-monopoly, so they will negotiate terms that work for Spotify.

 

[truthertech]

While many people are happy about streaming media, I remain cautious about where everything is headed.

To start is bandwidth of the interwebs. Streaming eats a lot of bandwidth that is still a limited resource in most of the world. The more people stream, the more constraints we put on the network. You can argue it forces growth, but it also causes headaches for transition.

This data comes at a premium through most ISPs/Carriers. Data caps make sure that you can only stream as much as they want you to. The more you want to stream the more you have to pay.

Ownership of content is at risk. While anyone born after 1995 is probably comfortable with all their documents, data, music, photos, movies and whatnots "in the cloud" many of us older folk understand why ownership of your content matters. Streaming gives you temporary access to content that is not owned by you. Whenever you don't pay for the streaming service, you immediately lose the music you listen to. It guarantees that customers will always be back for another month because otherwise they have to find some other means to listen. If the industry were to move completely to streaming, nobody would be able to listen to their music without a subscription being paid to a company who has rights to stream.

For a long time, my data cap on my cellular made streaming a non-option. But that cap has significantly increased by itself over time and now I can stream for a time during each billing period without worrying about crazy overage fees. Now that I can though, I don't want to. I buy my music because I believe a purchased album means more to the artist than streaming only their most popular songs. Plus the sound quality of a CD (uncompressed audio file) can't be beat with streaming (yet). Plus there's something to get signed at a concert.

Streaming music is also now introducing "exclusive" music. It used to be anybody could by an "exclsuive" album from Goodies (or Target or Walmart or wherever). Now, "exclusive" means only subscribers of the exclusive provider are allowed to listen. That's a huge difference in who has access to new music.

I know I'm a minority of people who don't like the path streaming music has taken. This is the way the industry is moving and due to all the **** pirates out there, we aren't going back because this keeps the industry alive; the point of he article. I dread the day I start feeling the need to add $10/15 month bills to my plate because it becomes the only way to access new music.

The "exclusive" label is way overblown. It is usually just for a few weeks, then it's everywhere.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Spotify has some investors with very deep pockets. As long as they can keep growing, I don't see them going anywhere. The labels also have no interest in another Apple quasi-monopoly, so they will negotiate terms that work for Spotify.

I hope your right. However, the labels have a history of making boorish decisions that end up being completely against their own self interest in hindsight.

 

[2457282]

What do you mean?
iTunes still has millions more tracks available to purchase than are on Apple Music.

As I mentioned above in post #14. Features that were there previously have been moved behind the paywall. the iOS app is heavily biased towards streaming. you are constantly being badgered to subscribe to the 3 month trial. So yes itunes has millions of tracks available to purchase, but the way features and behavior all are pushing towards streaming. As someone who has invested in 20k songs, i do not want to stream and feel less and less supported by itunes and Apple.

 

[Michael Scrip]

The Courage to Aid the Music Industry's 'Fragile Recovery'. Give me a break.

A dollar for every thousand streaming plays. What a disgrace.

The best way to support music is to get out and go see your favorite artists play.

But that's always been the case... even before streaming became a thing.

The majority of the money from the sale of a CD went to the record labels... while only a tiny fraction of money went to the actual person singing or playing an instrument. This practice has been going on for decades.

So yeah... if you want to support the artist... it's always better to go see them in concert and buy some merch! That's the only way to guarantee you're helping the artist.

 

[winston1236]

Of course, both Pandora and Spotify are losing a lot of money each year. Considering the financial situation of their costs, which don't go down the more subscribers they get, they will just be losing even more money.

I've been saying for some time now, that in the long run, the only companies that will survive in the retail music market are Apple, Amazon, Google and possibly Facebook, if they're interested, and also, possibly, Microsoft.

There has never been a successful music streaming company since the very beginning back around the year 2000. The only way it works is if there's a parent company that absorbs the costs out of other profit centers, because it believes that it benefits those other profit centers in their own sales and profits.

So those companies I mentioned can easily afford the several hundred million a year in losses both Pandora and Spotify are suffering. But neither Pandora nor Spotify can, in the long run.

Spotify can easily keep making loses, they have the biggest subscriber base and will return the most profit when they get bought for the VC's.

 

[Rigby]

A dollar for every thousand streaming plays. What a disgrace.

This argument never made sense to me. It's a lot more than the revenue per listener on radio. And the overall renvenue grows rapidly with the number of subscribers. If the current growth rates hold for a few more years, there will be hundreds of millions (rather than today's tens of millions).

 

[sleepydinosaur]

Vinyl made me fall in love with music again. Although I used to buy cd's in record stores so the culture and fun of doing that is nothing new to me. I took my daughter to a record store (bought her first record!) and she loved all the PHYSICAL music and that there's music playing and posters and shirts and stuff.

MP3's and such killed music for me. I bought 700-800$ worth of music on iTunes and it just wasn't the same.

So many great bands I had heard just by hanging out in a record store in the 80's and 90's

 

[OllyW]

As I mentioned above in post #14. Features that were there previously have been moved behind the paywall. the iOS app is heavily biased towards streaming. you are constantly being badgered to subscribe to the 3 month trial. So yes itunes has millions of tracks available to purchase, but the way features and behavior all are pushing towards streaming. As someone who has invested in 20k songs, i do not want to stream and feel less and less supported by itunes and Apple.

We never had the free stations in the UK so I obviously haven't missed those being made exclusive to Apple Music subscribers and only occasionally use the iOS app so I've probably not noticed it as much as you. I do get pissed off though every time Apple discards my preference settings when there's an update to iTunes or iOS and turns Apple Music back on after I've purposefully hidden it from view.

 

[bjet767]

Thee "music industry" used to be the record companies who contracted the artist to promote and sell their work. How we have forgotten it was this industry which made Sir Branson a wealthy and influential man on the backs of the artists. Notice how he closed up Virgin Records stores about the time streaming began its rise and cds their fall.

Apple changed it by charging .99 per track and the streamers now have changed by moving radio to digital.

The problem or question is who's the Branson of this new generation?

Obviously not Drey or the husband of that Kardashion.

I love the digital distribution system we have evolved into and personally would rather pay the artists more directly than the promoters. But some one has to provide the plumbing for we listeners to get the water.

 

[Enabledobject]

I still can't subscribe to streaming music. I understand if you're on Wifi, but to use data to listen to music? F*** that.

 

[Four oF NINE]

Apple needs to separate out COMPLETELY their subscription service from iTunes. iTunes has been made worse to better accommodate their subscription service, that is to say, the improvements to THAT service have been at the expense of the iTunes experience for MY music.

That applies to OS 12 Sierra as well as iOS 10

Apple deleting all those free radio streams was a douche move as well.

 

[Nr123*123]

Of course Apple Music customers aren't former Spotify customers. Spotify customers know what a good UI is and wouldn't change it for the mess that Apple Music is.

 

[apolloa]

The Courage to Aid the Music Industry's 'Fragile Recovery'. Give me a break.

A dollar for every thousand streaming plays. What a disgrace.

The best way to support music is to get out and go see your favorite artists play.

Totally agree, isn't this the same people who took 10 year olds to court for millions and millions of dollars because they downloaded an album?

 

[DoctaSfink]

I still can't subscribe to streaming music. I understand if you're on Wifi, but to use data to listen to music? F*** that.

I still don't understand this. You do not need to use a single MB of data to get all the music you want from Apple Music. Sure, you can't stream it anywhere you want, but you have access to an incredibly massive catalog of music as soon as you are on a wifi connection and you can play that music wherever and whenever you want without using any data.

Do you not have a wifi connection?

 

[apolloa]

Apple needs to separate out COMPLETELY their subscription service from iTunes. iTunes has been made worse to better accommodate their subscription service, that is to say, the improvements to THAT service have been at the expense of the iTunes experience for MY music.

That applies to OS 12 Sierra as well as iOS 10

Apple deleting all those free radio streams was a douche move as well.

That will NEVER happen, in fact it will only get worst and worst as Cook has publically sated he wants to concentrate on services now.

 

[bjet767]

MP3's and such killed music for me. I bought 700-800$ worth of music on iTunes and it just wasn't the same.

So many great bands I had heard just by hanging out in a record store in the 80's and 90's

So maybe it's not really listening to the music, it's the combination of listen to the adventure and experience you created by seeking out the music.

Maybe it's seeing a collection of records on the shelf and remembering how one got them, the concert or the situation they were first heard.

I tend to play music that reminds me of something, which is why much of the pop music is really pointless. Just noise.

Notice only the best Mozart is played, not the many charts he wrote over his years.

Does anyone really remember who Chicago was or is it 25 or 6 to 4 we still hear?

Music is powerful and it's not about elevators or car music (think streaming) that provides noise to fill the void of the moment.

I think you can guess I really don't care about a starving music industry exec or the latest pop wannabe at all.

The way they deliver music changes, but how we hear it is timeless.

 

[bladerunner2000]

Has the green button bug been fixed yet? Expanding all windows while hiding the menu bar and dock menu is stupid when I need access to those things at all times.

Also, has SIP finally been fixed to allow 3rd party apps like TotalFinder / XtraFinder to work or does Apple still disrespect developers?

 

[marty1980]

We never had the free stations in the UK so I obviously haven't missed those being made exclusive to Apple Music subscribers and only occasionally use the iOS app so I've probably not noticed it as much as you. I do get pissed off though every time Apple discards my preference settings when there's an update to iTunes or iOS and turns Apple Music back on after I've purposefully hidden it from view.

Omg I'm with you on the changing settings. Its so frustrating that I've opted out of these things just for them to automatically turn it back on.

 

[JamesPDX]

Remember this tried and true multi-streaming service? It was called FM radio. An it sounded great because whether via Cart, CD, DAT, or vinyl, the audio went through just enough Orban/CRL, etc. real-time processing before hitting the transmitter. to make that signal come out the other end sounding much better than what I'm hearing. -As long as your station had a powerful transmitter and you weren't on the fringes of the dial, where you need more overmodulation protection. Yes, there were ads. If you're ever in Portland, check out 89.9 FM All Classical.org. One thing I loved about LA? Great radio stations and lots of them. And they were all free.
[doublepost=1474402160][/doublepost]

So maybe it's not really listening to the music, it's the combination of listen to the adventure and experience you created by seeking out the music.

Maybe it's seeing a collection of records on the shelf and remembering how one got them, the concert or the situation they were first heard.

I tend to play music that reminds me of something, which is why much of the pop music is really pointless. Just noise.

Notice only the best Mozart is played, not the many charts he wrote over his years.

Does anyone really remember who Chicago was or is it 25 or 6 to 4 we still hear?

Music is powerful and it's not about elevators or car music (think streaming) that provides noise to fill the void of the moment.

I think you can guess I really don't care about a starving music industry exec or the latest pop wannabe at all.

The way they deliver music changes, but how we hear it is timeless.

Van Cliburn playing with Kiril Kondrashin and Symphony of the Air, May 1958, Carnegie Hall. Thank god they recorded that. For rock? Listen to Journey's Escape from 1981. No sequencers, no auto-tune, they didn't even use a click track. They sold over 5 milllion (actual units) in about 5 weeks. Without the internet or Twitter or Facebook.

 

[DoctaSfink]

Remember this tried and true multi-streaming service? It was called FM radio. An it sounded great because whether via Cart, CD, DAT, or vinyl, the audio went through just enough Orban/CRL, etc. real-time processing before hitting the transmitter. to make that signal come out the other end sounding much better than what I'm hearing. -As long as your station had a powerful transmitter and you weren't on the fringes of the dial, where you need more overmodulation protection. Yes, there were ads. If you're ever in Portland, check out 89.9 FM All Classical.org. One thing I loved about LA? Great radio stations and lots of them. And they were all free.

Lots and lots of ads, all of which I would be happy to pay away for the sake of my sanity.

 

[sleepydinosaur]

So maybe it's not really listening to the music, it's the combination of listen to the adventure and experience you created by seeking out the music.

Maybe it's seeing a collection of records on the shelf and remembering how one got them, the concert or the situation they were first heard.

I tend to play music that reminds me of something, which is why much of the pop music is really pointless. Just noise.

Notice only the best Mozart is played, not the many charts he wrote over his years.

Does anyone really remember who Chicago was or is it 25 or 6 to 4 we still hear?

Music is powerful and it's not about elevators or car music (think streaming) that provides noise to fill the void of the moment.

I think you can guess I really don't care about a starving music industry exec or the latest pop wannabe at all.

The way they deliver music changes, but how we hear it is timeless.

You would be mostly correct
But as the article deals with how music is packaged and distributed, my feeling is that this can and does affect the enjoyment of the music itself.

My collection is a tightly curated library of music that feeds my soul. Whether it be Beatles, Swans, Skinny Puppy or Mozart, Handel and Miles Davis. It's about enjoyment, memories of happier times and time spent loving and collecting.

My personal feeling is that streaming can, but doesn't, mean this to many who (as you said) need noise constantly playing.

But I do believe that having nice artwork and a physical object to hold and admire adds to music's enjoyment.

 

[PJA]

Well from where I stand, the fact they they moved the stations behind the paywall making it difficult for me to discover music, is an important change. The fact that just about anything I want to do pops up some message about 3 month free trial is an important and annoying change. And since there is no itunes on the phone, just music which is totally biased towards streaming, I would say that is an important change. Other than that, sure, it hasn't changed at all.

What are you talking about??? iTunes is still on the phone in a seperate app from music as it's always been.

 

[2457282]

What are you talking about??? iTunes is still on the phone in a seperate app from music as it's always been.

No, what you have on your phone is itunes store to purchase music. if you want to listen, streaming or your own stuff, you have Apple Music that seems to prefer that you stream. So ironically they seem to be at odds with each other.