Apple Music Growing at Record Pace With Two Million Subscribers Added in Just Five Weeks

[oneMadRssn]

The issue here is music copyright. Every time technology allows for a new paradigm of consuming music, a new law invariably gets passed to "fix" music copyright, which just makes the entire process of tracking payments even more convoluted and confusing. It's wasteful, it's inefficient, and there's really nothing these companies can do about it, because they are not the ones who wrote the rules in the first place.

Agreed. So to the extend the current streaming system is unsustainable, wouldn't you agree that instead of passing those wasteful and inefficient costs to the consumers in the form of price-hikes it would be better to improve the system such that costs can remain the same or even lower.

I'll note this too: If companies that don't have any other non-streaming product go under (Spotify, Pandora, Tidal), and the remaining companies jack their prices up (Apple, Amazon, Google), then I think a lot of consumers will be quite upset at the music industry as a whole. It would also reek of price-fixing all over again. Maybe that needs to happen to light a fire and solve the problem you identified above, but either way it would really stink.

 

[Abazigal]

Agreed. And I wonder if there is some strategy here in hitting Spotify—again, if it goes to trial—to figure this all out. I would imagine that Wixen chose Spotify to challenge the position of this copyright spiderweb because they know Spotify doesn’t have the resources to fight this one out, but they do know that Apple, Amazon, and Google do, and if they win over Spotify by de facto they will just turn around and collect their “royalties” from the Big Three. Can you imagine if Spotify finds itself in a position to join forces with the other streamers so they can all save their $$ if they lose? Baffling to me nonetheless.

I think it's more likely that Spotify simply folds one day and gets acquired by Amazon.

Do note that I am not trying to dump on Spotify here. It appears to be a very efficiently run company, but it's clearly a victim of the constraints placed on it by the record companies, and past a certain point, one really has to ask - is it worth it?

 

[oneMadRssn]

Agreed. And I wonder if there is some strategy here in hitting Spotify—again, if it goes to trial—to figure this all out. I would imagine that Wixen chose Spotify to challenge the position of this copyright spiderweb because they know Spotify doesn’t have the resources to fight this one out, but they do know that Apple, Amazon, and Google do, and if they win over Spotify by de facto they will just turn around and collect their “royalties” from the Big Three. Can you imagine if Spotify finds itself in a position to join forces with the other streamers so they can all save their $$ if they lose? Baffling to me nonetheless.

Not saying this is the situation here, I have no idea. But in my experience I have heard of this: A company couldn't afford defending a patent infringement lawsuit that could affect the entire industry. The company went to their competitors and asked for industry help fighting the lawsuit through an industry alliance organization, because if the first company lost it would set up a roadmap to win against everyone else. The industry stepped up and helped the company fight the lawsuit, even though they were essentially helping defend their own competition. In that regard, I wouldn't be shocking if companies like Google or Amazon kicked in a bit to the attorneys for Spotify's defense fund for the same purpose of defending the industry as a whole.

 

[Abazigal]

Agreed. So to the extend the current streaming system is unsustainable, wouldn't you agree that instead of passing those wasteful and inefficient costs to the consumers in the form of price-hikes it would be better to improve the system such that costs can remain the same or even lower.

I absolutely agree with you 100% here.

Problem is - how would one go about improving the system, and whose job is it anyways? These companies have no power to rewrite legislation, and I am not familiar enough with your US legal system to suggest any solutions.

 

[oneMadRssn]

I absolutely agree with you 100% here.

Problem is - how would one go about improving the system, and whose job is it anyways? These companies have no power to rewrite legislation, and I am not familiar enough with your US legal system to suggest any solutions.

Heh, companies write legislation here all the time. It's all about whether they are willing to spend the money to lobby harder than the industry groups (ASCAP and BMI) are already lobbying to keep the laws convoluted and difficult. Also, legislatively speaking, we have more pressing (and more orange) problems than copyright fees at the moment, if you know what I mean.

 

[kimmen]

Pandora was first with streaming music in the early 2000's. They could have had world domination, but blew it because they cut off all their listeners in the rest of the world (I'm one of them), and consentrated on the US market.
They could have been Spotify, but ended up like Kodak

 

[zooby]

I disagree. We don't know enough to say whether this is bad or good for Spotify.

If most Apple Music subscribers are first-time music streaming subscription customers, this is good for Spotify. Apple has done the hard work of convincing someone to pay monthly for music streaming. In theory then going forward, all Spotify has to is convert more people from AM to Spotify than Apple converts from Spotify to AM. They can do this either by being lower cost, offering a better app, or having better playlists/algorithms.

If most of Apply Music subscribers are being converted from Spotify or Tidal or whatever, then this is bad for Spotify.

Considering Spotify's numbers are also growing, I would wager the situation is the former and not the latter. Thus, the whole industry is growing, and this is good news for Spotify.

Except Spotify won't be able to convert people from AM to their service. It's too much of a hassle for the average person to have to start all over. It's why the free trial was a perfect idea - that way, people are too far into their music library to convert to another streaming service.

 

[oneMadRssn]

Except Spotify won't be able to convert people from AM to their service. It's too much of a hassle for the average person to have to start all over. It's why the free trial was a perfect idea - that way, people are too far into their music library to convert to another streaming service.

It's an equal hassle going both ways. If it's such a hassle to switch, then Spotify should feel pretty safe that none of their users are going to switch to AM or Pandora Premium or whatever.

 

[zooby]

It's an equal hassle going both ways. If it's such a hassle to switch, then Spotify should feel pretty safe that none of their users are going to switch to AM or Pandora Premium or whatever.

But that totally defeats everything else you argued about. I mean, the way things are going on Spotify, they have a lot more to lose. Yes, Spotify has twice as many users (as the article states), but how many are users with the free tier? They don't make enough out of these free users. (See article: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...iden-after-music-site-flags-accounting-errors)

You're saying this is good and they have nothing to worry about, but they are operating at a loss. One of the reason Apple Music users can feel "safe" is that Apple Music is not Apple's only baby. Spotify is only in the music streaming business.

 

[Michael Scrip]

There are so may opinions to be had with these services.

Sure... someone who carefully creates dozens of playlists will feel friction if they ever decided to move to another service. And I can certainly see why.

And in another direction... I guess these aren't the same people who think "renting" music absurd. You're paying every month and you never actually own anything. I can see that too.

 

[Michael Goff]

There are so may opinions to be had with these services.

Sure... someone who carefully creates dozens of playlists will feel friction if they ever decided to move to another service. And I can certainly see why.

And in another direction... I guess these aren't the same people who think "renting" music absurd. You're paying every month and you never actually own anything. I can see that too.

Technically, anything you buy digitally you don't own anyway. Not in a legal sense.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Technically, anything you buy digitally you don't own anyway. Not in a legal sense.

Of course... that's a fair point. But that's a whole other can o' worms. I didn't intend to get into a discussion about "ownership" today. But you're right.

I just meant if you buy a song... at least you have something.

But if you stop paying for a streaming service... you have nothing.

I remember all the hullabaloo about streaming in general. It was the classic "rent" vs "buy" argument.

But no one really talks about that anymore... as streaming is now more commonplace and the conversation has switched to "moving playlists between monthly streaming services"

It was just an observation.

 

[zooby]

Of course... that's a fair point. But that's a whole other can o' worms. I didn't intend to get into a discussion about "ownership" today. But you're right.

I just meant if you buy a song... at least you have something.

But if you stop paying for a streaming service... you have nothing.

I remember all the hullabaloo about streaming in general. It was the classic "rent" vs "buy" argument.

But no one really talks about that anymore... as streaming is now more commonplace and the conversation has switched to "moving playlists between monthly streaming services"

It was just an observation.

Not the guy you were replying to, but I find this argument so strange. $10 per month is practically nothing for what you get. For the price of 9 or so songs - maybe less if they are "new" songs? It's no wonder everyone prefers streaming to flat out buying.

I mean, look at Netflix. Is that strange to you as well? You don't technically "own" those movies too, but no one brings up "I like to own my 'movies'" in those threads.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Not the guy you were replying to, but I find this argument so strange. $10 per month is practically nothing for what you get. For the price of 9 or so songs - maybe less if they are "new" songs? It's no wonder everyone prefers streaming to flat out buying.

I mean, look at Netflix. Is that strange to you as well? You don't technically "own" those movies too, but no one brings up "I like to own my 'movies'" in those threads.

Oh I agree. I am an Apple Music subscriber. I was on-board at launch. (Netflix too!)

It's just funny how there used to be "rent" vs "buy" arguments a while ago... but not anymore. Streaming seems normal now.

Now the issue is switching between different streaming services. There were comments earlier about moving playlists from Spotify to Apple Music, or vice-versa. And how much of a hassle it is.

I was just noticing how the conversation changed, that's all.

 

[Abazigal]

It's an equal hassle going both ways. If it's such a hassle to switch, then Spotify should feel pretty safe that none of their users are going to switch to AM or Pandora Premium or whatever.

Apple can use platform integration and hardware to force users to switch to Apple Music (like the Apple Watch and HomePod). What does Spotify have to incentivise iPhone users to switch from Apple Music?

 

[AidenL]

The sad thing is I use it only because the library is widest, and its deep into apples ecosystem.

I much prefer spotify over apple music

I agree. I actually WANT to prefer Apple Music, but Spotify just seems more rounded and better at what it does. I can’t think of anything that AM is better at, other than stream quality.

Different countries get different prices.

99 euros here annually in Ireland, where are you based?

 

[Heineken]

I agree. I actually WANT to prefer Apple Music, but Spotify just seems more rounded and better at what it does. I can’t think of anything that AM is better at, other than stream quality.



99 euros here annually in Ireland, where are you based?

My wife is from Lithuania. Very happy with my wifi as well as Apple Music

 

[ipponrg]

What does Spotify have to incentivise iPhone users to switch from Apple Music?

- Better UX on both desktop and mobile
- Better music discovery
- Not being tethered to 1 a single device manufacturer
- Better social integration
- A workout mode

The bottom line is if you are a die-hard Apple faithful, Apple Music will probably become the better choice as they roll out more features. I'm skeptical given Apple's questionable history on software and services.

However, if you are someone who is not loyal to any platform, then without question Spotify is much better.