Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

wigby

macrumors 68030
Jun 7, 2007
2,753
2,719
With the same argument you could ask for an updated iPod Classic and iPod Nano.
[doublepost=1523467922][/doublepost]
A key question here is how many Apple Music subscribers are Android users. It is quite believable that Apple Music has a clear edge on iOS. But what is its market share on Android?
Not true. Apple still sells iPod Touch (although it took me a few minutes to find it on their website) but they discontinued all other iPod models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 69Mustang

szw-mapple fan

macrumors 68040
Jul 28, 2012
3,481
4,342
The difference is Apple is profitable and Spotify is bleeding money. Apple will win this race. Only question is when.

The difference is also that it’s not Apple’s main business. They can afford to pay artists more or advertise more even at a huge loss initially (not that they are, but it’s also another huge advantage they have).
 

deanthedev

Suspended
Sep 29, 2017
1,287
2,406
Vancouver
The difference is that Apple Music could bleed money forever without going under. Spotify cannot.

I doubt Apple is bleeding money with Apple Music. Unlike Spotify, Apple doesn't have close to 100 million free users that are costing them more money than they get back in ad revenues.
 

Nikiaf

macrumors regular
Mar 18, 2013
119
288
I tried Apple Music when it launched, the app and overall experience was underwhelming to say the least. Couple that with how sluggish iTunes is on Windows means that I won't even consider using it again. Spotify is just too good, from the snappy, well-designed app, to the far superior music discovery.
 

npmacuser5

macrumors 68000
Apr 10, 2015
1,758
1,966
The difference is Apple is profitable and Spotify is bleeding money. Apple will win this race. Only question is when.
Bleeding money not always a bad thing. Many said exactly the same thing about Amazon bleeding money for more years then Spotify. Two things will need to change so music services are profitable long term. Free subscribers and family plans. Both will need to be significantly tightened up. Especially the family plan, go from $10 a month per user to as low $2.5 a month per user. And the family members tend to be the more expensive users for music services. Nice to see Apple being competitive in music.
 

dirt_farmer

macrumors regular
Apr 2, 2018
215
447
Umm, a billion iOS users and only 4% of them use the built-in music platform?

EDIT: Corrected by another user. Apple Music works on other platforms too.

So a billion iOS users and *less than* 4% of them use the built-in music platform.

Sounds like a big win!! Narf.
 
Last edited:

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
I doubt Apple is bleeding money with Apple Music. Unlike Spotify, Apple doesn't have close to 100 million free users that are costing them more money than they get back in ad revenues.
Which is why I used the word 'could' instead of 'can'. Apple for many years said that the iTunes Music Store was run at about breakeven. My guess is that Apple Music isn't too far off, Apple's idea of a loss leader is usually at worst a breakeven product. But if they wanted, they could run it at a loss easily.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Umm, a billion iOS users and only 4% of them use the built-in music platform?
That assumes that all 40 million Apple Music users are using iOS devices and that almost nobody uses the Android version of Apple Music. Based on that assumption, you could say that there are over two billion Android users and less than 4% of them use a music streaming service (ok, that ignores Google Music but I think even if you add that in, you won't be far from 4%).

Apple Music has a marketing advantage on iOS, compared to Spotify on Android. But has the Siri-Apple Music integration a counterpart on Android? Google Music and Google Assistant should be integrated as well and I'm not sure if Alexa and Google Assistant cannot interface with Spotify as well.
 

spazzcat

macrumors 68040
Jun 29, 2007
3,685
4,771
its so weird I don’t know a single person using it nor have I ever heard anyone even mention the term Apple Music. Regional thing?

In my department there is: 1 person using Google, 3 using Spotify, and 3 using AM.
 

AngstyKylo

macrumors regular
Jan 17, 2018
167
182
London UK
The difference is Apple is profitable and Spotify is bleeding money. Apple will win this race. Only question is when.

Spotify will be bought by Microsoft, Amazon or Google at some point, they have way too many subscribers to just let the company die.
 

The Game 161

macrumors Nehalem
Dec 15, 2010
30,276
19,494
UK
still loving my Apple Music. new tracks on my Apple Watch is nice to use when at the gym too without adding them to my playlist.
 

manu chao

macrumors 604
Jul 30, 2003
7,219
3,031
Not true. Apple still sells iPod Touch (although it took me a few minutes to find it on their website) but they discontinued all other iPod models.
Yes, and what has that to do with my point? If the iPod Touch is an important device for music consumption than updating it regularly could be seen as necessary if Apple wants to say that music is in its DNA. By the same token, updating, or more correctly resurrecting other iPod models could also be seen as necessary if we apply the same premise that the other iPod models are important devices for music consumption.

Most will argue that the other iPod models are not important devices for music consumption anymore. My point is that the same could also be said about the iPod Touch. Just because the iPod category was probably one of the most important components in Apple's success in music does not mean that not updating the last device with the iPod name in Apple's lineup (the iPod Touch) is undermining in any really relevant way Apple's standing in regard to music.
 

AppleInLVX

macrumors 65816
Jan 12, 2010
1,238
744
I know that the ratio of what I want to listen to vs. what's available on AM is getting far better. When I first started, I had to keep iTunes in the Cloud going to hold all of my stuff, but this year, it's gotten good enough that I no longer need it. If the improvements keep happening, then I'm a happy Apple nerd.
 

npmacuser5

macrumors 68000
Apr 10, 2015
1,758
1,966
They All essentially have the same music, as in artists and songs. Additionally the costs are about the same for the paid tier (Amazon Prime exception). The differentiator comes down to how important is it for their curation selections, interface app and device availability. Spotify presently has an advantage here. The answer, Very Important. Why Spotify still ahead in the game with Apple.
 

neoelectronaut

Cancelled
Dec 3, 2003
3,417
2,093
Waiting for a discount on iTunes cards and I'm gonna jump in on a year-long subscription.

I just want the streaming service though. All that iCloud match nonsense makes me nervous.
 

urnotl33t

macrumors 6502a
Jan 26, 2017
512
643
Cary, NC, USA
If I have to use iTunes then there's no way I'll use Apple music. So nice to have Spotify do one thing and do it well: music.

Nope, iTunes not required. Last time I used iTunes was when Match was first made available. I matched or uploaded all my music, closed iTunes and never opened it again. 2011, I think it was?
 
  • Like
Reactions: CrAkD
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.