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 Music Now Has 36 Million Subscribers, Could Eclipse Spotify in United States This Year
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm fine with Apple improving Apple Music, as long as they don't stop offering tracks for sale, as was rumored a while back in an approximately few year's time frame. I fear continued AM subscriber success like this might embolden them to do just that.
I prefer to own my music.
Apple Music v Spotify is actually a brilliant digital marketing case study!
Customers now have the power of choice - we shop around, get recommendations, consider and purchase across multiple platforms, how and when we want and we have very high expectations.
Spotify has catered for this:
- It offers different levels of access and pricing
- It has multiple types of recommendation
- It's socially adept - you can share your playlists and show what you're listening to for your friends
It also has the advantage of being first to market and in a situation where users build a digital catalogue it means they are less likely to rebuild eslewhere.....exactly like when mp3s took off and Apple offered iTunes....people bought their music there and didnt want to rebuild/catalogue elsewhere
Spotify does keep getting bailed out but there's enough clever people backing them to help them sort out their profitability.
Customers now have the power of choice - we shop around, get recommendations, consider and purchase across multiple platforms, how and when we want and we have very high expectations.
Spotify has catered for this:
- It offers different levels of access and pricing
- It has multiple types of recommendation
- It's socially adept - you can share your playlists and show what you're listening to for your friends
It also has the advantage of being first to market and in a situation where users build a digital catalogue it means they are less likely to rebuild eslewhere.....exactly like when mp3s took off and Apple offered iTunes....people bought their music there and didnt want to rebuild/catalogue elsewhere
Spotify does keep getting bailed out but there's enough clever people backing them to help them sort out their profitability.
I enjoyed my trial as well but didn't subscribe at the end. I found out I enjoy podcasts a lot while commuting, and the time available to listen to music at home has reduced dramatically since I've become a father.
Plus, I bought a good number of albums on iTunes during the years, so I have plenty to stuff to listen to.
I guess Apple music is great if you constantly want to discover new stuff, or want to stream music while on the go on your iPhone or Apple Watch now that it has LTE. That's what I did during the trial and I got to know some bands I didn't know about, but it wasn't a compelling reason to spend $10 a month.
Spotify was never profitable prior to Apple entering the music streaming business. If Spotify does fall, then it’s only because it is unfit of survival.
Apple Music may have accelerated the process, but I doubt Spotify would have succeeded on their own anyways.
Is this allowed? I remember a case where Microsoft were found guilty of pushing Internet Explorer in a way that it was affecting competition. Is this the same sort of thing?
Wasn't the IE problem only in the EU?
I've been thinking the same thing. Why doesn't Apple have browser choice when you first install it? It was quite an unfair move towards Microsoft to be fair.
I guess it’s a grey area, given how Apple has only a minority market share in the markets they dabble in. It’s hard to argue that Apple is exhibiting monopolistic behaviour when they don’t own the market the way Microsoft did back in its heyday.
I think Microsoft were also employing bully boy tactics and penalising manufacturers who factory installed alternative browsers. Eventually the European versions of Windows came with a choice of default browser when you first booted up. Microsoft were fined €561 million when they 'accidentally' removed this feature for 14 months.
I don't think Apple are employing similar tactics with Apple Music.
I was on Spotify for a couple of years, but what killed it for me was that I wanted to setup "family" music with my parents and sister, all in different cities, but Spotify only allows shared plans with members in the same household. I am sure that is just a formality in their agreements, but it turned me off their service, while Google Music simply offered a shared music plan for up to 6 people, anywhere. Not sure if Apple Music is limited to the same household or not or if Spotify changed their tune, but the moment you impose ANY restriction on a service it usually causes people to leave. Greedy companies need to suck it up and realize that a loss of SOME profit is better then losing customers over stupid policies.
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what music service you subscribe to unless you are a fan of some elective rare music that only one library has to offer, at the end of the day they all cost the same, all sound the same, and it really comes down to where you can use it. I picked google Home because Apple Music is NOT on Google Home products and Apple didn't have a home assistant product available for the last 18 months. In fact I even cancelled my iTunes Match I had for nearly a decade. I didn't pick Amazon either because they were slow to roll out Music in Canada until just recently. If Apple and Amazon are going to be slow to the game they don't get my business, I am tired of waiting for also-rans to figuring out how to do a service, especially when they finally release it its no different then what is already widely available. Google was first to offer music to Canadians on home assistant speakers, they got my business, period.
At the end of the day, it really doesn't matter what music service you subscribe to unless you are a fan of some elective rare music that only one library has to offer, at the end of the day they all cost the same, all sound the same, and it really comes down to where you can use it. I picked google Home because Apple Music is NOT on Google Home products and Apple didn't have a home assistant product available for the last 18 months. In fact I even cancelled my iTunes Match I had for nearly a decade. I didn't pick Amazon either because they were slow to roll out Music in Canada until just recently. If Apple and Amazon are going to be slow to the game they don't get my business, I am tired of waiting for also-rans to figuring out how to do a service, especially when they finally release it its no different then what is already widely available. Google was first to offer music to Canadians on home assistant speakers, they got my business, period.
Neither was, or will AppleMusic be profitable in its current form:
https://www.macrumors.com/2017/11/29/apple-music-jimmy-iovine-talks-streaming-services/
but they remain in business because of heavy cross-subsidizing (Apple supplying salaries, housing, rights, budgets, staffing, marketing, brand name etc.)
That implies that Apple is disturbing the market with false competition towards companies that don't have deep pockets from other acitvities - wihout even the chance to proof their profitability.
I think Spotify is probably better and cheaper with greater choice but I'm still subscribed to Apple Music through sheer inertia. I wish Apple would revamp iTunes/Music - you literally cannot see what track is playing when you're listening to classical music and there are a dozen other major failures I could list too; not least of which I have to go to a store to buy a gift card with my credit card every few months and use that because Apple Store doesn't accept my credit card online - very weak. It also means I can't do a family sub. I hope Spotify is successful because that is our only chance that Apple will up its game to compete - at this stage Apple deserves to lose and I'm a major Apple fan.
Hard to say there is a level playing field, as long as they selectively apply AppleTax / App revenue % on 3rd parties, while bundling their own native app and cross-subsidizing their own service.
Last edited:
Apple kind of needs Spotify and vice versa. In fact the record companies own a lot of Spotify anyway so the company is really the hedge against Apple (or anyone else) owning streaming. There was a sour taste in the mouth of record companies because Apple controlled online music retailing (itunes), they aren't going to let that happen again. Also, Amazon in books has also freaked out record companies.
I like to think of Spotify as the record companies own digital distributor that exists solely for the benefit of the big 3/4 music companies. It kind of doesn't really have to make a profit if the labels actually make profit right?
I just wonder what the labels will do to at least make spotify seem profitable if the want to IPO?
I just dont know how that works. They cant go to video, podcasting and stuff (youtube/vevo/apple own that space). I feel like at one point the labels will have to reduce their rates to allow Spotify to survive. I cant see any other way.
I like to think of Spotify as the record companies own digital distributor that exists solely for the benefit of the big 3/4 music companies. It kind of doesn't really have to make a profit if the labels actually make profit right?
I just wonder what the labels will do to at least make spotify seem profitable if the want to IPO?
I just dont know how that works. They cant go to video, podcasting and stuff (youtube/vevo/apple own that space). I feel like at one point the labels will have to reduce their rates to allow Spotify to survive. I cant see any other way.
At the time Microsoft Windows held around 95% of the market. Mac and iOS devices have never been anywhere near to achieving such a dominant position.
Spotify has less songs and is the same price as AM. People like Spotify better because of the UI, more open nature, and recommendation algorithms.
I don’t know why you wouldn’t be able to see what track is playing - in iTunes it’s at the top - or why a specific genre would make a difference. The credit card issue seems like something you could work out with Apple and/or your bank/issuer with a little effort.
Last edited:
A lot of Spotify fans don’t realize this. Apple, Google and Amazon can afford to take a loss in music subscriptions because they have other revenue income. Spotify is going to have to make hard choices about their free tier soon.
I never denied that. But it ignores my points and Apple has more financial momentum than MS ever had.
The free service brings in very little income per user relative to what the paid service brings in. The last numbers we have from Spotify show it as having a negative gross margin. In other words, the cost of revenue (which includes things such as delivery costs and payments to rights-holders) for the free service is greater than the revenue from it. So it's fair to say it loses money. But given Spotify's scale, it doesn't lose a lot of money. It's likely worth it, at least Spotify seems to think it is, as a way of funneling people into the paid service. The paid service has a meaningful gross margin and generates a gross profit that is far greater than the gross loss from the free service.
Apple absolutely employs similar algorithms to Spotify - this is an oversimplification to the point that it isn’t correct.
Apple curates their playlists but the weekly recommendations are completely algorithm based. There are only about a dozen employees at Apple that handle curation.
I actually just recently switched from Apple Music to Spotify so I could enjoy my paid music on my Chromebook as well as all my Apple devices. I have way more than 5 Apple devices and it's nice not to be limited to 5 devices that Apple dictates. I enjoy both but I need to have flexibility and Spotify seems to allow for this.