Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
The main advantage to Apple Music is that I can browse music/podcasts/radio etc. using the controls on my steering wheel. Other than that, I wouldn't be using it.
 
That $3B acquisition of Beats is now looking like a bargain huh?

$600M per year in recurring revenue in the music streaming business and Beats’ hardware division is worth $1B on its own.

60 million subscribers x $99/year subscription fee = ~$6 billion revenue. Maybe you meant profit?
 
Because you can't listen to a specific song or album with radio. Why would I sit there and listen to randomly generated songs when I can listen to exactly what I want to listen to? Radio is fine for background noise, but paying 10 bucks a month to listen to exactly what I want to hear when I want to hear it is well worth the minimal cost.

I prefer free, plenty of good stations/music on the radio, also, not a lot of ads here, once an hour.

I've setup running and mood playlists. Running to a radio station would be pretty terrible, especially with ads, DJs and varying tempo songs.

This was the norm just a few years back, few ads here, just a few minutes once an hour, DJ's are fun on most channels here.
 
That $3B acquisition of Beats is now looking like a bargain huh?

$600M per year in recurring revenue in the music streaming business and Beats’ hardware division is worth $1B on its own.

Um, try $600 million per month. $7.2 billion per year.

And considering the music industry was worth under $15 billion when Apple bought Beats, it's even more impressive. All this new revenue should be a lesson to media execs in making content accessible and pricing reasonably.
 
That $3B acquisition of Beats is now looking like a bargain huh?

$600M per year in recurring revenue in the music streaming business and Beats’ hardware division is worth $1B on its own.
Sure, but Apple Music almost definitely has lower gross margins than Apple broadly. Their costs are somewhat fixed as a percentage of revenue, by the rights holders of the music, just like Spotify or any other streaming service.
 
Apple didn’t need Beats to stand up a streaming music service. Heck most of the Beats staff are gone. Legacy iTunes staff are running things.

Apple didn’t need SoundJam to start iTunes either but it gave them a head start. Same with Beats. It gave them all of Beats’ existing streaming contracts as well as an installed base of subscribers to start from. The app itself was the least of their worries.
 
That $3B acquisition of Beats is now looking like a bargain huh?

$600M per year in recurring revenue in the music streaming business and Beats’ hardware division is worth $1B on its own.

I won’t be surprised if Apple Music still isn’t profitable, since like Spotify, the bulk of their revenue would still go to labels. Then again, Apple magic doesn’t need to be profitable (yet), and it helps lock users in the Apple ecosystem and sell more hardware, so its prospects still look brighter than Spotify’s at any rate.
 
Apple didn’t need Beats to stand up a streaming music service. Heck most of the Beats staff are gone. Legacy iTunes staff are running things.
Beats gave them an in. Jimmy Iovine and the others had decades worth of deep industry connections that were worth significantly more than the streaming platform itself. It's how they got all their exclusives, knew exactly the right demographics to target and what music was up-and-coming, and how Beats 1 got all of their hosts. By the time all the big Beats people left, the Apple crew had learned enough to run things on their own.

Compare how quickly and smoothly Apple Music launched compared to all the continuing confusion with Apple TV+.
 
I wish they had better playlists and recommendations. It is better now but still average compared to Spotify.

A lot of times I find myself searching spotify for playlists and transferring them to apple music.
 
Because you can't listen to a specific song or album with radio. Why would I sit there and listen to randomly generated songs when I can listen to exactly what I want to listen to? Radio is fine for background noise, but paying 10 bucks a month to listen to exactly what I want to hear when I want to hear it is well worth the minimal cost.

I 100% agree with this! I don't see why people love streaming random music? Great if it's your own collection and want to free up hard drive space but why pay for random playlists? Because even if you really like a song, you can't keep it permanently or the algorithm doesn't guarantee other songs by that artist. If you're the type of person who just wants to know whats popular or like background noise, good for you. Otherwise, radio and the other free streaming services do the same job.
 
Apple Music has 60 million paid subscribers
He also said that Beats 1, Apple's radio station, has "tens of millions of listeners."

Sounds like at least 20 million based on wording otherwise it would be "millions" for under 10 million? Does that really mean than at least 1/3 or all Apple Music listen to Beats 1? Seems like a high number.

He could have also rounded up from single digit. Regardless, it’s nothing more than marketing spin. Take most commentary with a grain of salt.
 
That $3B acquisition of Beats is now looking like a bargain huh?

$600M per year in recurring revenue in the music streaming business and Beats’ hardware division is worth $1B on its own.

“Revenue” isn’t profit. I don’t know what their net is but $600 Million recurring annual revenue is a hell of a return on their initial investment.

This doesn't make any sense.

The $600 million revenue would be monthly and is likely wide of the mark as these figures presumably include AM accounts that are on free trails via carriers like Verizon in the US and EE in the UK, very unlikely that these carriers are reimbursing Apple for the full $10/£10 per month subscription fee. You can't just take the number of users and multiply by ten. Its likely way less.

As you've pointed out yourself revenue isn't profit. You are assuming Apple Music is profitable and its entirely possible that it isn't, given that Spotify rarely turns a profit and they pay lower royalty rates. Most of the revenue brought in by Apple Music will be going straight back out of the door.

So if Apple Music is actually not profitable that would leave Apple to claw back the initial investment from Beats hardware alone and that seems unlikely. They have also had to settle a patent infringement lawsuit with Bose out of court since the acquisition
 
I was an avid Spotify fan for years, but for the last year or so Spotify have let me down. Seems to me that everytime the Spotify UI is updated, it's for the worse.

1. The last few updates have made it harder to browse the discography of an artist, and instead focus on the most popular singles and 'suggested' albums.
2. Waste of space in the app UI.
3. Lack of a light theme.

So, for the last 3 months I've been rocking Apple Music and the _only_ thing I really miss is the Spotify remote control ability. I do miss being able to control music on my desktop from my phone. And no, Airplay is not an adequate alternative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: RudySnow
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.