ArmCortexA8
macrumors 65816
60 million people paying for music which they apparently don't own - lol. 60 million fools. Who in their right mind pays for music.
Apple Music Now Has 60 Million Paid Subscribers
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Abazigal
Contributor
I see it as paying for the convenience of being able to access any music I want, when I want it.
truthertech
macrumors 68020
You make the mistake of assuming Apple's target is Spotify when that isn't how Apple operates. That's the common error people make about companies, including Apple. Apple sometimes ends up as Number 1 in a category because they blow away the competition (Apple Watch, tablets, wireless headphones, premium headphones, all in one computers, Apple News, etc. ), but that's not their goal. They want to focus on a quality experience for their customers that produces a profit for Apple. They are content to produce a smart phone that is the envy of everyone else and produces a good profit, so it doesn't matter that Android sales dwarf iPhones.
In music streaming, Spotify dwarfs Apple and is growing faster. Spotify is now around 200 MILLION total subscribers. But that's about as meaningful to Apple as saying that Android sales dwarf iPhone sales. Apple created Apple Music to strengthen their fantastic ecosystem. AM music is number 2 in the entire world and that's perfect from Apple's perspective.
Spotify is a one trick pony that has hemorrhaged money, and their only long term hope is to get bought out and made part of someone's offering (Disney?). They're desperately throwing money at podcasters trying to create another income category, and they are running to governments crying foul and begging them to do something after they used the App Store to become, by far, the largest music streaming service on the planet, and where Apple doesn't receive a single penny for the vast majority of Spotify customers using the App store.
Meanwhile, Apple Music chugs along and continues to add millions every year and Apple leverages it so many ways that Spotify can only dream of while paying musicians and other artists much more than Spotify, offering more songs, and being in more countries. It's called winning folks!
Do you think Apple produces competitive products without looking at their competition?
Okay
derekamoss
macrumors 65816
What no one is pointing out though is Spotify has a free Tier with ads and their premium tier which costs the same as Apple's gets you a free Hulu Plus account included. Hmmm which is the better offer. If spotify has half of the paid subscribers Apple music does IMO it's still more healthy considering they have a free tier and arent even installed default on any phone or computer as well where Apple Music only has paid tier and has that many people because its default installed and no free tier and they push it heavily.Unfortunately, I cannot comment on radio. WiFi at work is too poor to stream music on so I'm limited to whatever I've downloaded.
The Spotify Discovery playlisted tended to be quite good, as was the New Release playlist. Those are updated weekly. As far as I know (and I'd like to be wrong), Apple Music doesn't appear to have a Discovery style playlist. It does have a New Music playlist that's also updated weekly, but I've not found as much nice stuff on that as Spotify. Apple Music "For You" tab has my Favourites Playlist, a Chill Playlist (which I've never used) and a New Music playlist. I'd like a Discovery one, and more of these sort of playlists.
But it is improving. It no longer makes ridiculously obvious suggestions for me. It used to say things like "You liked the Black Keys. Perhaps you'd like this album, by the Black Keys?".
[doublepost=1561663240][/doublepost]
I think for edge cases, Spotify can still beat Apple Music for weird stuff. Like you, I find that most of my stuff is on Apple Music and I'm happy. But my kids like some video game and youtube stars who are now musicians (some of it is kinda fun, but not my thing), and Spotify is much better for that. So I'm forced to have a Spotify family account for them and Apple Music for me.
derekamoss
macrumors 65816
What drugs are you doing my friend because I want some if you say they are number 1 in all in one computers(look at the Surface Studio) and Apple News( which a macrumors news article a few days ago said publishers werent happy with it at all.) I'll give you the Apple Watch, they do have the best smart Watch, as for premium headphones, if you think beats is the best headphones you can get..... You havent looked. Now for tablets? Youre saying Apple has the best tablets out there compared to all of the other tablets... no. How can it be a better tablet when it doesnt have multiple usb slots, a micro SD slot, a display output running from HDMI, Displayport USB C, a kickstand(which believe it or not a lot of people like. Real Mouse and Keyboard support, an OS that isnt just a blown up phone os with a few "tablet" features put in, and the ability to run full desktop apps, games(that don't have to be from the store) and an actual web browser. iPadOS is not a real desktop browser.(All they did was say hey, now we have this huge screen so why dont we stop making everything mobile tagged and have what every other Windows tablet has had forever... I can keep going...
BipolarAnt
macrumors newbie
The reason iTunes has music that Apple Music doesn't is because Apple doesn't have permission to put it on there. The artist/label only wants it to be sold, not streamed.
Last edited:
Abazigal
Contributor
This reminds me of how android users like to flaunt Android’s higher market share in front of iPhone users, like it’s supposed to mean something when the Apple ecosystem continues to come out ahead in areas that matter to me as an iPhone user.
Apple’s next marginal customer is different from Spotify’s next marginal customer. Or to put it another way, Apple Music subscribers are very likely iPhone users, who on average tend to have more disposable income.
I think Spotify has greater things to worry about than beating Apple Music in users. Apple is slowly but surely stealing (or “converting”) their best customers (ie: those in more developed countries who pay full price). This leaves Spotify more squeezed for revenue, and it becomes harder to see how they will ever turn a profit, and continue to stay on in business in the long term. Especially with the integration of Apple Music with Apple hardware and software giving Apple an added competitive advantage over Spotify.
macfacts
macrumors 603
Funny it works out to be almost 30%. Apple's normal cut of app store purchases. I think that is proof apple is using their apple tax to gain an advantage in AM.
Abazigal
Contributor
You know there is nothing stopping Apple from cutting their prices even lower, since they don’t need to make a profit, right?
The issue isn’t whether Apple is using their App Store to gain an advantage, but that Spotify simply doesn’t have a sustainable business model. Even without the cut they are paying Apple for what seems to be a minority of their subscribers, Spotify still won’t be profitable.
That’s the elephant in the room they are unable and unwilling to address.
macfacts
macrumors 603
And Apple pays higher royalties than Spotify. Each additional subscriber is costing Apple.
Shanghaichica
macrumors G5
Why wouldn’t you want to reward someone for their work?
Or should artists work for free?
truthertech
macrumors 68020
Do you think Apple produces competitive products without looking at their competition?
Okay
Is that a serious question? Apple is the guru of studying the market, which includes their competition. That's why they don't rush in and have failed product after failed product like Google. But the point you miss isn't that Apple studies its competition, but rather you mistakenly assume that their goal is to be #1 in sales when that's irrelevant to them.
To explain it with just one product category, smart speakers, Apple never set out to compete with the "throw away" Echos or the Assistants that Amazon and Google lose money on, just to try and get market penetration. Instead, Apple wanted to produce a premium quality speaker that had exceptional audio quality and that didn't look like the cheap and ugly speakers. Voila, the HomePod. Apple blew away the competition with audio quality and features the others couldn't match. And because Apple put in a powerful A8 processor, they just keep chugging along with feature improvements. I just picked up two more at Best Buy for $200 each on a fantastic sale as they work exceptionally well and have fantastic sound. Another Apple homerun.
[doublepost=1561907144][/doublepost]
Whoa! Down Nellie! Take a deep breath, relax and learn. As they say, "facts don't care about your feelings." You may not like Apple products, but that doesn't mean they don't dominate most of the categories they enter. Apple News has over 100 MILLION regular monthly users and is number 1 in the world. The iMac is by far #1 in the All in One market (the Surface Studio doesn't even register on that market scale.) Beats is now #1 in the world in sales of premium headphones which the industry defines as those costing more than $200. Apple is now #1 in the entire world in total sales of wireless headphones. In tablets, the iPad is so dominant, it really is THE CATEGORY. Ditto the Apple WATCH.
Again, it's not Apple's goal to be number 1 in sales, they just end up often doing so because their products are so superior. You may hate their products, but the hundreds of millions of people around the globe who will buy an Apple product this year, are voting with their dollars. Sorry. I know that hurts.
Last edited:
truthertech
macrumors 68020
Bingo! Spotify should be a case study for people to understand modern tech businesses. Spotify was created by wealthy venture capitalists whose goal all along was to build up the number of subscribers in order to get to a point where they could go pubic and get the heck out. That's why they were content to lose hundreds of millions of dollars with a business model that never made sense, and they were willing to short change musicians and artists because they weren't in it for the long run.
Spotify is a one trick pony competing against companies like Apple, Amazon, Google, etc., that can leverage their music streaming businesses to add value to their other numerous revenue streams. Music streaming is essentially a commoditized business where consumers are extremely price sensitive, so Spotify can't raise prices to become profitable. Indeed, they've had to lower prices to match everything Apple Music has offered, e.g., student and family plans. Apple could put out their lights at any time by simply lowering AM price or even offering it for free with their eco system, but Apple benefits from Spotify having 200 MILLION total subscribers to Apple's 60 MILLION, as it makes Spotify's claims that they have been hurt by the App store a laughable claim.
*And you're right that Spotify has mislead everyone as only for a small fraction of its customers does Apple get even a penny. Spotify used the App store to become by far the largest streaming business in the world, but over half of its customers use the free, ad supported version, and a large chunk of the others sign up directly on their web site, with the remainder Apple getting mainly a 15%, not 30% cut.
I guess it depends on your definition of "proof."
There's little connection between App Store purchases which incur a reasonable 30% profit from app sellers, and consumers being able to snag a yearly Apple Music subscription at a 30% discount through Costco iTunes cards that are occasionally discounted from the normal 6% to 15%.
Yes, the 30% number happens to be the same. But the equitable commission Apple charges 3rd party app sellers, and the discounted price Apple charges consumers for a music subscription are unrelated and independent.
For me, that's not even close to being proof. It's a coincidence.
derekamoss
macrumors 65816
I don't hate Apple at all. Just because something is number one doesn't automatically equate it to being superior. If Apple had an iPad with a desktop class OS on it, I might very well think about switching back, if Apple hand an iMac like the Surface Studio, I would be very drawn towards it. As for Apple music, availability and brand recognition does not equate to a superior product either.
I'm not biased against Apple, I have had a love hate relationship with them since 2000. Even when I thought they were at their best they still faltered, but lately , there has been a lot more faltering. Everyone says Microsoft really shouldn't have lost the smart phone war because they already had the tech out there but never did anything with it. They lost the MP3 war with the Zune because they didn't know what to do with it The same even more so can be said about Apple. They mainstreamed multi touch displays but yet are way behind everyone else in implementing them in anything other than iPhone/iPad. They mainstreamed the Tablet, but are way behind everyone else in implementing it more than just a tablet and not being a true 2 in 1. They mainstreamed the all in 1, yet never innovated beyond what it originally was and Microsoft beat them to it with the Apple Studio. When Apple made superior products, believe me, spent ALOT of money on them. They might be #1 in a lot of categories for sells but im ok with sticking with #2 in sells if the products are much more valuable.
Baymowe335
Suspended
Hilarious take. Tell me how “owning” the music makes a damn bit of difference?
Abazigal
Contributor
I think therein lies the issue - Apple deals with mainstream products. Something like the surface studio, while innovative, is too niche and specialised and will never sell enough units for Apple to justify the resources that went into designing it. I mean, how many units has Microsoft sold even? And if it's drawing you want, Apple has the iPad Pro, and you can now even pair it to your Mac via Sidecar.
Abazigal
Contributor
I can see the logic behind it. Say I stop paying for Apple Music today. I have nothing (tangible) to show for all my years of having subscribed to said service. Conversely, say I spend $10 a month on music. 4 years later, I will have my own library with a formidable library of songs built up. And it's there to stay, long after I have stopped subscribing.
Rather than dispute this, I think it might be more productive to discuss how an all-you-can-eat streaming model opens new doors and opportunities. I wasn't a music listener prior to Apple Music. Till this day, I have not spent a cent on purchasing a single song. As mentioned above, what Apple Music offers is the convenience of being able to access any song I want, when I want it.
For example, I can choose any playlist I want and not have to worry that I don't have any of the songs in my library. It also makes me more open to trying new music, because I don't have to think of whether to purchase it or not. It's there. I have already paid for it (in a sense).
And I really am not missing $10 a month.
Shirasaki
macrumors P6
Even though nobody here technically “own” any music, users with a huge library Built up over time has something they can rely on when streaming service is out of business or they stop subscribing. I will still say this. Streaming is the best service model for discovering new contents. But that’s it. That is its sole purpose, period.
[doublepost=1561978931][/doublepost]
While I am hoping for it, I don think this will happen.
Instead, they might drop selling physical format entirely, forcing everyone to subscribe Apple Music. i got lucky that my main music source is from Japan and they don’t care about music streaming that much.
derekamoss
macrumors 65816
Niche and specialized is in the root of Apple. Apple cube, even the first iMac, colors on a computer etc etc. Apple has never been mainstream. Maybe you think that way if your first Apple product was an iPhone or a macbook pro. If they were mainstreamed i doubt they would have kept the slogan "Think Different" as long as they did. Don't get me started on the iPad. The only reason you are able to draw on your iPad is because the Surface line was gaining traction in the tablet field and had a Stylus. Apple would have never done it otherwise. Jobs made a huge deal about stylus back in the day saying no one wanted it..
Baymowe335
Suspended
Agreed you have nothing, but you also paid a small price for an almost infinite library while you're paying. It would cost many times more if you wanted to own every song you found appealing for a few weeks, so the $10/month to stream whatever is a great value.
20 years ago, I paid upwards of $24.99 for a 10 song album. Sure, I "own" that album, but not much else. There are VERY few songs worth buying to play over and over. The Apple service allows you to move with the times and discover new music.
For the stuff worth buying, you can still do that on a limited basis.
Doesn't Apple offer a way to own the songs too? I see that as a completely different purchase.
Abazigal
Contributor
That’s one upside of going with Apple Music. Some songs I listen to have recently become unavailable, so in theory, I could just purchase them from iTunes to complete my playlist. Yay for your music player and your music streaming player all being the one same app.
ErikGrim
macrumors 604
The Mac Pro? Pro Display XDR? Heck, arguably throw in the HomePods, the tiny MacBook and even the Apple Pencil in there. Apple does niche just fine