Apple Music Now Playable on Amazon Echo Speakers via Alexa in United States

[Shiro_Simba]

Source?

Wait , you want a source for the number of Apple Music subscribers ??? You can find these easily .

It will be over 50 million now , that help you support your argument how loyal Apple Device owners are ? We are talking 1.3 billion devices here.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/604959/number-of-apple-music-subscribers/

Please now provide a source to support your Claims.

 

[burgman]

Yes, of course!
ON the Alexa App just go to Settings>Music>Default Services> and pick Apple Music or whatever you want as the default service.
That way you don't have to say "Alexa, play xxx on xxxMusic! EASY!

Otherwise known as RTFM

 

[Shiro_Simba]

Most likely Apple isn’t going to compete with the cheaper echo spot more people own those then the bigger more expensive echo

For sure, the HomePod lost the battle of the house assistant , due to Siri and cost. The fact that it’s a much much better speaker does not help when you can get a dot in a room for $50, and one does not need a great speaker on each room . Apple needs a low cost option to take on the dot , and have the HomePod be the sound system in one room.

The HomePod is a great product , but it’s pricing pushed me to get dots, and Sonos, and I’m ahead functionality and cost .

 

[fokmik]

The homepod lost because its still limited in few countries...
From 2019 the homepod will be available in china hong kong and many other

 

[apolloa]

Even more annoying is the fact the amazon article saying Apple Music was coming to echo devices said NOTHING about it being US only, meaning the 3 echo devices I bought during the amazon sale (purely for Apple Music) was a complete waste of money.

Yes that did cross my kind, but then you should have perhaps researched outside Mac Rumors? Also Alexa is flipping amazing!!!! Way way way way better then Siri.
And just remember, Spotify is on Alexa, iOS, Android and the Apple Watch now, so if Apple wants to win Spotify subscribers, like me, then it needs to get this rolled out to other countries..

[doublepost=1544916060][/doublepost]

For sure, the HomePod lost the battle of the house assistant , due to Siri and cost. The fact that it’s a much much better speaker does not help when you can get a dot in a room for $50, and one does not need a great speaker on each room . Apple needs a low cost option to take on the dot , and have the HomePod be the sound system in one room.

The HomePod is a great product , but it’s pricing pushed me to get dots, and Sonos, and I’m ahead functionality and cost .

Well that’s pretty much guaranteed the excellent Echo’s success then, because Apple never have and certainly under Cook never ever will do ‘cheap’ devices.

 

[AlliFlowers]

Works beautifully.

Now Amazon just needs to fix the crap app. I have to use it on my iPad cause it won't even open on my iPhone.

 

[Shiro_Simba]

Yes that did cross my kind, but then you should have perhaps researched outside Mac Rumors? Also Alexa is flipping amazing!!!! Way way way way better then Siri.
And just remember, Spotify is on Alexa, iOS, Android and the Apple Watch now, so if Apple wants to win Spotify subscribers, like me, then it needs to get this rolled out to other countries..

[doublepost=1544916060][/doublepost]

Well that’s pretty much guaranteed the excellent Echo’s success then, because Apple never have and certainly under Cook never ever will do ‘cheap’ devices.

In the past the offered cheaper devices like airport express , but , you are correct, under cook, it’s just about highest margins and a vision around profits only . Under cook it if sales are down, he just raises the prices. So to compete with the others next HomePod will increase in price ....

 

[wlossw]

The two don’t really compete.

The people buying a cheap amazon echo or google home device are not in the market for a HomePod. Likewise, the people willing to pay for a HomePod have shown that they value sound quality first and foremost and are willing to pay a premium for it, hence an echo or home device is not going to appeal to them.

It’s possible that Apple is doing this to prevent users from defecting from Apple Music. I am actually a bit confused on the motivation though. Apple Music isn’t profitable any more than Spotify is, so this doesn’t feel like a push to chase revenue. Could Apple be chasing music streaming subscribers to retain influence with record labels, and to possibly push its video streaming and news service next year (easier to sell a bundle when your users are already using one of them)?

I was in the market for multiple homepods. We are a fully Apple household. After seeing how limited the HomePod was, I bought 6 echos and 15 Sonos speakers. I also added a Spotify account to my Apple Music family sub, so now I can keep all my music in one place.

TLDR, HomePod doesn’t really keep up with the echo ecosystem. It’s not just about price.

 

[tromboneaholic]

How is Spotify still growing three years after Apple Music launched and Spotify still the number one music App on Apples app Store?

Wait , you want a source for the number of Apple Music subscribers ??? You can find these easily .

It will be over 50 million now , that help you support your argument how loyal Apple Device owners are ? We are talking 1.3 billion devices here.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/604959/number-of-apple-music-subscribers/

Please now provide a source to support your Claims.

which claim are you disputing? 1.3 billion or 50 million? Both are substantially higher today.

 

[Abazigal]

Yes and the fact also remains that Spotify has more than double Apples paying subscribers. More that 40 Million more.

Sure Apples service is growing faster, growth is all well and good until you stop growing. As Apple are finding out with the iPhone.

If Apples install base is more likely to use Apples services like you say shouldn't iPhone owning Spotify users be switching over to Apple? These figures suggest they aren't in any great number.

How is Spotify still growing three years after Apple Music launched and Spotify still the number one music App on Apples app Store?

And how many of those are $1 promotions?

Not to mention that not all subscribers are made equal. I thought that we should have understood that raw numbers in a vacuum don’t always tell the whole story, given that for many years now, Apple consistently has the lion’s share of profits in the market despite its smaller market share.

For example, Apple Music has beaten Spotify when it comes to streaming numbers and engagement, and has possibly overtaken Spotify in terms of subscriber numbers in the US.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/07/02/apple-music-spotify-engagement-drake/

https://themusicnetwork.com/has-apple-music-beaten-spotify-in-the-us-in-subscriber-numbers/

The significance comes when you realise that the bulk of spotify’s revenue likely comes from more developed countries like the US, where users pay the full $10 a month. I doubt Spotify is earning all that much from other countries where people are paying the equivalent of $1 or $2 a month. Then you have the free tier which is actually costing Spotify money.

I find that Spotify is in a hard place. They still aren’t profitable, and I simply don’t see how they ever will be, given that their costs rise in tandem with their revenue. What if this is the fate of music (and video) streaming? It’s never going to be profitable, and can only be propped up by larger companies such as Apple or Amazon who don’t need it to be (profitable) because they can tie it to first party hardware to serve as a key differentiator.

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

Well it was working fine. Now it keeps defaulting to Amazon music. I’ve tried everything, but I cannot get it to play songs through Apple Music.

 

[tromboneaholic]

And how many of those are $1 promotions?

Not to mention that not all subscribers are made equal. I thought that we should have understood that raw numbers in a vacuum don’t always tell the whole story, given that for many years now, Apple consistently has the lion’s share of profits in the market despite its smaller market share.

For example, Apple Music has beaten Spotify when it comes to streaming numbers and engagement, and has possibly overtaken Spotify in terms of subscriber numbers in the US.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/07/02/apple-music-spotify-engagement-drake/

https://themusicnetwork.com/has-apple-music-beaten-spotify-in-the-us-in-subscriber-numbers/

The significance comes when you realise that the bulk of spotify’s revenue likely comes from more developed countries like the US, where users pay the full $10 a month. I doubt Spotify is earning all that much from other countries where people are paying the equivalent of $1 or $2 a month. Then you have the free tier which is actually costing Spotify money.

I find that Spotify is in a hard place. They still aren’t profitable, and I simply don’t see how they ever will be, given that their costs rise in tandem with their revenue. What if this is the fate of music (and video) streaming? It’s never going to be profitable, and can only be propped up by larger companies such as Apple or Amazon who don’t need it to be (profitable) because they can tie it to first party hardware to serve as a key differentiator.

Apple can bundle any number of additional products and services with Apple Music that its base that buys “expensive” hardware will pay for, while Spotify has nothing else to offer.

After 12 years Spotify has shot its wad*, and after 40 years Apple is just getting started.

*reference to muskets even though people snicker when I say this in real life.

 

[Rob_2811]

And how many of those are $1 promotions?

Not to mention that not all subscribers are made equal. I thought that we should have understood that raw numbers in a vacuum don’t always tell the whole story, given that for many years now, Apple consistently has the lion’s share of profits in the market despite its smaller market share.

For example, Apple Music has beaten Spotify when it comes to streaming numbers and engagement, and has possibly overtaken Spotify in terms of subscriber numbers in the US.

https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/07/02/apple-music-spotify-engagement-drake/

https://themusicnetwork.com/has-apple-music-beaten-spotify-in-the-us-in-subscriber-numbers/

The significance comes when you realise that the bulk of spotify’s revenue likely comes from more developed countries like the US, where users pay the full $10 a month. I doubt Spotify is earning all that much from other countries where people are paying the equivalent of $1 or $2 a month. Then you have the free tier which is actually costing Spotify money.

I find that Spotify is in a hard place. They still aren’t profitable, and I simply don’t see how they ever will be, given that their costs rise in tandem with their revenue. What if this is the fate of music (and video) streaming? It’s never going to be profitable, and can only be propped up by larger companies such as Apple or Amazon who don’t need it to be (profitable) because they can tie it to first party hardware to serve as a key differentiator.

Spotify actually did post a profit for Q3 2018 and their losses are down over 90% year on year.

The future of music is likely artists dealing directly with the services and eliminating the labels and a large part of the overhead that goes with dealing with them which Spotify has already started doing. Its a win win scenario, Spotify gets to cut more of their overhead and the artists get to keep more of the proceeds.

We'll have to see just how profitable music streaming shakes out to be but, as I posted on another thread, I remember people sounding the death knell for Spotify when Apple Music launched, three and a half years in they still have more than double the amount of paying customers on their service.
[doublepost=1544925168][/doublepost]

Apple can bundle any number of additional products and services with Apple Music that its base that buys “expensive” hardware will pay for, while Spotify has nothing else to offer.

After 12 years Spotify has shot its wad*, and after 40 years Apple is just getting started.

*reference to muskets even though people snicker when I say this in real life.

What !? Apples record at services is absolutely atrocious.

 

[tromboneaholic]

Stop repeating cliches from the mobile me days, Rob.

Services is going to be a $50 billion business next year for Apple.

FaceTime and iMessage are services that are unsurpassed on any platformm.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Siri isn’t as good as Alexa or google home but it’s not completely useless here in the UK. It can tell you some local information, like transit information, cinema showings and store opening times.

Apple aren’t going to get rid of Siri because they need to have their own AI. It will never be as good as the google assistant or Alexa because Apple are not heavily investing in it like amazon and google.

Siri will never be as good as Google's or Amazon's offering because Apple is self-limited in the way it collects and distributes customer data.

When you read the surveys of what people use their "virtual assistants for," a phrase that should outrage real, actual assistants everywhere, most people: set timers, get the weather and sports scores. A minority are using home automation features.

I have multiple Echos and Siri integration with Apple Products. They're both fine for what I use voice software for and what I assume most people use them for.

None of these products are truly virtual assistants with true artificial intelligence. These are just companies jockeying in position for the next generation of consumer input and UI, which is voice and, I suspect, AR (although in my opinion, AR is over-hyped trash on iOS).

Finally, quick question to folks in the UK---why do you guys always refer to Apple and other companies as "they" or "them?"

Apple is not a person or people. Apple is a corporation. Apple is an "it;" not a "they," or "them."

So, ..."because Apple ARE not heavily invested in it..." would be "because Apple IS not heavy invested in it."

I notice this with UK speakers most of all. Not trying to be nasty---just something I routinely see that I've never understood.

 

[Rob_2811]

Stop repeating cliches from the mobile me days, Rob.

Services is going to be a $50 billion business next year for Apple.

FaceTime and iMessage are services that are unsurpassed on any platformm.

Post mobile me Apple Music and Maps were unusable for months after launch.

FaceTime and iMessage are great, nobody is paying for them independently from the cost of the phone though, revenue generated from them is iPhone revenue.
[doublepost=1544926014][/doublepost]

Finally, quick question to folks in the UK---why do you guys always refer to Apple and other companies as "they" or "them?"

Apple is not a person or people. Apple is a corporation. Apple is an "it;" not a "they," or "them."

So, ..."because Apple ARE not heavily invested in it..." would be "because Apple IS not heavy invested in it."

I notice this with UK speakers most of all. Not trying to be nasty---just something I routinely see that I've never understood.

Companies are just a collection of people.

 

[Glockworkorange]

Post mobile me Apple Music and Maps were unusable for months after launch.

FaceTime and iMessage are great, nobody is paying for them independently from the cost of the phone though, revenue generated from them is iPhone revenue.
[doublepost=1544926014][/doublepost]

Companies are just a collection of people.

In a loose sense, yes. But corporations proper are things; not people.

 

[DevNull0]

Adios Amazon Music subscription!

This is Apple's reason right here. Homepod sales must be abysmal and Apple has to let people use the speakers they want to avoid hurting Apple Music more than they're propping up Homepod.
[doublepost=1544927568][/doublepost]

Companies are just a collection of people.

And individual people are just collections of cells, yet you don't refer to them that way. A company is an "it".

 

[Rob_2811]

This is Apple's reason right here. Homepod sales must be abysmal and Apple has to let people use the speakers they want to avoid hurting Apple Music more than they're propping up Homepod.
[doublepost=1544927568][/doublepost]

And individual people are just collections of cells, yet you don't refer to them that way. A company is an "it".

They are whatever I want them to be.

 

[tromboneaholic]

This is Apple's reason right here. Homepod sales must be abysmal and Apple has to let people use the speakers they want to avoid hurting Apple Music more than they're propping up Homepod.

HomePod sales are likely in line with Apple’s projections.

This deal means Apple doesn’t have to waste resources on marketing a $29 speaker for its subscription music service.

 

[Glockworkorange]

This is Apple's reason right here. Homepod sales must be abysmal and Apple has to let people use the speakers they want to avoid hurting Apple Music more than they're propping up Homepod.
[doublepost=1544927568][/doublepost]

And individual people are just collections of cells, yet you don't refer to them that way. A company is an "it".

Correct. Like when people say “Apple HAVE done a really good job with X” is just wrong.

I think it’s a UK thing. Americans don’t talk like that.

 

[spitcoff]

Now if they would only allow it to work with the fire tv also

 

[Abazigal]

Spotify actually did post a profit for Q3 2018 and their losses are down over 90% year on year.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotif...terly-profit-to-one-time-tax-event-1541068798

This article is hidden behind a paywall, but I found you can bypass it by pasting the link in a website called outline.

https://outline.com/pLRHBU

Their profit was due to their investment in another company. It's not due to their core business and likely will be a one-off affair.

Overall for the period, Spotify posted a profit of €43 million ($48.7 million), or 23 European cents a share, compared with its loss of €278 million, or €1.84 a share, in the year-earlier quarter. The swing to profit was due to a €125 million tax benefit related to a change in the value of its investment in China’s Tencent Music, Spotify said.

They expect to return to net losses in subsequent quarters.

The future of music is likely artists dealing directly with the services and eliminating the labels and a large part of the overhead that goes with dealing with them which Spotify has already started doing. Its a win win scenario, Spotify gets to cut more of their overhead and the artists get to keep more of the proceeds.

To do that, Spotify needs leverage, and to get that, Spotify has to grow to become so large that content creators will be willing to pay Spotify for access to its users (something like the iOS App Store). Can it stay around long enough for that? I see it eventually being acquired by either Amazon or Microsoft (the only company without its own music streaming service at the moment).

We'll have to see just how profitable music streaming shakes out to be but, as I posted on another thread, I remember people sounding the death knell for Spotify when Apple Music launched, three and a half years in they still have more than double the amount of paying customers on their service.

To me, the main danger from Spotify comes not just from competition (remember, Apple, Amazon, Google each has their own music streaming service), but also from Spotify's core business model. Cost-cutting will only get you so far, and it's increasingly clear to me that Spotify's core business model is never going to be profitable by itself, however may subscribers they get.

Spotify will have to find some other avenues of raising revenue, be it hardware sales, or podcasts, something. And things will only get more heated as Apple Music continues to get more subscribers.

 

[tromboneaholic]

https://www.wsj.com/articles/spotif...terly-profit-to-one-time-tax-event-1541068798

This article is hidden behind a paywall, but I found you can bypass it by pasting the link in a website called outline.

https://outline.com/pLRHBU

Their profit was due to their investment in another company. It's not due to their core business and likely will be a one-off affair.



They expect to return to net losses in subsequent quarters.



To do that, Spotify needs leverage, and to get that, Spotify has to grow to become so large that content creators will be willing to pay Spotify for access to its users (something like the iOS App Store). Can it stay around long enough for that? I see it eventually being acquired by either Amazon or Microsoft (the only company without its own music streaming service at the moment).



To me, the main danger from Spotify comes not just from competition (remember, Apple, Amazon, Google each has their own music streaming service), but also from Spotify's core business model. Cost-cutting will only get you so far, and it's increasingly clear to me that Spotify's core business model is never going to be profitable by itself, however may subscribers they get.

Spotify will have to find some other avenues of raising revenue, be it hardware sales, or podcasts, something. And things will only get more heated as Apple Music continues to get more subscribers.

How dare you!

Rob had his hopes pinned on that one quarter when Spotify didn’t bleed money like a stuck pig.

 

[friedmud]

Unlike, Spotify, Tidel, Deezer, Slacker, Qobuz, Google Music which limit one platform... Oh wait everybody is multi platform now.

I don't understand your point... none of those are _Apple_ services. I was stating that Apple Music is one of the few services from Apple that is cross-platform... so it's not surprising that they would get it working on Echo devices.

Now: If Amazon Fire sticks started having the ability to play movies from iTunes... THAT would be something crazy!
[doublepost=1544946609][/doublepost]

I was in the market for multiple homepods. We are a fully Apple household. After seeing how limited the HomePod was, I bought 6 echos and 15 Sonos speakers. I also added a Spotify account to my Apple Music family sub, so now I can keep all my music in one place.

TLDR, HomePod doesn’t really keep up with the echo ecosystem. It’s not just about price.

Similar situation - completely Apple and Homekit (although always Spotify). Was waiting on the Homepod forever. When it finally came out... I looked at the limitations and went and bought (now) 15 Google Home devices.

Apple really missed the boat on this one. I would have paid just about any price for an Apple device... but it's missing two major features:

1. Multi-user support. Apple is terrible at this. I guess all of their engineers are single and live alone...
2. Spotify support. Not a deal-breaker but I've been with Spotify forever and like it more (I have an Apple Music Subscription as well).

#1 is absolutely a deal breaker.