Apple Music Pays Industry Standard Subscription Revenue Fees to Record Labels

[HobeSoundDarryl]

High quality music is in the eyes of the beholder. You don't see the Beatles selling at #1 on the charts currently. Most of the younger generation doesn't consider them worth buying. I think they can't sing worth a d*mn and the music they released is as good as garbage but that's my personal opinion. That means nothing in terms of the overall market.

Correct, I just offered up some of my own favorites. I didn't mean to imply that only a Beatles, Stones and Zep-like new artists could reignite the masses desire to buy music. People love Sinatra. Where's the next Sinatra? Queen. Duran Duran. Nat King Cole. Count Basie. Fill in the blank of whichever artists you considered so great that you wanted to buy their music in the past. Where's the modern incarnation of whoever that is?

The point was that I think the problem is that the quality of modern music in general has fallen down and that digital music collection owners are content to just shuffle play collections of their own favorites already owned because there isn't the same compulsion to add much new music to those collections.

Example (and again, this is biased to me): Hop back even 20 years and I'd pretty religiously tune into America's Top 40. Conceptually, that's the best 40 new songs available. I'd listen. I'd hear a few new great ones and then I'd look for CD or CD singles to get those new great songs. The last 10+ years, I still tune into the top 40 from time to time hoping to hear some great new stuff. But now- to my ears (so certainly ear of the beholder)- I rarely hear even one must-have. If today's top 40 is still the best 40 new songs available, I don't tend to hear much in that best available that moves me to want to hear it over and over (purchased or rental).

That said though, occasionally I'll hear something that is a standout song in the modern era. When I do, I may want to own it. So then I'll search for it, often find it on a compilation disc like "Now that's what I call music" and then pick up that CD for a dollar or two via the multitude of used CD channels. I just added more than one new song to my collection but it won't count as new music purchase because I got it by buying a used CD. That doesn't mean I want to rent music; I simply added to my collection in a perfectly legal way.

That compulsion does not hit nearly as often as when I was younger because- IMO- today's music in general has lost something (with rare exception). And since my digital collection never wears out, I don't have to rebuy any of the good (again IMO) owned music over and over like I had to do back in the days before digital. That also doesn't mean I want to rent music. Is everybody me? Of course not, so to each his own. The personally subjective point I was mostly trying to make is that whatever music used to be good enough to motivate us to buy seems to come along less frequently today (IMO). And whether your favorites are- Beatles or Sinatra or Eurythmics or Spice Girls or Duke Ellington or whoever- I think the problem of declining music sales is likely better addressed by working harder to find new generations of similarly-quality artists and bringing their works to market, rather than assuming the masses want to rent.

All that said, I certainly think streaming services can help consumers find a modern generation of fantastic new artists on that level (assuming they are out there). And, if so, I can see renting a while for "new music discovery" working well if new music discovery really works. Else, I suspect it won't take long for the renters to build up an owned library and do what renters do when they don't have to keep renting... become owners.

 

[flur]

I like how Taylor Swift refers to lyrics and music that other people wrote for her to perform as hers. They're the ones that deserve the credit, not her.

You like that, eh? Most musicians do that. Swift is one of the few that writes her own albums. Sure, she collaborates, but she's got writing credit on everything. She even did an entire album where she wrote every word and every note for every instrument without input from anyone else.

You don't have to like her music, or her, but at least get your facts straight.

 

[SgtPepper12]

why hasn't it been done yet?

What makes you think that it isn't? Like a third of the music I regularly listen to is (partly) home recorded, most people just don't notice (why would they, anyway). But it's mostly folkish indie music. Some of it doesn't sound like it, some of it has a low-fi sound to it, but once you are over the fact that music quality and polish is just one aspect of a recording (and not an essential one by any means), it just doesn't matter. The problem is that the music industry should be about fueling the creative essence of music, but it really seems to be about marketing, big money and celebrity BS. The music industry is rotten and needs some serious reevaluation of priorities. Labels need to be thinned out as the whole distribution system is way too dissipative to hold together on it's own. It needs to fall apart and it most definitely will fall apart. It's just a matter of time until it does.

 

[apolloa]

Lets get one thing clear; the true purpose of Apple Music in the long term, as amicable it may be to persist in wanting to be the leader of music services (remember Ping?), is for Apple to have a world-wide radio broadcast system. And in this sense they've already won, easily: Up the date, to the second broadcasting alongside every single other person that has an iOS device.

The music streaming stuff is just a revenue stream for Apple; the channel to communicate with everyone, in real time is the real goal and honestly everyone is already a part of it.

This is the new world. Welcome.

I would argue they have already lost than, because their are already so many top online radio stations amongst the thousands out there, plus in the UK at least we have a fantastic choice of great top international interactive radio stations to choose from. In fact many have claimed Apple has copied the BBC Radio 1 station format.
So they may offer a good radio station, but it is a channel amongst an already incredibly well established and liked and listened to sea of other stations across existing media. People tend to follow stars on twitter more than anywhere else as it's incredibly interactive, I would suspect more so then what Apple has come up with?

 

[flur]

Most take the easy route and let labels bait them into whatever deal looks good but under everything it's always a bad deal for the artist.

You think that's the EASY route?

LOL, there is no easy route for artists.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I would argue they have already lost than, because their are already so many top online radio stations amongst the thousands out there, plus in the UK at least we have a fantastic of great top international interactive radio stations to choose from. In fact many have claimed Apple has copied the BBC Radio 1 station format.
So they may offer a good radio station, but it is a channel amongst an already incredibly well established and liked and listened to sea of other stations across existing media. People tend to follow stars on twitter more than anywhere else as it's incredibly interactive, I would suspect more so then what Apple has come up with?

I agree. I can't believe that people think this ONE radio station is brand new in just about any way. I was listening to streaming radio stations in iTunes way back in the mid-2000s. There were hundreds of them available and I'm not grasping what will be so significantly different about this new one except that it is "owned" by Apple. I can't even quite figure out the point of that part of this Music offering. If it's a big deal... if it's a big part of the value of the offering... we can subscribe to dozens of streaming music radio stations on Sirius for about the same money, hosted by some of the most popular and award-winning DJs in the business.

I've just stuck a pin in that part of this, assuming there must be something more to it than all of the existing Internet radio stations that I've not yet grasped. If someone can remove that pin and clarify what's so special about it (other than it's owned by Apple and Apple says it's great), please enlighten us.

I think the best part of Music is that it is Apple cut at being a Spotify-like streaming service. They'll embed it deep into iOS and it will probably "just work" (well) on tens of millions of devices already in the wild. If "new music discovery" works anywhere near as well as we're spinning it, it will probably make it easy to buy any great new music we don't already own. A 3-month free trial is a risk-free way to see if consumers can find enough value in it to then decide to start paying $10/month to keep it. For those that want to rent their music collection, it seems like a great option.

I can't tell if the Connect piece is Ping 2.0 or something better... or worse. It seemed like it might have some interesting benefits and so it may turn out to be the best part of this service... or not.

 

[flaw600]

Once again, MacRumors has done erroneous reporting. While it is true that Apple Music does not provide a free tier, Apple, the company, does in the form of iTunes Radio. iTunes Radio is an on-demand service that does have a free tier.

 

[darcyf]

The payout for canada is the same as the U.S. only in Canadian dollars. This gives me hope the subscription fee will be the same, too...

 

[Arndroid]

A current article, from just two days ago, says they're net profit is $7.7M thus far this year - which means that they're not operating at a loss:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/spoti...on-valuation-war-with-apple-music-2015-6?op=1

Am I missing something, or are you wrong?

You keep misreading that article. It specifically says Spotify operates at a loss. 7.7 million is how much they paid Katy perry or Justin bieber last year.

Right now Spotify loses money on every listener, so adding more listeners losses them more money.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Once again, MacRumors has done erroneous reporting. While it is true that Apple Music does not provide a free tier, Apple, the company, does in the form of iTunes Radio. iTunes Radio is an on-demand service that does have a free tier.

Yes, but that- unlike Spotify's free tier- is perfectly fine. Somehow the artists do get paid well if their music is streamed on iTunes Radio... unlike Spotify which is apparently an evil plot to blatantly rob the creators of music and perhaps even enslave their children. Fortunately, the white knight has arrived on the scene to be sure the artists get paid well in spite of apparently cutting the very same deal as Spotify, presumably through Corporate generosity.

All

 

[Arndroid]

Recording costs have plummeted. Someone who is dedicated can produce, mix and master studio quality in their bedroom with a laptop and logic X. This isn't the 90's anymore where you need million dollar equipment and sound boards

The reality is the only thing the studios provide now is marketing but that is still important. It's kind of weird growing up as a youngster when mtv came into the world and thus made music videos are must for music promotion. However over the next 15-20 years the outlets for music videos became almost non existent and thus much less important.

However once again music videos may be as important as ever to music promotion with YouTube/vevo.

And it is the music labels who front the cost for these productions. They also do cover production costs which while can be done much cheaper, top tier producers cost money. They still have their grubby paws in the mix especially the top ten percent of acts, but it is easier than ever for artists to overcome those obstacles and I think connect will be another tool for them.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Right now Spotify loses money on every listener, so adding more listeners losses them more money.

Spotify's business objectives are different than Apple's business objectives. Apple wants to throw more profits onto the pile of cash in it's vaults. Spotify wants to do a Facebook-like IPO. As you may recall, Facebook was also burning cash (losing money) toward a goal of growing a user base bigger and bigger. Their IPO was very, VERY profitable for the owners of that business. Not every Ebusiness is judged based on Apple profitability. Facebook was quite happy with how it's money losing practices panned out. I've seen Spotify valuation estimates at $4-8+ Billion dollars in recent press in spite of "losing money": http://www.newsmax.com/Finance/Stre...s-music-streaming-apple/2015/06/10/id/649763/ and http://www.wsj.com/articles/spotifys-valuation-assumes-full-stream-ahead-1430680638

That said, obviously, they can't lose money forever. But they- unlike Apple- don't have public shareholders to which they must answer. They only have some private owners who are looking to get rich. If the valuation estimates pan out in their IPO- whenever they go public- those owners should be thrilled with their ROI. Until then, they continue to follow the lead set by Facebook pre-IPO. While a business "losing money" doesn't make obvious business sense to me either, I completely get what they are doing. I'd love to own some of that "unprofitable, money-loser" myself pre-IPO.

 

[Paradoxally]

Sure, it's better than Spotify if you choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout really loudly so you can't actually hear that it's just as good (or just as lousy) as Spotify.

No one stated anything about music quality.

 

[Arndroid]

First, why do we want so passionately to wish away a free streaming option available to us as consumers? Apple doesn't need Music to be maximum profitable; they're making tons of profit and already have a mountain of cash. So why- as consumers- do we want so passionately to rid the world of a free* option for streaming music? If you don't want to stream for free, Apple and others are happy to take your money. Your fellow consumers though might prefer the free* option.

Second, do you get any free* TV? Think antenna. If so, shouldn't that be eliminated too per your logic?

Third, both free* TV and free* Spotify is ad-supported. Revenues are made from ads instead of users needing to open their wallets. Do you like Apple free* iTunes radio option? It's ad supported too. Shouldn't you rail against that since you are taking this issue with an Apple competitors free* option?

I get that we have to rally together and now hate Spotify because Apple decided to move into their market. Naturally, they are the enemy now. But com'on... why do we spin up such stuff against a competitor while ignoring that Apple has a free* streaming option too (Radio) while probably having access to free* TV that is free* because the ads support it... just like Spotify?

Why don't we let Apple's cut of streaming music succeed on it's own merits and leave well enough alone with how the competitor's run their businesses? If there's is garbage or whatever, all consumers will run with Apple's option and the other players will fail. On the other hand, if some can find value in those other guy's offerings, that doesn't affect us one bit if we would prefer to subscribe to Apple's offerings. They get what they want. We get what we want. Everybody wins with options!

I think a quote from Steve Jobs may fit pretty well here: "We have to let go of the notion that for Apple to win, Microsoft needs to lose." He said that almost 20 years ago now and "we" still don't seem to understand what he meant. Sub in a few other names for Microsoft and it's just as applicable HERE.

Because there is no way to successfully offer a free tier of streaming music. It is actually an anchor around Spotify. If you care about the health of Spotify, competition and streaming music you would not be clamoring to selfishly save $10 a month. There is nothing good about the free tier for the future of streaming music. It only benefits people in the short term who don't actually want to pay a nominal fee for the content.

So no everyone is not going to join you. And no it is not about cheerleading apple. It is about understanding the numbers and reality of the situation. Combine apple's entrance with spotify's free tier and it has gotten harder than ever for Spotify to end up a profitable company.

It will be interesting to see how long the Spotify free tier lasts. The only reason it exists is as a way for Spotify to try and lure people into subscriptions. Spotify is not interested in losing money providing an ad supported tier of streaming. However now with Apple music going to take some of their existing subscribers as well as getting some of the free to pay conversions, the free tier is a worse deal than ever for Spotify. Spotify will likely be forced to abandon the free tier at some point, more a matter of when than if.

 

[Arndroid]

I like how Taylor Swift refers to lyrics and music that other people wrote for her to perform as hers. They're the ones that deserve the credit, not her.

Like on her latest album where she wrote one song and co-wrote the other twelve?

 

[69Mustang]

No they don't. Not even close.

According to Spotify, they pay 70%. I haven't seen anything contradictory; aside from some unsubstantiated "my friend in the industry said" type anecdotes.
http://www.spotifyartists.com/spotify-explained/#how-we-pay-royalties-overview

 

[AdonisSMU]

Correct, I just offered up some of my own favorites. I didn't mean to imply that only a Beatles, Stones and Zep-like new artists could reignite the masses desire to buy music. People love Sinatra. Where's the next Sinatra? Queen. Duran Duran. Nat King Cole. Count Basie. Fill in the blank of whichever artists you considered so great that you wanted to buy their music in the past. Where's the modern incarnation of whoever that is?

The point was that I think the problem is that the quality of modern music in general has fallen down and that digital music collection owners are content to just shuffle play collections of their own favorites already owned because there isn't the same compulsion to add much new music to those collections.

Example (and again, this is biased to me): Hop back even 20 years and I'd pretty religiously tune into America's Top 40. Conceptually, that's the best 40 new songs available. I'd listen. I'd hear a few new great ones and then I'd look for CD or CD singles to get those new great songs. The last 10+ years, I still tune into the top 40 from time to time hoping to hear some great new stuff. But now- to my ears (so certainly ear of the beholder)- I rarely hear even one must-have. If today's top 40 is still the best 40 new songs available, I don't tend to hear much in that best available that moves me to want to hear it over and over (purchased or rental).

That said though, occasionally I'll hear something that is a standout song in the modern era. When I do, I may want to own it. So then I'll search for it, often find it on a compilation disc like "Now that's what I call music" and then pick up that CD for a dollar or two via the multitude of used CD channels. I just added more than one new song to my collection but it won't count as new music purchase because I got it by buying a used CD. That doesn't mean I want to rent music; I simply added to my collection in a perfectly legal way.

That compulsion does not hit nearly as often as when I was younger because- IMO- today's music in general has lost something (with rare exception). And since my digital collection never wears out, I don't have to rebuy any of the good (again IMO) owned music over and over like I had to do back in the days before digital. That also doesn't mean I want to rent music. Is everybody me? Of course not, so to each his own. The personally subjective point I was mostly trying to make is that whatever music used to be good enough to motivate us to buy seems to come along less frequently today (IMO). And whether your favorites are- Beatles or Sinatra or Eurythmics or Spice Girls or Duke Ellington or whoever- I think the problem of declining music sales is likely better addressed by working harder to find new generations of similarly-quality artists and bringing their works to market, rather than assuming the masses want to rent.

All that said, I certainly think streaming services can help consumers find a modern generation of fantastic new artists on that level (assuming they are out there). And, if so, I can see renting a while for "new music discovery" working well if new music discovery really works. Else, I suspect it won't take long for the renters to build up an owned library and do what renters do when they don't have to keep renting... become owners.

I use streaming services to get the older songs and iTunes for the newer stuff generally speaking. However, that may change with Apple Music. My purchases will likely nose dive. I don't need to buy every new song that comes out, just a select few from my favorite artists.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Because there is no way to successfully offer a free tier of streaming music. It is actually an anchor around Spotify. If you care about the health of Spotify, competition and streaming music you would not be clamoring to selfishly save $10 a month. There is nothing good about the free tier for the future of streaming music. It only benefits people in the short term who don't actually want to pay a nominal fee for the content.

So no everyone is not going to join you. And no it is not about cheerleading apple. It is about understanding the numbers and reality of the situation. Combine apple's entrance with spotify's free tier and it has gotten harder than ever for Spotify to end up a profitable company.

It will be interesting to see how long the Spotify free tier lasts. The only reason it exists is as a way for Spotify to try and lure people into subscriptions. Spotify is not interested in losing money providing an ad supported tier of streaming. However now with Apple music going to take some of their existing subscribers as well as getting some of the free to pay conversions, the free tier is a worse deal than ever for Spotify. Spotify will likely be forced to abandon the free tier at some point, more a matter of when than if.

I appreciate your views and I'm not clamoring and I don't care about the health of Spotify. It appears that you don't understand the power of ad-supported free*. Google for example, has done extraordinarily well by embracing ad-supported free* (yes, I know, they're tracking us and are thus evil... but Apple doesn't use data on us so Apple is good).

I like my free* over the air local network HD channels too (and they can't track me so they must be Apple-like good too). Apparently, free* works very well for those broadcasters too because they could easily quit delivering the signals if they wanted to do so. They even keep spending money to send their signals when most of us are asleep. Perhaps they too are just nuts and Apple could save the day by swooping in and profitably monetizing free over-the-air television so that we can pay them too instead of continuing with the free* (ad supported) model in place now.

I have the Apple-offered option of free* iTunes Radio for streaming music. But apparently that is just fine, only Spotify free* is bad.

Apparently the owners/controllers of the music- the labels- are happy enough with whatever they get from Spotify free* to REJECT Apple's apparent urging to kill it. So if it works well enough for the labels to keep it going- even when their most important music seller is encouraging otherwise- who are you or I to judge it bad for the business? If it's as bad as you say, the content controllers will stop supporting it or Spotify will burn through it's cash and cease to exist. I'll trust the labels judgement to support it over Apple fans fault-finding based upon business realities. Apparently the labels know something we Apple fans don't.

Spotify just got new infusions of cash from wiling investors setting the apparent valuation of Spotify at about $8 BILLION dollars. Maybe those investors are morons who don't know they keep losing money as you keep saying? Or maybe they can see the business like investors in Facebook pre-IPO saw tangible opportunities for huge returns such that they invested in THAT money-losing business. Again, perhaps THEY see something us Apple fans don't.

Personally, I'm glad to have OPTIONS. If Apple's option is better than Spotify, Apple should enjoy great success. If someone wants streaming but can't afford Apple's or finds value in free* with Spotify, there's something for them too. Better for consumers to have more than one option than to have only one. Again, I'll point to Steve Jobs famous quote dropped into the bottom of Post #45 in this thread. It seems as applicable here as it was then.

 

[Arndroid]

That's wild that Spotify, the largest of these kinds of services, is not even profitable. Makes me think:

a) Why does everyone want to get into this hole of an industry?

b) I guess it could also indicate that there's still potential for someone other than Spotify to "win" it.

c) Record labels are going to wind up having to cave on the percentage they get if the services aren't even making money. At this point I don't see the streaming industry as a luxury for the record labels, they need it more than anyone, and they probably don't need to be making 60% of it.

d) Maybe more importantly, consumers are going to have to get over paying nothing for this. Somehow someone is going to have to convince millions of people that paying for music is the only way to go. It's going to be difficult when piracy is still a thing, of course.

Spotify's biggest problem is it's free tier. It was set up as a promotional mechanism to funnel,users to full subscriptions. The problem is the conversion rate is not anywhere close to where it needs to be.

Spotify has not had to rush it because they have been well funded. However the reality is the free tier is only going to cause them to lose more money. If Spotify dropped their free tier and scaled back their expenses to support 75 million users to 20 million users they could probably become profitable.

Apple Music will likely become profitable relatively quickly.

Spotify just failed to scale their paid subscribers enough to also support their free tier feeding mechanism.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I use streaming services to get the older songs and iTunes for the newer stuff generally speaking. However, that may change with Apple Music. My purchases will likely nose dive. I don't need to buy every new song that comes out, just a select few from my favorite artists.

That's interesting. Maybe you are more representative of the masses than me... or not? I don't know. I think it's a "to each his own" proposition. I know for (just) me, when I take the free trial, unless I find a huge amount of "must have" music via "new music discovery", I'll probably just locate used CDs with those "must haves" on them, add it to my owned collection and not carry on at $10/month beyond the trial... unless "new music discovery" just keeps on delivering. For $10/month, I can buy about 5-10 used CDs with upwards of 8-12 songs on each of them. Compilation CDs like the "Now that's what I call music" often have a number of new, top hits on a single disc. 5-10 of that kind of CD can often add a lot of popular hits to my own collection.

I certainly have faith that there are songs in the millions and millions of songs in the iTunes store that I would like and don't currently own. And I'd love a way to find those songs and concede that this may be a better way than- say- genius or iTunes Radio or friends & family recommendations or hearing something in movies or on TV shows or on "top 40" radio and so on. If so, great!

And I certainly see a place for renting a music collection rather than owning, just like there is a place for renting a place to live or leasing cars. For those that prefer the benefits that come with it vs. the $10/month that it costs, Apple has another version of it available to them, apparently done in an impressive, Apple-like way.

Personally though, it's very hard for me to picture that I would want to pay $10/month for upwards of the rest of my life for this benefit, much like I started out living in a rental but own a home now and I occasionally rent a car for business (travel) but own one for personal use. The rent vs. own question has existed forever and will probably exist forever hereafter. Better to have both options than only one of them, so that everyone on either side of that question can get what they want. Apple is offering it bot

 

[Arndroid]

OR, the "everyone wants to stream music" spin is just spin and the problem is that digital never degrades so the traditional revenue prop of everyone having to re-buy canned music already on the shelf has been mostly killed off. Think about it. Even the generational drive of Junior leaving home and needing to re-buy some stuff in his parent's music collection is probably dead now, because Junior can take an exact copy of their stuff with him while leaving their entire music collection behind too.

Also, the used CD market seems to be thriving. One can get used CDs for a cheap as a $1 if they shop around. One business negative of that market: sales of used CDs don't kick any revenue back to the labels. They are not counted as new music purchases even though the buyers are buying music that will be new to their own collections. Again, digital yields perfect copies of the music on these CDs and it won't degrade (digital doesn't scratch or stretch or develop hiss or melt, etc).

So the problem of declining new music sales may be established in concepts like those I've just offered, rather than assuming everyone wants to rent a music collection. And if that's true, the solution is NOT to develop more and more streaming services but to bring high volumes of high quality, desirable music to market that people will want to own. Where is the next Beatles or Stones or Zep, etc? I've re-purchased their music on multiple mediums multiple times without ever wishing I could rent it instead. Where are the modern incarnations of creators of music we definitely want to buy?

In short, is streaming music a solution in search of a problem rather than addressing the actual problem?

McDonalds just had another quarter of declining food sales. Their solution? Kick a bunch of stuff off of the menu to "simplify the menu." Getting rid of food people may want to buy doesn't seem to automatically fit their problem as defined. In fact, while I'm just one observer, I never noticed anyone being overwhelmed by the former McDonalds menu such that they just turned away and refused to buy food there. Maybe that happened? Maybe it happened often? But there too, I speculate that the solution offered doesn't appear to fit that problem.

Is there a market for streaming music? Of course there is. There's always a pocket of consumers that will choose to rent instead of buy. Is it some kind of mass trend that the masses want to pay rent month after month for upwards of forever? Every renter I've ever known inevitably arrives at a mindset of just throwing money out the window. Even though $10/month is virtually throwaway money, it's still renting. I'm not convinced the masses want to rent music though it's obvious some certainly do.

Yes for people who only want to listen to less than one hundred new songs a year it might make sense to continue growing one's own library. However it does not make sense for many music consumers in 2015 and for the most voracious consumers of new music nothing else makes any sense (except stealing).

When I was younger and at my musical consumption peak and blowing $100-$200 monthly on CDs I would have given it all up in a heartbeat for a $10 a month streaming service.

 

[gnasher729]

Scathing blog post from Bob Lefsetz on Apple Music. Sure doesn't feel like anyone in the business is terribly impressed. You know it's bad when even Jim Dalrymple says Jimmy Iovine was terrible and his and Drake's portions of the keynote were a complete failure.

http://lefsetz.com/wordpress/index.php/archives/2015/06/10/apple-music/

I read it. He sounds like he had a miserable day.

DOJ should be investigated music label practices. More and more streaming services come online and yet all the prices are the same. This industry is the most rigged industry ever.

How would the prices not be the same? All streaming services have to pay for the rights to the record labels. That price is the same unless one record label is cheaper by ripping off its artists, or one streaming service has to pay more or less because of market power. And paying for the rights is the biggest part of the price. In the case of Apple Music, exactly 70 percent. So to be any cheaper than $10 a month, Apple would have to be price dumping. And if they charged more, you would find another reason to complain.

 

[AdonisSMU]

I read it. He sounds like he had a miserable day.

It's hard to take people seriously when they sound like that.

 

[AdonisSMU]

That's interesting. Maybe you are more representative of the masses than me... or not? I don't know. I think it's a "to each his own" proposition. I know for (just) me, when I take the free trial, unless I find a huge amount of "must have" music via "new music discovery", I'll probably just locate used CDs with those "must haves" on them, add it to my owned collection and not carry on at $10/month beyond the trial... unless "new music discovery" just keeps on delivering. For $10/month, I can buy about 5-10 used CDs with upwards of 8-12 songs on each of them. Compilation CDs like the "Now that's what I call music" often have a number of new, top hits on a single disc. 5-10 of that kind of CD can often add a lot of popular hits to my own collection.

I certainly have faith that there are songs in the millions and millions of songs in the iTunes store that I would like and don't currently own. And I'd love a way to find those songs and concede that this may be a better way than- say- genius or iTunes Radio or friends & family recommendations or hearing something in movies or on TV shows or on "top 40" radio and so on. If so, great!

And I certainly see a place for renting a music collection rather than owning, just like there is a place for renting a place to live or leasing cars. For those that prefer the benefits that come with it vs. the $10/month that it costs, Apple has another version of it available to them, apparently done in an impressive, Apple-like way.

Personally though, it's very hard for me to picture that I would want to pay $10/month for upwards of the rest of my life for this benefit, much like I started out living in a rental but own a home now and I occasionally rent a car for business (travel) but own one for personal use. The rent vs. own question has existed forever and will probably exist forever hereafter. Better to have both options than only one of them, so that everyone on either side of that question can get what they want. Apple is offering it bot

I spend more than $10/month and buying music so it's a steal for me. I think i'll get the family plan for my sis and bro and dad so they can listen.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Yes for people who only want to listen to less than one hundred new songs a year it might make sense to continue growing one's own library. However it does not make sense for many music consumers in 2015 and for the most voracious consumers of new music nothing else makes any sense (except stealing).

When I was younger and at my musical consumption peak and blowing $100-$200 monthly on CDs I would have given it all up in a heartbeat for a $10 a month streaming service.

Again I appreciate what you are saying and I definitely see a place for streaming over owning.

Here's how I see it per my own experience: Much like you, back in the day, I was probably spending upwards of $100/month building a CD collection. Clearly, if this existed then, I might have redirected 2-3 months worth of that spend toward this and enjoy access to all of the music in Music for 2-3 YEARS. Relative to that example and that situation, it's a FANTASTIC bargain.

Or course, if Spotify was also around back then, I might have gone with their free* tier, put up with the ads and had pretty much the same enormous music access for nothing. That would have saved me that $20 or $30 I was just spending for 2 or 3 years of Apple's service had it existed back then.

It would have been FANTASTIC to have either, but even more so, BOTH options back then.

However, now is not then. And my current music consumption is mostly in the used CD market where I can get a CD for about a $1 or $2. Unlike back then when I didn't have a good-sized collection of music already on hand, now I do have a good amount of music that I personally like to hear. I have enough personally curated music in my own collection- probably like you if kept spending $100-$200/month for even a year or two- that shuffle play can keep it all sounding pretty fresh.

So, now I can look at $120/yr and consider that against being able to add upwards of about 60-100 CDs to my collection. 8-12 songs on those CDs = about 600-1000 songs of new music (to my collection anyway). I certainly am not everyone but if I could find even 500 new favorites to put in a playlist to which I could also apply shuffle, that would probably sound fresh and pleasing for the next year or two of music listening time. Allow that playlist to also include other favorites I already own and that becomes a definite (for me).

So, under those circumstances and a general reluctance to take on new monthly expenditures to rent, I don't think this will get my $10/month. If it gets yours, that's fine. If you find it worth $10/month, that's your business. It is a FANTASTIC bargain based upon what people want out of their own music listening time. My bias on this vs. your bias does not have a winner, just different strokes for different folks. Options are good. Enjoy it if you become a subscriber. It's possible the free trial will have me right in there with you.

Personally, I hope my current bias is wrong and that the free trial has so much "new music discovery" that it will be as if I'm back in the day again, prior to owning much of a collection, and that new Beatle-like, Stones-like, Zep-like, etc (all of some of my own favorite musical artists) are discovered such that even the used CD market cannot beat $10/month for access to so much great newer music I've not discovered yet. If there is a new Beatles, Stones, Zep, etc out there, it would be great to find them. Biebers, etc don't do much for my ears.