Are you guys active listeners or passive listeners? I don't listen to music 24 hours a day, but when I listen, I listen.
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 Pays Industry Standard Subscription Revenue Fees to Record Labels
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The way I understand Apple Music works, you don't have any reason to buy music as long as you subscribe. If I was 18, I'd get a subscription and never, ever buy music again in my life (except for CDs from street musicians to support them once in a while). (My understanding is that you can download any album, any song or any playlist on the iTunes store, just as you do now, but without paying, and the music disappears when you end your subscription).
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Active but with sparse or time-constrained activity.
In other words, like you, I like to really listen to music but I find time to do that only here and there at best. My most dedicated time for music is when flying which I do fairly often but can go weeks without getting to play 1 song. I did just have a long flight where I shuffled my all-time favorites playlist and it was almost a rediscovery of a bunch of long lost hits I used to know.Ever once in a while, I'll have music on as background music but then I tend to get lost in the foreground such that I barely catch what's playing. This likely contributes to why I'm not frothing for this (kind of) service.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
That's right but it's that last part that is the catch. Change the subject and apply the same idea:
- I can keep living in this terrific rental but when I stop paying I'm homeless.
- I can keep driving this leased car but when I stop paying I have no car.
- I can have access to the entire Adobe suite for only $XX/month
- I can have access to Microsoft office for only $XX/month
Etc. If I was 18 again with scant disposable cash and no personal music collection, I'd be all over this too (actually I'd probably be all over Spotify for free*). But like those early rentals (apartments and/or cars), as soon as I could eliminate monthly recurring bills, I'd want to get out of the renting game. $10/month is much less than home & car payment dollars but it's still something. If someone is 45 today, 45 - 18 = 27 years times 12 months = 324 months times $10 per month = $3,240 (which is also not a lot of money). But even after spending $3K, stop paying and your whole music collection disappears. Renters don't usually miss the money as much when thinking about it on a monthly basis. It's after renting for years or at the end when they look back and tally up how much money they "wasted" (often the term renters use) that they wish they had (or could have) gone another way. Looking at it from the start, renting pretty much always looks far more appealing than buying: you mean I can take possession of this new car for only $199/month vs. $24,000 right now?
So again, it's personal choice and personal situation. Just as many can passionately argue for renting over owning of about anything, this makes great sense for some and not so much for others. It's not a solution for everyone and neither is the ownership option. Personally, I'd love it (or Spotify free*) at 18 but am lukewarm at best now. I will take Apple up on the free trial though and maybe that will heat up that lukewarm?
Last edited:
I read an interesting preview / summary of the WWDC announcement of Apple Music, it was pretty good and sums it up nicely, it simply concludes nothing Apple has done is innovative or revolutionary in the slightest, in fact it suggest the interactive features for fans to the artists are several years out of date, because everyone uses twitter and facebook these day's.
It then concludes the only thing Apple has going for it is that it will be on millions of devices and will most likely 'just work'.
Article is here: http://www.t3.com/features/apple-music-in-tune-or-a-bit-of-a-racket
An interesting summary I thought. I don't really stream music, I stream lots of videos so use Netflix and Amazon Prime etc. I use those services as I find them to be very compatible with all my devices, Apple is almost offering the same thing, but Spotify is even more compatible, I think Apple needs to understand the key to a successful 'service' is to offer as much compatibility as you can. It's fantastic their new service will work on Android devices, but what about the Amazon Fire TV? Spotify does have a remote app for the device, I believe Spotify is also on games consoles too.
It then concludes the only thing Apple has going for it is that it will be on millions of devices and will most likely 'just work'.
Article is here: http://www.t3.com/features/apple-music-in-tune-or-a-bit-of-a-racket
An interesting summary I thought. I don't really stream music, I stream lots of videos so use Netflix and Amazon Prime etc. I use those services as I find them to be very compatible with all my devices, Apple is almost offering the same thing, but Spotify is even more compatible, I think Apple needs to understand the key to a successful 'service' is to offer as much compatibility as you can. It's fantastic their new service will work on Android devices, but what about the Amazon Fire TV? Spotify does have a remote app for the device, I believe Spotify is also on games consoles too.
Nobody caught when Craig Federighi made the sarcastic remark about a new El Capitan feature when he said "Innovation!"
Think that's for the news app, not the new music streaming service. Nice try though.
Actually renting is more appealing for some people. It is very much a trade off. Owning isn't necessarily better than renting or vice versa. If you are happy with the risk of losing XYZ files or them being corrupted or lost in the cloud and what not, knock yourself out. If you just want access to the buffet of music available out there, then you have that option as well. Everyone is happy. There is a cost and additional risk to ownership. Just like with a house and a car you could lose both simply because you lost your job. It's possible to lose both even if you have a job and money. Renting limits your loss to some extent.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Maybe. I missed the Beatles on that first run (wasn't born yet). Discovered them in about 1982. Through learning more about them, I found the Stones, Who, etc. In the early 80's I was having my own British Invasion which then opened up with other 60's artists that were great (IMO) but not british, including Motown, a good number of American artists and some from other countries. That then spilled into 1970's music where there were still some classically great (IMO) stuff to be found too.
What I think was so great about all of that classic rock was that so much of it sounded original. It didn't sound synthesized. It wasn't auto-tuned. They didn't have drum machines. Songs seemed to have a lot of variety.
Today's music sounds too similar to me. That classic rock diversity seems replaced by 2 or 3 producers over-producing, too much reliance on auto-tune, too synthesized... maybe even too formulaic. Of course, not every single song today is like that and there was some formulaic rehashing in the classic rock library too but I found plenty to really like back then and I don't find something comparable to that now.
Back then, they had archaic technology and today artists are relatively god-like in terms of technological advancements. Conceptually, given how much progress has been made in music-making technologies since then, I would think a Beatles-caliber artist would be able to make better music today than they could then. I can imagine taking a rMBP with Garage Band back to Pete Townsend or Queen or Lennon & McCartney or similar and they would have flipped out at what even an amateur can do today with free* tools.
So even if I try to buy into better technology breeds lazier creativity, I would think the huge advances of music-making technology should yield at least the same caliber of diversity and quality of great music-making. And I don't even buy the lazier creativity theory myself.
I'll concede that a second coming of a Beatles may be impossible but now many more people are equipped with the ability to create music than back then. So maybe we can't have another Lennon & McCartney or Zep or Stones, etc, but how about some wow, must-have hits from a greater breadth of music makers than existed back then. In other words, instead of one band cranking out 20 #1 hits, how about far more 1 or 2-hit wonders in the present? Where are they? The tools are so much better than any of the classic artists could ever imagine.
The internet provides a relatively free path for a great song from a nobody to get out there. Social media makes it pretty easy for a nobody to get heard and passed along to other sets of ears. If a nobody recorded a "Hey Jude" today, the path to mass distribution is not limited to trying to get a Studio to sign them. Between Youtube and Social media, it can cost nothing to set it loose and even find a following. A few modern hits from nobody have come up exactly that way. It seems there should be so many more.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I agree. I'm not arguing that ownership is for everyone. Instead, I'm arguing against renting is for everyone. Both have a place and fit individual wants & needs.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Omg dude. I think you finally answered it for me with this really great explanation.
I enjoy talking music with people, and have done so for most of my life. The last 5 years I have noticed something really concerning to me. EVERYONE I ask the question "What kind of music do you like?" Says "A little bit of everything. "
I could never figure out why someone would want to like a little bit of all kinds of music, unless A) they didn't really like music that much and just needed some background noise B) (insert your answer here)
Everything is just mass playlists, mass compilations of slightly relating songs, a little bit of this, a little by of that. No one has to go out and discover music anymore. You just hit random and today's coolest playlist.
This answers so much for me.
There are significant downsides to ownership. You have to maintain all of the music yourself and if you loose it for any reason tuff luck. Most people rather not worry about that. The goal is to listen to music not keep heaps of storage around to store music on various drives for the few times they may want to listen to a song. Plus you need to actually find the song etc... The obvious downside to renting which was already stated is you don't "own" it.
Now I will say with iTunes you do get the option of downloading all/many of the songs over and over again for life....so one doesn't need to worry so much about storing the music on a drive cloud or otherwise forever. So then there is that.
I actually think Apple should've offered up a yearly or multi year Apple Music subscription plan to get people to cough up more money up front or give people an incentive to maintain their Apple Music subscription.
Last edited:
But many of us don't limit our tastes to one genre. We open ourselves up to other styles of music. I think this actually aids discovery. If people only listen to one genre a piece, well it gets boring after awhile and I think the mixing of genres and genre bending helps with creativity as a whole.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I agree. In my experience, offering longer-term subscriptions with the month-to-month option is a much better (business) way to go than only offering the monthly. Maybe this is an experiment for Apple too and they don't want to somewhat lock themselves into it for a long time until they can gauge the uptake. They did start Ping with much Apple fanfare only to kill it a few years later because their enthusiasm for it did not translate well to our enthusiasm for it.
Last edited:
Both. I'm almost always listening to music (actively or passively) unless I'm doing something that requires my ears (watching a movie, editing, etc.,).
Where Apple can be criticized is that it is not paying royalties for "free" promotional periods. such as the first 3 month free preview. so all the lost sales from itunes music store .... artists and songwriters will be screwed even more than the lost sales.
I don't think this is the same situation as Ping though. Ping was exclusively a social media network type of play that was arguably before its time and with less of a reason for people to use/buy into. Whereas Apple Music is a music play first with the option for artists to connect with their fans and listeners directly.
They may not be paying royalties but how much money did they have to front the major labels for this privilege of creating the service at all?