You're absolutely right, but this isn't even unique to streaming. Selling copies of your music, whether it's vinyl, 8 track, cassette tape, CD, MP3, or streaming, has never been a primary source of income for the vast majority of musicians. It's a marketing tool. Most of them are thrilled just to break even on selling an album. I talked to Nick Waterhouse after a show last year about this topic; he tours to make money, and his tour was funded by a single car commercial one of his songs was in. Album sales didn't even factor into the equation.
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's Jimmy Iovine: 'Streaming Services Have a Bad Situation'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're absolutely right, but this isn't even unique to streaming. Selling copies of your music, whether it's vinyl, 8 track, cassette tape, CD, MP3, or streaming, has never been a primary source of income for the vast majority of musicians. It's a marketing tool. Most of them are thrilled just to break even on selling an album. I talked to Nick Waterhouse after a show last year about this topic; he tours to make money, and his tour was funded by a single car commercial one of his songs was in. Album sales didn't even factor into the equation.
Not everyone can lock down quality content featuring Kevin Spacey and Jeffrey Tambor.
Apples and oranges. Netflix and HBO are content companies. Apple's just throwing a couple of things into a music store that people were paying for anyway. If they killed POTA and CPK the rest of the service is unchanged.
Introducing iPrime: 1TB iCloud storage, Apple Music, AppleCare+, iPhone upgrade program, etc.
And yet Spotify still remains in business .....
To be honest , I use them cause their UI is superior to AM - still don't understand how , Apple a company that used to do UX sooooo well, released such an awful AM interface .... sloppy
To be honest , I use them cause their UI is superior to AM - still don't understand how , Apple a company that used to do UX sooooo well, released such an awful AM interface .... sloppy
As long as they keep making audio CDs and Blurays I am fine whatever happens with streaming services. If ...people want to pay rental fees on music, that's their issue.
What we are seeing now is a conversation that's being shaped solely by the music industry executives who are no longer needed now that technology has given musicians direct control over producing and distributing their music. They are scared because they can no longer get rich off the backs of others. This is not something to mourn, it is something to celebrate. For the artists, the industry has never been better.
Honestly, I believe the correct path for music streaming companies will be to focus heavily on offering customized playlists that are better than their competitors.
As much as I find Apple Music convenient, I prefer Spotify's playlists to Apple Music's. They just seem more organic and coherent in a way that is hard to describe. But this feeling is exactly what is marketable.
As much as I find Apple Music convenient, I prefer Spotify's playlists to Apple Music's. They just seem more organic and coherent in a way that is hard to describe. But this feeling is exactly what is marketable.
The future of music is what the artists will decide. Because if they end up with no money, they will stop producing art.
Apple, Spotify and amazon all try to be the next deciders of who should be a bigshot, but I doubt they have what it takes to "select them."
Thus this task may eventually fall back on to the artist - and then we end up with celebrities who need constant drama, just to stay in the news. And the real artists, who do not want to self-promote, end up on the shelves.
I think when we ask the question where it will all go to, we can ask this more broad: where will art go and how will art - any kind of art - pay for itself in a society that wants a "flatrate", where self-promoters rule (but haven't they always?), where the process of creating art is dictated by those who advertise them (spotify's first 30 seconds, Apple's algorithms, amazon's incentives...)
Apple, Spotify and amazon all try to be the next deciders of who should be a bigshot, but I doubt they have what it takes to "select them."
Thus this task may eventually fall back on to the artist - and then we end up with celebrities who need constant drama, just to stay in the news. And the real artists, who do not want to self-promote, end up on the shelves.
I think when we ask the question where it will all go to, we can ask this more broad: where will art go and how will art - any kind of art - pay for itself in a society that wants a "flatrate", where self-promoters rule (but haven't they always?), where the process of creating art is dictated by those who advertise them (spotify's first 30 seconds, Apple's algorithms, amazon's incentives...)
Options are key. Kind of the reason why the music business is such a sorry state - not enough customer options.
It’s pretty simple:
- create a good UI (Apple Music currently isn’t user friendly).
- give people as much music content as possible.
- don’t lock it down to the “Apple TV”, should be on all the streaming boxes and smart TVs. Apple learned this lesson with iTunes on Windows.
- offer hi-fidelity audio option for audiophiles.
Done.
- create a good UI (Apple Music currently isn’t user friendly).
- give people as much music content as possible.
- don’t lock it down to the “Apple TV”, should be on all the streaming boxes and smart TVs. Apple learned this lesson with iTunes on Windows.
- offer hi-fidelity audio option for audiophiles.
Done.
They are unquestionably going to stop distributing physical media in the near-ish future. It's an obvious inevitability.
You're assuming that every potential musician has the ability to invest in instruments, computers, production, and also lawyers and staff if they manage to take off. Also, you assume they have the time to handle ALL this other stuff and create music, as well as book venues, transit, etc etc.
Unless you want to pretend that selling only music ala carte on the web makes enough money for someone to eat if they aren't named Adele?
Then maybe you can explain how they have been in business for 10 years... with 140 million total users... yet they can't turn a profit.
Spotify can't keep asking for investor money forever.
I'm not the only person here who believes the free tier is hurting them financially. I've actually read that in many articles over the years.
Yes... free customers might turn into paying customers.
But they are always adding more new free customers too. Whenever their paid customer count grows... their free customers grow even more. They can't escape the free users.
I doubt they will ever have 100% paid customers... so the paid customers are always funding the free customers.
Which, I assume, is where all their profit goes.
The statement was... "Spotify loses money on the free tier..."
I haven't heard anything to disprove that.
My dude, this is how THE VAST MAJORITY OF MUSICIANS do it! They work their god damn asses off and earn their way. They don't just hit their big break and have a major label throw money at them.
Instruments aren't that expensive. Studio time isn't that expensive. And yeah, guess what? They do make music, and book their own venues, and pile into vans and drive across the country. Are you really so ignorant that you don't know this?
NO ONE BUT THE RICHEST OF THE RICH HAVE EVER MADE MONEY THROUGH ALBUM SALES. They make money through touring and merch sales.
it always blows my mind when i hear people i am surrounded with not willing to fork out 5 bucks a month to listen to unlimited music. my uncle for example just bought his wife and his daughter a new bmw each yet he is not willing to spent 99 cent on iCloud or 10 bucks on spotify and rather rips music from youtube listening to 32 kbs songs on his 499 euro headphones. blows my mind
Last edited:
To the two Michaels: this isn't a debate. You are objectively wrong. Stop replying to me, nothing you say could possibly ever matter.
Spotify keeps the free tier around because it is advantageous to them to convert free members into paying members. This is an objectively true fact that you are not able to just "disagree" with. Your beliefs were wrong. I'm sorry if this is upsetting to you, but it's true, and you just have to accept it.
Spotify keeps the free tier around because it is advantageous to them to convert free members into paying members. This is an objectively true fact that you are not able to just "disagree" with. Your beliefs were wrong. I'm sorry if this is upsetting to you, but it's true, and you just have to accept it.
I don't think you know what the phrase "have to watch" means. I forgive you though, bucko.
Show some proof that Spotify doesn't lose money on the free tier.
You can't just say something and walk away.
Michael, the idea that Spotify DOES lose money on the free tier is something YOU made up. You can't just fabricate a lie and then demand other people provide evidence to disprove it. YOU support your own statement first (which you can't, because it's objectively false), or you don't make that statement at all.
Regardless, the Variety article linked above explains exactly why they keep the free tier around: because it's their #1 way of attracting paying customers. Most Spotify paid customers started out as free customers.
Do not reply to me on this again.
I don't care much for Jimmy but he does make a good point. I refuse to pay for streaming music but do use the Spotify service often. Yes the ads can be annoying but that's not a huge issue.
Apple and Amazon keep trying to sell their music services. No thank you.
I love Amazon Prime and if Apple offers something really big I would consider maybe Apple Music.
That said if tomorrow Spotify ends their free service, then it's bye, bye.
Yes, I am older, 48. I still buy CDs for music that I really love and occasionally songs on iTunes. Plus like Jimmy said, Youtube, Vevo and radio is out there. Pay another subscription for music IMO is not worth.
Apple and Amazon keep trying to sell their music services. No thank you.
I love Amazon Prime and if Apple offers something really big I would consider maybe Apple Music.
That said if tomorrow Spotify ends their free service, then it's bye, bye.
Yes, I am older, 48. I still buy CDs for music that I really love and occasionally songs on iTunes. Plus like Jimmy said, Youtube, Vevo and radio is out there. Pay another subscription for music IMO is not worth.