Sidebar Sidebar
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'

mudflap said:
I still want to own my music. I don't need ALL THE MUSIC. Because 90% of it is garbage.
Click to expand...
THIS.

Let's face it, Old people listen to the music of their era. Young people only like today's music...which is the music of their era which will become old people's music in 20 years. And around we go.

So the music we listen to is limited. 70-year-olds who listen to Sinatra are not going to listen to Kanye or Ne-Yo, and fans of Kanye or Ne-Yo's "music" (chuckle)...will listen to that when they're 70 and by then music will be 100% computer generated garbage (at the rate we're going).

Why am I paying for access to twenty million tracks for $9.99/month when I only listen to 1,000?
 
wickawicka said:
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.
Click to expand...

Another reason is because chasing a higher overall user count, rather than per-user subscription revenue, grants them greater leverage in negotiations with labels, which leads to lower rights fees paid to those labels. But again, this isn't worth a conversation, because you are objectively wrong.
 
He’s a smart guy and makes some very good points. In a race to the bottom Spotify cant win.
The only thing is that Spotify has investment from all the major labels.
It’s a weird situation. Spotify is in effect the music industries hedge against Apple/Amazon on Google trying to own the music business.

I dont think the music companies have given Apple etc.. the ability to lower prices without their consent. This is how amazon destroyed the publishing business, because Amazon could sell books at lower prices than the publishers wanted them to.

I think without Iovine Apple would have a really hard time because he’s the only one in tech fighting for the value of recorded music. All the tech companies see music as a loss leader. And because of that I feel that the music industry would have been naturally hostile to Apple if not for Iovine. I feel that Jimmy needs to make Apple TV the new MTV of the internet and give it brand value beyond just streaming music.

Once Spotify IPO’s I think they will be trying to take on YouTube. I think that’s the battle the music industry wants to have because they cant stand google at the moment. But they need the IPO money to fund an attack like that.
 
You can control exactly what you listen to on Apple Music and when/where you listen to it. It just gives you access to their entire library and from there you can create playlists to suit a mood or simply download albums to listen to without consuming data. When you're driving along and think of a song you haven't listened to in years and can just ask your phone to play it for you, that's pretty incredible if you think about it.

Personally I use some of their programmed playlists to find now artists/bands that I've not heard before and if I like something with a click I've got their entire catalog to listen to.

pentidoes said:
Music isn't what it used to be. It has become a backdrop for lives. It used to be something that was celebrated, listened to time and time again. With the explosion of music everywhere, there are too many songs which sound alike, there's too much watered-down-mainstream.
I do see myself as a music buff, I own thousands and thousands of songs. Music means a lot to me. Apple demotes actively the music business by pushing everybody to their streaming services and neglecting those who really do love music and do not just want to rely on an algorithm (as good as it may be, I want to be in control of my music, my moods and my choice.)
I am not a fan of streaming formats, just as I never was a big fan of radio. I am a fan of music, music that I can control - music that is not controlled by computers. And yes, I still want to own it, not pay a culture "flatrate".

Apple itself doesn't know what to do with music.
Music used to be in their DNA.
This is not for the love of music.
This is business and the aim to eliminate competitors.
Nothing more. Nothing less.
Click to expand...
 
Still amazed how someone who barely speaks English is giving interviews on a quite influential industry in the entertainment sector.
 
MacRumors said:
According to Iovine, streaming services that offer content for free undermine the music industry and present a major problem that's not something television providers like Netflix have to deal with.
Click to expand...

Someone needs to tell Jimmy about the free version of Hulu or services like Crackle, Tubi TV, etc. The guy is clueless about the streaming industry.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Novus John
The beauty of the internet in action. It used to be that record labels pulled all the strings. Now they have to find ways to make money because the barriers to entry for getting your work out into the world is so low.

The only solution for companies is exclusive content. People will pay for music, but they have to like it enough to do so.
 
If Spotify ever ceases to exist I really hope Apple implements a worthy Spotify Connect alternative. It is the only reason I’m with Spotify.
 
Smearbrick said:
Can't disagree with you there. However, I've always felt that a bands "breakthrough" was inevitable regardless of who produced the album.
Click to expand...
There's no way to know, but I would wager there are a ton of bands who would've broken through, had they had the right producer to harness their music, creativity, and personalities. Being a producer isn't just turning nobs and dials. Its coaxing a specific performance out of musicians at a certain time. Likewise, there are plenty of records that were completely ruined by having the wrong producer who tried to impose their own will and ideas on the music. Producers can have a huge influence of the music, good or bad.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3NV7 and spinnyd
wickawicka said:
They are unquestionably going to stop distributing physical media in the near-ish future. It's an obvious inevitability.
Click to expand...

Nope. The singers selling the most albums (Adele and Taylor Swift) are doing it by selling exclusive CDs through Target.
 
wickawicka said:
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.
Click to expand...

First of all... do NOT tell me who I can reply to on MacRumors.

Second of all... if they made a lot of money on the free tier... they wouldn't have to convert users into the paid tier.

You agree that paid users are better financially, right? Why is that?

Is it because they lose money on free users... and that's why they would rather have them as paid users?

You said it yourself... most Spotify paid customers started out as free customers.

But if free ad-supported customers paid all the bills... they wouldn't need the $10/month from paying customers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spinnyd
MacRumors said:

During the interview, Iovine commented on the state of the streaming music industry and the precarious position of companies focused solely on streaming music, like Spotify.Streaming music, says Iovine, is "fine" with major companies like Amazon, Apple, and Google, but it's "not a great business" for standalone companies like Spotify. "They have to figure out a way to show the road to making this a real business," he said.
Click to expand...

If you are loosing money it's not a great business... the end.

According to Iovine, streaming services that offer content for free undermine the music industry
Click to expand...

Good. The "Music Industry" is rotten to the core and I salute it's impending demise.

Why ramble on about the business model of Spotify if "free music" is the ultimate undoing - surely Spotify would be toast by now because of all this "free music". Might be because it's a little more complex than just the price?
 
dv8r said:
If you are loosing money it's not a great business... the end.



Good. The "Music Industry" is rotten to the core and I salute it's impending demise.

Why ramble on about the business model of Spotify if "free music" is the ultimate undoing - surely Spotify would be toast by now because of all this "free music". Might be because it's a little more complex than just the price?
Click to expand...

If Spotify wasn’t getting continued money from investors, their continued losses would mean they’d be toast.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Michael Scrip
Sadly, the movie industry will never go to a streaming model of all their catalogue. Like ever. For a decent price.
 
Michael Goff said:
If Spotify wasn’t getting continued money from investors, their continued losses would mean they’d be toast.
Click to expand...

Major labels have equity stakes in Spotify so they won't run out of cash, it's just like having a streaming service that's hemorrhaging money and a rich uncle called Tim.
 
OldSchoolMacGuy said:
That's not at all what he said. What was actually said was that Spotify is in a dangerous place because they have nothing other than streaming to offer. If something happens tomorrow and Apple or Amazon drop the price of their streaming service to $1.00 a month, Spotify is out of business. Google, Amazon, and Apple would live on, as they have something else to offer. Spotify doesn't.

Iovine has been in the business a long time and understands it. It's a business that has seen a lot of change in recent years and throughout history. Betting everything on streaming remaining the only way is a fools bet. It'd be much smarter to place bets in more than just a single place.
Click to expand...

While I don't disagree diversifying their business would reduce their risk/exposure, what do you suggest?

Raising rates does not solve this - it just makes them less competitive in the industry. Perhaps this is Iovine saying Apple is having trouble staying profitable (in this service offering) against a leaner run Spotify. Although Apple can afford to lose money on it, they don't like to lose money on anything.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dv8r
Even if Apple Music was 1$ per month I'd still use Spotify. It's better service with better applications. If Iovine is so confident about his statements, why won't the richest company on Earth bite the bullet to eliminate competition? He knows well enough.

"The new Apple" is playing catch-up in every department. Streaming Music is not different. Spotify was the first successful product in this department and it has got a huge, loyal fanbase. Not just because of brand but because of efforts they take to make listening to it a joy.

Free tier is also a good thing. It might cost them but I believe they keep it on principle that music should be accessible to everyone. Apple also used to have principles, in the past.
 
They're all well off... Taylor Swift whines about money and has hundreds of millions... Apple moans about profit margins and is the richest company on Earth....

I'm not gonna feel sorry for any of you, it's my responsibility to get everything for as cheap as possible.
 
Hey Apple? I'm hearing this $6.99. What does it mean? What you need to charge for you music service because I have a house full of Echo stuff and your music apps stink. Oh wait. I have Prime already and unlimited music is $3.99? Correction Apple: $2.99. No? Bye bye Apple Music.
 
How about these guys try to compete on service quality? In my book Spotify is still the best streaming service because they have by far the best personalized playlists for discovering new music. Neither Apple Music nor Amazon have anything that works remotely as well as playlists such as Discover Weekly. They also don't have the vast amount of user-made playlists that Spotify has. Pretty sure these are the reasons why Spotify's subscriber base is still growing faster than either of the megacorps' ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back