Yeah I remember how hard it was to turn on a radio, listen to a DJ and a few commercials for FREE.. I guess nobody made a living back then in the industry!
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
... and hopefully, that's when the DOJ gets involved in this. That would be very similar behavior to the tactics that MS used in the past (ex: IE), only worse.
Either he’s right or he’s wrong. That’s really all that matters. Do you think he’s right in what he says or not? Why? I can explain why I think he’s right.
[doublepost=1512021176][/doublepost]
This is nothing like that. Netscape argues that their competition was giving away a product, bundling with their own, and had proof that Microsoft was actively sabotaging competition. The argument wasn’t that it was unfair that Microsoft was using money from Windows to make up for an unprofitable web browser.
Companies generally use their money on projects not completely related. Google is proving up Android with ad money. Nobody is arguing that’s unfair. Because that’s basically what you’re arguing and it’s nonsense.
If Spotify's business model is not sustainable, let them be. I mean the market will decide in the end.
I personally am disappointed that consumers are gratifying into streaming music. We have worked so hard to get legal non-DRM music, yet now people are willingly adopting vendor specific DRMed music in the form of streaming music.
I personally am disappointed that consumers are gratifying into streaming music. We have worked so hard to get legal non-DRM music, yet now people are willingly adopting vendor specific DRMed music in the form of streaming music.
I love streaming as an Indy label I am on the same playing field as the big guys - I get next to zero from radio because the major labels control it and television. But with streaming the majors can't control what people listen too. Thus my music gets played and I am making not a huge amount off royalties but enough to keep me happy every month. FWIW I make 4 X the amount from Apple Music vs Spotify - Spotify pays the artists peanuts compared to Apple Music
It's good to have options, though.
Not everyone wants to pay $1.29 for each song they'd ever want to listen to. Some do... and they still can.
I don't see the problem if someone wants to pay a monthly fee for a "buffet" of music.
I'm actually one of those people.
As an option, yes, but many people are so into streaming music as if that should be the only way music is made available. Just look at the comments here during the times before Apple had Apple music. I rather buy the music that I actually want, and in the end, I actually spend less money than paying for spotify, etc. As for music discovery, there are other channels like youtube.It's good to have options, though.
Not everyone wants to pay $1.29 for each song they'd ever want to listen to. Some do... and they still can.
I don't see the problem if someone wants to pay a monthly fee for a "buffet" of music.
I'm actually one of them.
Well, if the industry has never been better, it's because anything seems better than the nothing artists may have had previously. However, overall, the public is spending a smaller piece of its disposable income on music (and books) and spending more on video. While there's some redistribution of income, if that pot is shrinking and entry is easier, it's harder, not easier, to earn a full-time living in music, and very hard to pull down winner-takes-the-lion's share compensation.
When Amazon started opening book publishing to all comers, the number of published titles grew more than tenfold, making it that much harder for any one title to be noticed. Advantage went to those writers who had marketing skills to match (or exceed) their writing skills, and advantages remained for those authors with established publishing companies behind them. The same holds true for musicians. Great musicianship/songwriting is pointless if it remains undiscovered/under-promoted. Lots of talent chasing potential stardom and the pot of gold that comes with it. Most are doomed to earning journeyman wages at best.
Amazon pioneered an economic model where gatekeeping was not required - they provide the printing services (for POD titles) on which they make a separate profit, and for ebook titles they make the same per-copy profit whether one copy is sold, or 100,000. They didn't have to pick winners, they could let nature take its course. It barely matters to Amazon whether they sell 50 copies each of 1 million titles (anyone can find 50 family members and friends willing to buy), or 5,000 copies each of 10,000 titles. They don't pay advances, they don't underwrite publicity tours, they don't hire editors or proofreaders... Amazon has made a big thing of "leveling the playing field," but that's really only true until you step onto the field. "Buy your own uniforms and hire your own coaches, and feel free to join the scrimmage. After that, you'd better be strong enough to emerge from the scrum. If you sell any tickets, we'll send you your cut."
"Infinite selection" attacked brick and mortar at its weakest chink, just as B&N/Borders' 50,000-100,000 title super-stores decimated the 5,000-10,000 title indies. Infinite selection becomes less compelling if brick and mortar finally dies. At that point, curation of one kind or another again becomes a positive selling point - "We help you find the great stuff!" Hell, that's a key selling point of the streaming services that deliver curated playlists/"radio stations."
If that curation is solely crowd-sourced, it's still up to the artist/publisher to find that crowd. Those who can invest in "visibility" have an advantage over those who can't (or won't). Those who have an established reputation have an advantage over newcomers. Ultimately, whether the winners are soul-less media conglomerates or individual artists, it's in the best interest of the winners to thin the remaining herd; to raise the barricades behind them. The successful artist/entrepreneur spawns a publishing imprint/record label/film production company, artists with less marketing skill flock to those artist-friendly labels, but no matter how artist-driven they may have been at the beginning, 20 years later (or is that Ten Years After?) their contract is in far less friendly hands.
To bring things back to Jimmy and Andre... They're following a time-honored pattern in media (and Silicon Valley) entrepreneurship. They built something big enough to be attractive to a really big fish (or fruit, in this case). They now have over $250 BILLION DOLLARS (say that in your best Doctor Evil voice), I say, tha-that's $250 billion, pardner (say that Foghorn Leghorn-style) of OPM to draw upon (and if you don't know what OPM is, you shouldn't be talking about the media business at all).
Note that *Jimmy-Dre's primary interest is now video/film production, which as I mentioned at the beginning is the medium pulling the biggest piece of the consumer entertainment pie. Straight Outta Compton segues to Right Inta Cupertino (aka The Defiant Ones). As independents they would have been risking a large piece of their personal fortunes to make that move big-time. Why descend like Max Bialystock into Little Old Lady Land, where 50 seductions are necessary to launch a production? Now, they can ask Mama Apple for far more than they and their friends could ever risk personally. Since its rare for any artist or production company to hit a home run with its first turn at bat, you need someone with deep pockets who is willing to bankroll an entire team and wait patiently for the first hit, from whichever bat it comes.
Meantime, Jimmy and Dre reached that tender age when one realizes it's better to leave your heirs less-than-controlling interest in a huge conglomerate, rather than controlling interest in an enterprise that's highly dependent on your personal talents. Hell, it worked nicely when Steve Jobs sold NeXT to Apple and Pixar to Disney. Just ask Laurene!
[*Wasn't Jimmy Dre Valentine played by Eddie Murphy in Trading Places?]
There's absolutely nothing in your original post that signals it's "hyperbolic". You did mention the only 2 bad, non-music related shows on AM.
Because they were 4 years behind the curve. The likes of Spotify and Pandora created the market, now Apple are trying to piggyback in after the fact.
Spotify grew their customer base, and is growing faster than Apple from building a standalone product, whereas Apple is pushing their sub-standard streaming product through their great hardware.
Apple foolishly bought Beats thinking this idiot would be the answer to their prayers, but has shown to not as good as he thought he was.
Yea he’s such a creeper. Watch the HBO series The Defiant Ones to see what an idiot he is. Yea right. No one including you can predict where music content distribution will really evolve into with ANY certainty but ok you can bash away at those involved deep into it unlike you OR me for that matter.
Bingo.
[doublepost=1512031112][/doublepost]
Oh ok. Yes let’s see. They *thought* Carpool Karaoke and Planet of the Apps would just themselves create an instant streaming service and solve their NEED to get into serious content development and creation. Oh. Ok. Really? You really believe that. Omg.
Excuse me. Earth to you and others. CONTENT is THE most important thing ANY producer of hardware has to supply today — period. Apparently you missed THE GIANT LOCK today’s content providers placed on their **** debunking Apples attempt at selling programming from the major studios in bed with the major cable companies. They FROZE THEM OUT. Why? Bc Steve Jobs blew the doors off the control of music content and here we are. The filmed content owners didn’t bend over like many of you expected. On the contrary.
Now Comcast owns Universal, Disney might further concentrate adding to Lucasfilm, Pixar, Marvel- and why —- duh! Cause it’s the CONTENT they own, control and can distribute - making money on each revenue stream. Pun intended.
Either Apple will announce its own STREAMING service or it will likely make a unbeatable bid for Netflix.
They like Google Have no choice.
Last edited:
Unless you have plays in the 10s of millions there is for an artist no substantial income to be generated from streaming services.
Lose-lose situation so. Artists can only use streaming services as promotion, that's why you also see everyone putting up albums on YT for free. Only live shows and merchandise are a source of income nowadays.
Lose-lose situation so. Artists can only use streaming services as promotion, that's why you also see everyone putting up albums on YT for free. Only live shows and merchandise are a source of income nowadays.
Yeah, I choose Spotify because even the mobile interface is faaaaar better than Apple Music’s. Not to mention the social community and music discovery features.
Spotify don't make any money - again this year they've had to rely on investors to keep them afloat
He's absolutely right that they need a new revenue stream and cant rely on the fact they were first to market and built a huge userbase with great usability.
To think they havent got something planned however is ridiculous. Whether they have the bargaining power to deliver it (as opposed to Apple etc throwing more money at it) is to be seen
He's absolutely right that they need a new revenue stream and cant rely on the fact they were first to market and built a huge userbase with great usability.
To think they havent got something planned however is ridiculous. Whether they have the bargaining power to deliver it (as opposed to Apple etc throwing more money at it) is to be seen
I don't know about you, but:
I go to work.
I do some work.
I get paid for THAT work.
I go home.
The next day, I repeat the process, and the next day, and the next and the next, for perhaps 50 years till I retire.
I keep working so I keep getting paid.
Why does a Musician (artist?) think that they go to work for perhaps, 1, 3, 6 or 12 months.
Then continue to get paid for THAT work they did over that short time period for the rest of their lives?
I go to work.
I do some work.
I get paid for THAT work.
I go home.
The next day, I repeat the process, and the next day, and the next and the next, for perhaps 50 years till I retire.
I keep working so I keep getting paid.
Why does a Musician (artist?) think that they go to work for perhaps, 1, 3, 6 or 12 months.
Then continue to get paid for THAT work they did over that short time period for the rest of their lives?
They come up with a product. If you want to own or stream that product it's only fair you should pay for it.
More proof that music should have never met the internet. We screwed up when we introduced them.
I do use Apple Music and have to admit I've actually purchased MORE music since becoming a subscriber.
Streaming has had an adverse effect IMHO; look at the U.K charts earlier on in the year when Ed Sheeran had a lot of top 10 entries!
Luckily the O.C.C have changed the rules since but it'd be interesting to see how many singers/bands would've done without factoring streaming in.
Streaming has had an adverse effect IMHO; look at the U.K charts earlier on in the year when Ed Sheeran had a lot of top 10 entries!
Luckily the O.C.C have changed the rules since but it'd be interesting to see how many singers/bands would've done without factoring streaming in.