Anti-apple comments are more numerous than people who blindly support Apple - by a LARGE margin
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 Reliance on Exclusives Coming Under Fire From Labels and Critics
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anti-apple comments are more numerous than people who blindly support Apple - by a LARGE margin
This isn't that simple - Apple operates in a business structure open to everyone. 20 years ago Apple was almost bankrupt. 15 years ago through absolute will power they turned things around. Today they are successful.
There was nothing stopping any other company from developing and executing a successful business strategy. Apple's strategy from 1984 onwards was a closed architecture/eco-system. It was then, it is today.
If others did not follow that route, and failed at their own execution, should Apple be held back? Can they be punished because they worked hard to become the consumer choice?
There was nothing stopping any other company from developing and executing a successful business strategy. Apple's strategy from 1984 onwards was a closed architecture/eco-system. It was then, it is today.
If others did not follow that route, and failed at their own execution, should Apple be held back? Can they be punished because they worked hard to become the consumer choice?
Does he mean exclusives like retailer-specific version of albums?
Is he just against Apple doing it because Jimmy said his girlfriend had big thighs?
Is he just against Apple doing it because Jimmy said his girlfriend had big thighs?
Isn't it exclusive for what, like 2 weeks? So it's not an indefinite exclusive then, right?
But they can listen to the new music. They can buy it. And why is that analogy bad? The music listener wants to listen on Spotify instead of Apple Music? I want to watch shows on NetFlix instead of crappy Amazon Prime, but some of my favorites are only on Prime, not NetFlix. Or I could buy the shows instead. Seems quite analogous.
Torrent guys will love to have their "exclusivity" then. Streaming services saved the asses of record labels that only exist to ripoff real artists. I am not saying Apple is right, but I won't be crying over publishers and record labels either...
This is typical of today's society - whining & complaining because you don't have something that someone else has because they beat you to the punch.
Apple, as much as some may hate, created the environment they did by succeeding first. Like it or not, they gained the power they have by creating an avenue to share & stream music. Others were late behind them.
Who knows if exclusivity is the right way to go in the long run. Time will tell.
But this is not like Microsoft forcing companies to pre-install Windows on their PCs.
If the artist doesn't like it, I'm sure they can chance releasing their music somewhere else.
Apple, as much as some may hate, created the environment they did by succeeding first. Like it or not, they gained the power they have by creating an avenue to share & stream music. Others were late behind them.
Who knows if exclusivity is the right way to go in the long run. Time will tell.
But this is not like Microsoft forcing companies to pre-install Windows on their PCs.
If the artist doesn't like it, I'm sure they can chance releasing their music somewhere else.
I'm frankly surprised the labels have lasted as long as they have. The big three have to be panicking about their future and doing anything they can to throw up roadblocks and maintain their model. I've had high hopes going back to the MySpace days that music would be democratized and the labels would all fade into irrelevance. That all we needed was better discovery algorithms that big data from MySpace --> iTunes --> Spotify/Pandora --> Apple Music could mine and refine and we'd have millions of independents providing their own works, recorded economically with home studio equipment, and being found by an audience that appreciates their work.
I've been impressed by the indie music scene and it is continuing to make great headway as a destination rather than a stop along the road but it seems that the lottery mentality is still powerful and artists continue to aspire to a big label contract complete with legacy breakage fees in a digital world.
I could go on for hours but I'm going to stop as this is a depressing topic to me.
Jake Owens' TV show model is perfect. Many shows are "exclusive" to Hulu for a year and then Netflix, Amazon, etc. get them a season behind. Cry foul? Other shows/movies not made by the streamer themselves (such as "Netflix Originals") are "exclusive" to one streaming service or another before hitting the rest of them.
I'm not supporting Apple nor exclusivity deals but limiting the attack on just the music industry or a single company (exclusively
) is hypocritical.
I'm not supporting Apple nor exclusivity deals but limiting the attack on just the music industry or a single company (exclusively
) is hypocritical.
Why should Apple be investigated for exclusives with artists? If I'm a consumer, I have a choice. I can:
- Wait for the exclusive to end to stream/purchase from service X
- Sign-up for a membership for service X if I cannot wait
- purchase the content as MP4 (or whatever format) from another source, if available (for ex. Amazon, or Google Play, etc.)
- listen to the content on terrestrial or satellite radio
It's not "exclusive" music if it is only for a couple of weeks.
Then masses will get it just not at the same time.
How else are providers going to differentiate.
Two weeks is nothing compared to films where America sometimes gets them months before the UK.
Why should audio/visual rules be any different?
Then masses will get it just not at the same time.
How else are providers going to differentiate.
Two weeks is nothing compared to films where America sometimes gets them months before the UK.
Why should audio/visual rules be any different?
They are bad news for music fans and the bands and artists who allow labels and music services to engineer exclusive releases of their music deserve just as much criticism.
Shock horror music execs want to make money, so ban exclusives where their target market will shrink..
What did anyone think was gong to happen? They want all money revenue streams they can get. It's business.
What did anyone think was gong to happen? They want all money revenue streams they can get. It's business.
Anyone would think that "Exclusives" were a new thing in the music industry. They're not, they've been around since the dawn of the pop music era in the 50s.
I also take umbrage at his dislike for the industry making moves to get people actually paying for music again, as if this is a bad thing.
As a teenager I had to often visit several record stores on a Saturday afternoon, and hand over cash, in order to acquire the latest album by my favourite artists. I still have all of those albums and singles because they have value. Sadly modern mainstream music has been made disposable and valueless by free streaming services such as Spotify.
I also take umbrage at his dislike for the industry making moves to get people actually paying for music again, as if this is a bad thing.
As a teenager I had to often visit several record stores on a Saturday afternoon, and hand over cash, in order to acquire the latest album by my favourite artists. I still have all of those albums and singles because they have value. Sadly modern mainstream music has been made disposable and valueless by free streaming services such as Spotify.
Right--everything was always so great back in the old days. Nobody ever complained about DRM, iTunes, the premiums on iPods that "only" held 1000 songs, or the overall pompous attitude of Steve Jobs. Nope, it was always sunshine and rainbows until now.
Please. The forums on Macrumors are a waste of Internet. When you click on the forums link there should just be a page that says, "All of our members hate Apple."
But when Tidal did it, it was "OK"? Was that because they didn't have the numbers apple music has?
What's Tidal? /s
It's not an apt comparison. Movies are even worse then most of the movie situation right now.
Movies come out, and (generally) they're available at a high price for a single viewing at select locations. Following that they're typically exclusive for ownership only, and finally streaming/cable, and then likely much later, broadcast (edited for time/content).
Music comes out, and (generally) you can actually purchase and/or stream it the same day from your own home! You may (again, generally) be restricted for a brief period of time only purchasing/streaming it from a single source, but typically in two weeks it's available nearly everywhere.
The difference is really the use of the media, most people are content watching a movie once, and even if someone owns it they likely wouldn't watch it nearly as many times as they would listen to an individual song or album.
Honestly if particular music can't survive a two week delay on other services, that says quite a lot about the music itself and the consumer listening to it.
Apple isn't to bad, with the exception of Taylor Swift's "1989" most exclusives they have arrive on spotify etc within a couple of weeks, Tidal on the other hand still the only streaming site that has Beyone's latest album and Prince and Neil Young's back catalogue
