You can't exactly compare stealing a tangible real-world item to a case of duplicating, not stealing, a digital file.
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 Pushing for $5 Beats Music Subscriptions as Spotify Debuts Discounted Family Plan
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can't exactly compare stealing a tangible real-world item to a case of duplicating, not stealing, a digital file.
Link to me the would be next full album of Arcade Fire, Belle & Sebastian, Franz Ferdinand, Kasabian, Arctic Monkeys blah blah by which these quality free streaming sites pay the artists and they will be streaming unlimited (not for a few days) before and after the release dates. I am not talking about some shifty music which should not be listened or streamed at all by anyone. For the love of music... Whatever floats your boat- I rather pay, listen and support great music artists than listen to whatever is free available out there.
Yeah but some of us hate ads. There's nothing like streaming Christmas music on Pandora on Christmas morning and having a mature-rated Trojan condom commercial full of questionable innuendo and "noises" blaring over the speakers. The awkward silence as teens, parents, and grandparents sit around trying not to make eye contact with anyone else in the room is extremely fun and anxiety inducing. If only that would happen again this Christmas. Alas, my brother-in-law now pays for streaming so we're good to go.
$5 is the right price for me to pay monthly as an impulse buy and keep it without second guessing myself. I have tried Spotify off and on, while it is fine I just do not get enough value consistently to keep it every month. I'm sure many do.
Plus it's a smart business move by Apple, it would put a squeeze on Spotify who ALREADY struggle to become profitable charging $10/month. They would eventually be acquired by Facebook (likely) or Google and then music would be another choice users would have for cheap/private vs free/datamining.
Plus it's a smart business move by Apple, it would put a squeeze on Spotify who ALREADY struggle to become profitable charging $10/month. They would eventually be acquired by Facebook (likely) or Google and then music would be another choice users would have for cheap/private vs free/datamining.
Not only that but you have people baking in their own homes, making delicious treats, all for free because they enjoy it and want to share their goodies with the world!
Even if the "record industry" collapses people will ALWAYS make music and in many cases make BETTER music even if they can't make money from it.
Except listening to music for free isn't stealing. Unless you stole a CD from a store.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Wow, the biggest music spenders on iTunes buy the equivalent of a $10 CD every 2 months. I remember buying an album a week in high school!
The digitization of music has changed things. Like you, I bought albums more regularly than people buy now. And probably like you, I also re-purchased some of the same albums on cassette and then repurchased them again on CDs. Why? Because albums and cassettes would eventually wear out. The ability to rip CDs into music files marked the end of re-purchasing. For the rest of our lives, all of our ripped CDs will sound as good as the day we played that CD the very first time.
When we die, our decedents can inherit those tracks and they will still sound as good as the first time we heard them (that next generation doesn't have to repurchase mom & dads music either).
CDs also delivered a used market where one can buy a CD used and it will sound exactly the same as new. Some years ago, I used to buy new CDs pretty regularly (more regularly than $10 every 2 months). But now, if I don't already have the songs I want to play, I'm much more likely to hop on Amazon or Ebay and buy a used CD for a dollar or two.
Another punch to the old model is the argument that the music used to be better. Sure that's highly subjective but in my own case, I'll take the oldies over the new stuff just about any day. There used to be a steady flow of must-have new music coming out but today's stuff seems less "must-have" to many.
Apple's seemingly low revenue is probably propped up to $5/month by the convenience factor. It's still generally a better deal to buy a used CD and rip it yourself (which also lets you decide the quality of the rip and you actually OWN the music as opposed to "lifetime lease" for iTunes tracks).
Bundle all that together and the old model of regularly buying a lot of new music has taken a big hit and probably won't be revived. Even this continuing shift toward streaming services is only a bandaid for music buying as eventually the new songs you discover via streaming end up owned in your personal collection. When a personal collection gets big enough, shuffle play can sound pretty fresh at no additional cost.
Is this what content pirates tell themselves so they can pretend they aren't scumbags?
I'm only one person, but I would definitely subscribe for $5, as would my gf. For $10 though, we will continue to pass.
Any song I believe...you choose what you want to listen to is the pull, but you only stream and don't "own" anything.
Oh, and the artist's typically get alot less than they do when you buy a song via a CD or iTunes etc..
I'm not talking about "shifty music," whatever that is. If you insist on listening to specific music like you mentioned, then yes, perhaps you have to pay for that, but I don't insist on anything specific, other than perhaps genre. If I want to listen to specific music, then I'll listen to music I bought and paid for long ago. For me, there's no benefit to new. I only care about what I enjoy, and there's more free music available that I enjoy, than I could ever listen to, even if I listened 24-7.
Wow, the biggest music spenders on iTunes buy the equivalent of a $10 CD every 2 months. I remember buying an album a week in high school!
Sure, but music was better then and worth more than $5 a month. Ha.
Last edited:
There you go! Those sites you are talking about not really streaming legally ALL the new and quality music (whatever genre) anytime, anywhere for any / all kind of real music loving fans.
For $5 or even $10 a month, Spotify and co... Real deal for real music loving people.
Like many people, I like to own my music. My TV shows, movies? I'll pay to subscribe to stuff like that. I'm only going to watch Walking Dead, season 5 once, maybe twice in my entire life. Why do I want to own that? However, I'm going to listen to Beatles/Hendrix/Nirvana a million times, I want to own that.
I wish I could "rent" TV purchases in iTunes as well. I have no desire to compile a collection of outdated TV/movies, having to upgrade to HD/4K. The fact I Apple still offers HD in their store.... yeah. I'll buy my music.
I wish I could "rent" TV purchases in iTunes as well. I have no desire to compile a collection of outdated TV/movies, having to upgrade to HD/4K. The fact I Apple still offers HD in their store.... yeah. I'll buy my music.
I was unaware that most families don't mind sitting around listening to faux orgasm sounds with grandma on Christmas morning. My apologies, we are clearly prudes.
You do realise that services like Beats, Spotify and Rdio aren't radio? They offer that as well, but this is essentially getting all the music you want, whenever you want, without ads, mobile or desktop, for a monthly fee.
----------
I use Spotify and they've gotten better. Unfortunately this market is ruthless and it seems to be a question of time when Rdio will throw in the towel. Competition is always good and I do feel Spotify are resting on their laurels.