You're probably right. The main thing is this solution will almost definitely be built right into the Music app. Many people (me included) would just use iTunes Radio if it didn't suck so bad. If this new streaming service works better than Spotify or Pandora, I'll switch immediately. I especially like the idea of human curated lists. It's amazing what a difference that makes.
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 Targeting 100 Million Subscribers for Streaming Music Service
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're probably right. The main thing is this solution will almost definitely be built right into the Music app. Many people (me included) would just use iTunes Radio if it didn't suck so bad. If this new streaming service works better than Spotify or Pandora, I'll switch immediately. I especially like the idea of human curated lists. It's amazing what a difference that makes.
Am I the only one who really doesn't care about another steaming service even if it is from my favorite company?
And to add I went on record saying the new macrumors site was a better design but now I change my mind. It sucks
And to add I went on record saying the new macrumors site was a better design but now I change my mind. It sucks
Even if Apple made not one cent from this service, it would not be a money pit because it supports hardware sales : ecosystem. As for what they can offer, they can do what they do already, embed music in their OS and let everyone else be stuck with half baked interfaces. That"s how they've always beat people. Not just in product offer. In fact they could create a Video streaming service and simply create bundles with their Music service and simply crush Spotify that way.
It won't be as difficult for them as you think. Think about the installed base of iPhones in the world right now.
I'm not even convinced by the competition, I'm yet to be persuaded that renting music makes any sense.
Same here. There are so many options to listen to a specific song if one wants to, plus whatever stuff I own already I can rip to my iPhone.
Now, looking into the future and just having read about Apples venture into its own Hi-Speed data network, could make the following possible:
Apple runs its own ISP, but just for its services.
Flat rate data price with iTunes streaming music on iPhones and Android.
Change iPhone chip to be capable to receive two separate providers
(Apple is one of them for its data)
Takes a slice of the pie of ATT, Verizon etc. over facetime audio.
A lot of money to be printed here!
PS: Please don't call it BEATS, I can't explain why, but that name and what is associated with it makes me cringe. (Old fart rant, I know I am not the target group)
I'm up here in Albany and it is definitely the over 40 crowd that doesn't know about Spotify and still ramble on about Pandora.
I like Spotify. I can understand why so many people are wondering why Apple Music is going to be worth a switch. For me, beyond general OS integration, which does provide some convenience worth considering when all else is equal, there are two features that I *think* Apple will provide that will get me to switch immediately (I'm already a paying Spotify user, so the $10 is a wash and not really a factor for me personally):
1. If Apple's service truly integrates streaming with your local/iTunes Match library - for example, a playlist that includes songs available via Apple Music AND files that are unique to my library (i.e. a song not available via the service for whatever reason). Spotify doesn't really give you this...you can import iTunes but if Spotify cannot match a song it is simply unavailable. I think Google does allow you to supplement and upload your own files, but I haven' tried that service yet. I'm considering it, but wanted to see what Apple has to offer first.
2. Gives you playlists that show artwork - This is a very granular detail but a big one for me that I am assuming Apple Music will solve for. A lot of my playlists include whole or partial albums. I HATE that Spotify playlists only show a text based list of songs with no option to sort by album w/ artwork...for example, a playlist of favorite albums form 2015. Seems like a huge miss, both because they actually used to support this feature and because it's no secret the best UX usually provide visual simplicity.
1. If Apple's service truly integrates streaming with your local/iTunes Match library - for example, a playlist that includes songs available via Apple Music AND files that are unique to my library (i.e. a song not available via the service for whatever reason). Spotify doesn't really give you this...you can import iTunes but if Spotify cannot match a song it is simply unavailable. I think Google does allow you to supplement and upload your own files, but I haven' tried that service yet. I'm considering it, but wanted to see what Apple has to offer first.
2. Gives you playlists that show artwork - This is a very granular detail but a big one for me that I am assuming Apple Music will solve for. A lot of my playlists include whole or partial albums. I HATE that Spotify playlists only show a text based list of songs with no option to sort by album w/ artwork...for example, a playlist of favorite albums form 2015. Seems like a huge miss, both because they actually used to support this feature and because it's no secret the best UX usually provide visual simplicity.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
The opportunity is relative to the much-touted 800 million iTunes accounts, more so than the installed base of iPhones (which is less than that unless you want to count iPhones no longer in use). But even against 800M, that's 1 out of every 8. IMO, that's a tall, TALL order. I think for any chance at 100M paid, they have to grow that 800M number by quite a bit... OR this will simply have to be a dazzling service that move the masses into a "must have" frenzy.
I think 100M sign ups will be easy. I think 100M paying subscribers will be very difficult. Apple has apparently only set the goal on "sign ups".
You know what would be a game changer if Apple paid the carriers to allow people who purchased the premium music service that 3 GB of data would be allotted free each month to use to stream. After that amount, your own data plans would go in effect. No other service could trump that. I imagine iOS Spotify users would see a better value and be a no brain-er to change service.
It really needs to be cross-platform to be a viable alternative for a lot of people.
Right now I use Spotify on my Mac at work, my PC at home, my Android phone and my Denon receiver - all from the same account and with access to the exact same set of songs and playlists I have made/favorited.
A solution from Apple that just works within the Apple ecosystem will alienate a huge number of potential subscribers, and will certainly not be a good long-time solution for the average iPhone owner.
Right now I use Spotify on my Mac at work, my PC at home, my Android phone and my Denon receiver - all from the same account and with access to the exact same set of songs and playlists I have made/favorited.
A solution from Apple that just works within the Apple ecosystem will alienate a huge number of potential subscribers, and will certainly not be a good long-time solution for the average iPhone owner.
As I posted in the other thread, it will take a lot for me to kick Spotify to the curb at this point. Been a subscriber for three years since the day it was available in the US. Apple is really behind the curve on this and it's going to take more than rebranding Beats with "the most valuable brand in the world". Only potential advantage I see is selection, such as ECM records which aren't on Spotify but might be on Apple Streaming.
How do you come to the conclusion they are just targeting "sign ups"? The article states "subscribers" which I would think means paid up subscriptions.
Beats has had human curated lists since they launched. It's awful.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Sounds great. So why would Apple want to do that? Suppose they are taking their 30% off of the $10/month price. That's about $3. Why does Apple want lose money subsidizing data for us users when we'll buy the phones anyway OR why does the carriers want to sell Apple 3GB of data stream for up to that $3 when we'll pay whatever they want for streamed data anyway?
What would be great is to que up the music to be played when in a wifi zone so that the music will keep on coming when you are outside of such a zone.
OR, one could just use the traditional route by buying music and syncing it to our iDevices (so that we can leave Apple and the cell phone service providers out of the middleman role).
Last edited:
Very good point. Getting 100M people to sign up for the 3 free months sounds plausible...getting 100M to pay once the free trial is over, can't see it happening.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Subscribers is ambiguous. It doesn't automatically mean "paid". Lots of subscriber bases are free. Do you "subscribe" to anyone's twitter feed? Do you "subscribe" to any RSS feeds? Do you "subscribe" to them indirectly through apps like Flipboard or Zite? Any of the free magazines? Click the laptop icon in the upper right of the MacRumors window- the one with the red dot on it: "OS X Mavericks (10.9) introduced a new feature that allows users to subscribe to "push" notifications from any website." Do you "subscribe" to any push notifications? And so on.
Besides, 100 million (unpaid) subscribers sounds doable, while 100 million PAID subscribers sounds very difficult. Throwing out such a hard number with the burden of the latter sounds un-Apple-like. However, leaving it open to individual interpretation gives them more than one way to claim victory.
I agree. I would even predict that the number of actual, paying subscribers a couple of years into the future will never reach the number of 'subscribers' (that being the trial phase) that the service will have this year.
Yeah, there will be those people. But Apple is pretty hit or miss on services in my opinion, such as the Maps app like you mentioned. I still avoid Apple Maps like the plague. I live in DC and it still cannot compare to Google Maps. iTunes Radio was a big flop as well and Pandora is still going strong.
With Tim is advocating equality, I think the girl across the stage thing would be a stone age approach to things. Don't get your hopes up
I thought he wanted more girls on stage!
This seems like an attractive way to do it for the mostly male audience.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Again, people are reading something into the Maps app reference that is not there. It's not about the quality of that or this app. I offered it to illustrate the concept of how easy embedding a default app into iOS can make Apple leapfrog existing Kings of any space. Relative to the claim of "100 million sign ups", all Apple has to do is to get people to use it ONCE (which, in a free trial seems pretty easy). One user one time will count as a sign up. It doesn't matter if the app itself is total crap for the purposes of achieving the PR spin claim of "100 million sign ups".
Or, more simply, did you ever try Apple Maps? Even one time? If so, you could conceptually count as an Apple Maps user for the purposes of spinning total Apple Maps users.
Seeing that Spotify Premium only costs about $3.50 a month here in Argentina, I can't seem to find a good reason why anyone here would switch. Then again, we're a small market.