Apple to Push Paid Streaming Music Service With Free Trials and SoundCloud-Like Sharing

[Take Flight]

I'm not understanding what Apple is trying to do. So they want to eliminate radio and shuffleplay so that no one gets to listen to free music on their phones?

They must be doing some strong drugs for them to think like that. Beats will be dead on arrival at this point.

But as many people have said, Spotify takes care of all of this. Free music when you want and paid subscription that works on iPhones, iPad, Mac, PS4.

There really isn't a need for another music streaming service.

iTunes Radio is still a free product.

The frequency and length of commercials on Spotify is painful. And the fact that they actually hijack your system sound settings and PAUSE commercials if you attempt to mute your computer's sound is just downright shameful.

I prefer iTunes radio for long sessions of free streaming music. The advertising and commercials are much less intrusive than Spotify or Pandora.

 

[Paradoxally]

I don't care about how much the artists "aren't making anymore". In fact, I hope Apple is not able to end Spotify's free tier, because a lot of people use that and love it, and I'm tried of hearing about rich artists complaining they're not making enough money. That's not where my concern lies. I just want all my music in one place, and if I can pay the same for Apple's streaming service that I can for Spotify, and am able to accomplish that, then I will definitely switch. Others will not and they will stick with Spotify, and I hope they do. Competition is good for us.

But you still have your music in one place with any good streaming service, be it Spotify, rdio, Tidal, GMusic, etc. If you use something daily, don't you think you should pay for it to help support development costs, artists and other expenses?

Or maybe it's just me that views things differently. I just hate ads, I do not want anything interrupting my music sessions, and I am more than happy to pay to have offline sync (crucial, since data plans aren't cheap in my country) and no ads (in Spotify's case).

 

[tomtendo]

I bet 50$ that this service won't be available in any european country until 2025.

Sounds like a personal problem.

 

[stevemiller]

This whole "just in it for a piece of the pie" mentality doesn't give me much hope for any TV announcements. Apple cable, $140/mo.

 

[Paradoxally]

$120 a year is ridiculous.

A lot of people spend that a year on albums (and way, way more). And that's just for the music, no offline sync, no "your music everywhere", no streaming.

I don't think it's ridiculous unless Apple can not deliver the same features Spotify currently does.

 

[Rogifan]

There really isn't a need for another music streaming service.

Did people say this when Google announced their streaming service?

 

[elmateo487]

I don't care about how much the artists "aren't making anymore". In fact, I hope Apple is not able to end Spotify's free tier, because a lot of people use that and love it, and I'm tried of hearing about rich artists complaining they're not making enough money. That's not where my concern lies. I just want all my music in one place, and if I can pay the same for Apple's streaming service that I can for Spotify, and am able to accomplish that, then I will definitely switch. Others will not and they will stick with Spotify, and I hope they do. Competition is good for us.

It's crazy how much you love music but hate the artists. No one cares about T Swifts complaining, but I do care about the nobodies I like to listen too. For example, a favorite band of mine Emery, just released their own CD on no label, because they all have 40 hour a week day jobs, and they live across the entire US spread out, and they couldn't take the huge hit in revenue from places like iTunes and Spotify. Those guys deserve more than the pennies you want to give them.

 

[Paradoxally]

Absolutely right. We consumers should want to pay for something that we currently and legally get for free. We know that Apple isn't pricing this for Apple's profit motives but because they want to pass the extra money along to those poor artists.

So you think you're entitled to music artists produce for free? What's next, concerts should be free entry, too?

That's a very bad way of thinking. Not everyone is Jay-Z or Taylor Swift who can afford to throw tantrums.

 

[pbush25]

But you still have your music in one place with any good streaming service, be it Spotify, rdio, Tidal, GMusic, etc. If you use something daily, don't you think you should pay for it to help support development costs, artists and other expenses?

As I said I have local files that are in iTunes, and them some that are in Spotify since I don't pay to download songs anymore and just pay for Spotify, but I hate that some of my music is in Spotify and others in iTunes and I can't just use one app to listen to my local files, stream ones that I don't want to individually buy, and have the same playlist that mixes my local with my streams. If Apple can integrate all of that into their iTunes App for the same price that I pay for Spotify then I'm all for it.

 

[LordVic]

So you think you're entitled to music artists produce for free? What's next, concerts should be free entry, too?

That's a very bad way of thinking. Not everyone is Jay-Z or Taylor Swift who can afford to throw tantrums.

Thats not what he said.

Currently, Spotifiys free tier still pays the artists/industry via advertisement revenue.

at no point did anyone hopefully claim they're entitled to free music, nor did anyon encourage illegal obtaining music.

 

[smithrh]

Not this crap again. Tell that to audiophiles that spend thousands on audio equipment. I'm sure they listen to Spotify and lossy music formats.

It's not "crap," it's science and physiology.

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

 

[pbush25]

This just in: Apple's service will cost almost twice as much. And ironically... the songs will sound the same.

The price has been rumored to be the same as Spotify, and I definitely don't consider myself an audiophile, so if they offer the same quality as they do for iTunes Match, then I'm okay with that.

 

[ssspinball]

Wow, witness the mythical Tidal user in the wild!

Unless Apple plans on adding lossless streaming, I'll stick with Tidal.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So you think you're entitled to music artists produce for free? What's next, concerts should be free entry, too?

That's a very bad way of thinking. Not everyone is Jay-Z or Taylor Swift who can afford to throw tantrums.

I didn't say that. There are existing models in play that have been fine for years. Apple deciding to step into this arena doesn't suddenly make the existing one ripoffs or bad for artists.

Artists have long accepted what they get from "free" radio, even long before there was streaming radio. Apparently existing business models have worked very well for 70+ years... except, of course, Apple not getting a cut of the money. Apple deciding to step in now very likely has little-to-nothing to do with enriching the artists.

If you know different- and can prove it- please do so. Otherwise, see this for what it is: a gigantic company flexing it's ever-growing power to try to bite into yet another business segment, attempting to shore up the profitability of this new thrust by squeezing out the "little guy" established players. If you can prove Apple's motive here is to enrich the artists, I'll be happy to eat my speculation. Personally, I'd absolutely love to know that THAT is what this move is about.

If this was Google, Microsoft or Samsung in place of Apple, we'd be railing against such moves to no end. But it's Apple so "we" are fragmented at best with some trying to spin this into a white knight story.

 

[wxman2003]

So you think you're entitled to music artists produce for free? What's next, concerts should be free entry, too?

That's a very bad way of thinking. Not everyone is Jay-Z or Taylor Swift who can afford to throw tantrums.

It's companies like Apple that have destroyed the income of many artists. Most artists make very little money selling their music on iTunes, Google, Amazon, etc. Only the really big name artists get the big deals. Artists are struggling because very few people buy the full albums/cds anymore. Artists have to rely on maybe one or two songs on their albums being sold for $1.29 on itunes. The bulk of that money goes to Apple and the record labels, with the majority of artists receiving 10 cents on the dollar and probably even less via streaming. So don't try and make it look like Apple is somehow their shining knight in armor with streaming. In fact, artists will receive even less money if the bulk of consumers choose streaming over itunes purchases. That's what Apple and other paid streaming services want. More money for themselves, less for the artists. It use to be the concert tours were icing on the cake for artists, now they have to do it to earn a living.

 

[LordVic]

I didn't say that. There are existing models in play that have been fine for years. Apple deciding to step into this arena doesn't suddenly make the existing one ripoffs or bad for artists.

Artists have long accepted what they get from "free" radio, even long before there was streaming radio. Apparently existing business models have worked very well for 70+ years... except, of course, Apple not getting a cut of the money. Apple deciding to step in now very likely has little-to-nothing to do with enriching the artists.

If you know different- and can prove it- please do so. Otherwise, see this for what it is: a gigantic company flexing it's power to try to bite into another business segment, attempting to shore up the profitability by squeezing out the "little guy" established players.

If this was Google or Microsoft in place of Apple, we'd be railing against such moves to no end. But it's Apple so "we" are fragmented at best with some trying to spin this into a white knight story.

And lets not forget, that Apple knows it's all about their profits, and not doing it for the industry as a whole.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/1878883/

its what they did with ebooks and it bit them in the ass. Why do they suddenly think it's ok to manipulate the market for music?

 

[thekeyring]

People still doubt Apple rolling this out worldwide? Really? Come on, Apple know that worldwide is crucial. iTunes Radio was an acception, not the rule.

 

[Paradoxally]

Wow, witness the mythical Tidal user in the wild!

There are thousands of Tidal users already.

 

[GhostRaider]

Did people say this when Google announced their streaming service?

Google works differently. If you have a copy of an MP3 song and you upload it to Google Play Music, you can play that anywhere it is supported and even download a higher quality version of that MP3 file.

Useful for people who don't want to carry specific songs on their phones to consume device space.

So competition is bad now???

We already have enough competition. So the answer is to make it even more complicated? User choice is good but if there are too many choices, how does one decide then?

 

[James Manesh]

Let's be real: Spotify is mediocre at best, especially for those that are not paying for it (40 million free users). Annoying ads every 15 minutes that cater to teens, terrible UX, etc. They have benefitted greatly from a lack of competition.

Apple is not trying to take away Spotify users that aren't willing to pay $10 a month. Spotify can keep them. However, don't be surprised if they announce a superior product come June. They have direct access to all Apple users and the ecosystem that they have built all this time is what's going to make all the difference. Not to mention the relationships that they have built in the entertainment industry since iTunes came out in 2001.

 

[k1121j]

i won't pay for streaming service. ill pay for my music

 

[Paradoxally]

i won't pay for streaming service. ill pay for my music

So on that note, I'm assuming you buy all your music from iTunes or Amazon (be it physically or digitally)?

----------

Let's be real: Spotify is mediocre at best, especially for those that are not paying for it (40 million free users). Annoying ads every 15 minutes that cater to teens, terrible UX, etc. They have benefitted greatly from a lack of competition.

Spotify is that kind of service that is absolute crap until you upgrade to Premium, and then it becomes pretty awesome. No wonder they offer 3 months of Premium, the free tier is a joke where your ears (and eyes) are bombarded with ads.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Let's be real: Spotify is mediocre at best, especially for those that are not paying for it (40 million free users). Annoying ads every 15 minutes that cater to teens, terrible UX, etc. They have benefitted greatly from a lack of competition.

Apple is not trying to take away Spotify users that aren't willing to pay $10 a month. Spotify can keep them. However, don't be surprised if they announce a superior product come June. They have direct access to all Apple users and the ecosystem that they have built all this time is what's going to make all the difference.

Plus, the rumors are that it will be integrated right into iOS, much like Maps was to supplant Google Maps and the original versions of IE to supplant Netscape. Third party apps won't be able to compete because- like Maps- Apple probably won't even make it a user option to default to a third party solution over the home-grown one.

We have consistently bashed Microsoft for such behaviors. And we made Google Maps #1 for a long time once Apple let it back into the store. Yet, here we go again.

Much like Maps, Apple's version will quickly take a huge share of iOS streaming music users and business. Will it do so because it will be genuinely superior or because it will be the deeply integrated default? Personally, I still think Google Maps is far superior to Apple Maps but it's less steps to use the latter because it's basically woven into the OS as default. Thus my own usage measurement would make it look like I heavily prefer Maps vs. GS... but that's not how it would look if I could set GS as the system-wide default.

 

[elmateo487]

Thats not what he said.

Currently, Spotifiys free tier still pays the artists/industry via advertisement revenue.

at no point did anyone hopefully claim they're entitled to free music, nor did anyon encourage illegal obtaining music.

You would have to listen to 2000! songs on Spotify from a single artist, to pay for one $12 CD from them.

 

[mr.bee]

I really hope the record labels and artists are able to end Spotify's free tier. There have been attempts but mostly futile. They pay nearly nothing to the artists and while Spotify claims piracy rates have dropped, they have just been mitigated. The artists are still not getting enough,

I 100% agree. Most people consider music as a free thing and think artists get paid enough. But they don't consider it's only the 2% most popular artists they hear on the radio. And you have to listen trough all that advertising crap.

I hope artists can break free from Spotify.

And I hope to get a music app that let's me discover new and good music like on Soundcloud, good quality and ease of use. I will be one happy person to buy that from Apple.