That's about 12 albums a year. I think it's fair.
Most spotify users probably listen to 50x that per year.
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 to Push Paid Streaming Music Service With Free Trials and SoundCloud-Like Sharing
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's about 12 albums a year. I think it's fair.
Most spotify users probably listen to 50x that per year.
As long as they have a free trial I don't think they need a free version. They will never get the number of users Spotify has but Spotify's numbers have shown their current method isn't profitable in the long run so Spotify may some day go away.
However, the reason why no one uses iTunes currently is because they don't offer unlimited on demand streaming. If the new version is simply a new version of iTunes Radio or Beats (that is only curated stations), it will overall be dead on arrival. If it's on demand and unlimited for 9.99 with a family plan option and equal or larger collection than Spotify hard to see how they won't succeed.
Apple would have done unlimited on-demand streaming long ago if they could have but it's not in the interest of the record labels. If the record labels are more open to it now then that would be awesome and I would love to use iTunes again. Especially if their genius software improves to provide better recommendations based on your current music collection.
However, the reason why no one uses iTunes currently is because they don't offer unlimited on demand streaming. If the new version is simply a new version of iTunes Radio or Beats (that is only curated stations), it will overall be dead on arrival. If it's on demand and unlimited for 9.99 with a family plan option and equal or larger collection than Spotify hard to see how they won't succeed.
Apple would have done unlimited on-demand streaming long ago if they could have but it's not in the interest of the record labels. If the record labels are more open to it now then that would be awesome and I would love to use iTunes again. Especially if their genius software improves to provide better recommendations based on your current music collection.
but is it any different than the "radio" method? who pays there? What difference does it make if i listen to free music via FM radio or streaming?
it sounds more like there's an industry and it's operations issue than a consumer issue.
I think everyone will agree iTunes in the Cloud shows the true potential of this new cloud service from Apple.
Correct. And it won't be called 'Beats'. It will be a Apple branded product, redesigned from the ground up. Having it implemented directly to CarPlay and Apple TV, as well as all other updated Apple devices is going to make a big difference.
I believe the bands went on tour, often losing money, to support album/dvd sales which was where the real money was.
Even a "one hit wonder" could make a decent nest egg from their hit single in the 1980s or 1990s. I have heard some gripe that they don't deserve that for catching lightning in a bottle one time without realizing the "lucky" band struggled in relative anonymity for years prior.
Dude - legit couldn't agree with you more. I've been saying the same exact thing - especially with Bose. They're new headphones are dope and they've been working with Apple since the first iPod came out.
Spotify is the ****, too.
This argument has been beaten to death for years now on the various audiophile forums. Please, it's been accepted that there an audible difference given the right listening equipment, and no, it doesn't need to be on $50K pair of B&W speakers. On your included iPod headphones you won't hear the diff even between 128 & 320kbps, but a decent headphone amp and a pair of Sennheisers (or equivalent) you WILL! I've sat and done the double-blind test.
Not at that price.
Let me make this clear. Much of my family are musicians. Several are professional musicians, both playing and producing. They make their, fairly good, living off of what they create. I appreciate the work that goes into writing, performing, and producing music.
That said, 9.99 mo is way outside of what I would pay. Also I have become more and more averse to ****** as service schemes. Music as service is in the same category as software as service. You pay forever and own nothing.
Pass
Let me make this clear. Much of my family are musicians. Several are professional musicians, both playing and producing. They make their, fairly good, living off of what they create. I appreciate the work that goes into writing, performing, and producing music.
That said, 9.99 mo is way outside of what I would pay. Also I have become more and more averse to ****** as service schemes. Music as service is in the same category as software as service. You pay forever and own nothing.
Pass
Last edited:
That is exactly what I've been trying to say. People just don't get it. It's like, if 320 kbps and FLAC were exactly the same audio-wise, why bother even listening to lossless music.
The same case could be made for anything else:
- Why watch 4k video when 720p/1080p is perfectly fine for 99% of people?
- Why buy a retina Mac when 99% of laptops don't have retina screens?
- Why buy a 5.5 smartphone when 5 inches or smaller is enough for the vast majority?
etc....
The only people who won't notice the difference are:
- people with bad hearing
- people using crappy headphones/IEMs
Mostly it's the latter. For the vast majority, 320 kbps is absolutely fine. For others, me included, it's not when lossless exists and they've spent a fair amount on good audio equipment.
Is there a huge difference? No, but it's noticeable depending on the genre, the mastering, and the audio equipment used, obviously.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Best I know, Spotify has no hold on Artists. If they don't want their music on Spotify, they can opt out- just like Taylor Swift did: http://www.forbes.com/sites/bobbyowsinski/2014/11/03/the-logic-behind-taylor-swift-fleeing-spotify/
And, on a related note, I found the quoted numbers within this article interesting relative to this spin of how little artists can make on a service like Spotify:
http://www.theverge.com/2014/11/13/7213775/taylor-swift-spotify-borchetta-royalties
I can't wait to see how much more they can make with Apple playing middleman between them and their listeners. After all, a business that makes no profit like Spotify (and actually scales what it pays artists with it's revenue growth) http://www.businessinsider.com/spotify-profits-2014-5 is certainly a weaker upside potential proposition than a highly profitable business like Apple that generally seeks to inject itself such that it can take the first cut of revenues right off the top before artists can get theirs.
Last edited:
Has it? I think you will find the first thing you need is equipment that can show the difference, only then will you be able to hear the difference. The vast majority of people do not have very good equipment at all, and aren't bothered about it.
I also think you should do a bit more research. If your equipment is good enough to show the difference, and your ears aren't damaged (we all lose hearing, especially high frequencies, throughout our lives), it is very easy to hear the difference between 320 MP3 and a 16 bit CD.
Whaaaaa?
We decide the same way we decide between the 30 fast food restaurants, 40 car dealerships selling 60 different brands, or the 100 banks offering 300 different credit cards. We make decisions everyday. Deciding on a music service is neither critical or hard.If the rumors are true, Apple is trying to make it difficult for Spotify's 40 million ad-based customers. You say Spotify can keep them. Again, if the rumors are true, Apple doesn't even want that.
This may not be apparent to you but the vast majority of Apple users aren't in single vendor ecosystems. Most people use products from multiple vendors. Also, I seem to remember the music industry vowing not to get the short end of the stick again in their relationship with Apple. That might explain some of the difficulties Apple is having getting the deals done.
That article is about 16 bit vs 24 bit, not 320 MP3 vs 16 bit CD.
I have reasonable hi-fi equipment (Cyrus/Vienna Acoustics), I have only 1 24 bit recording (The Doors complete album collection), which I bought on promotion just to test. I have also heard SACD and SACD-SHM format discs to the same recordings. You certainly can hear a difference, way more detail, and I have done blind tests with people like my mother who doesn't give a hoot about this stuff and really didn't understand what I was explaining. However, when dealing with 24 bit in particular, one must take note of the source. Many recordings sold as 24 bit are just up sampled 16 bit. Also the mastering is way more important than any of this. A great master of low resolution will outperform any other format whatever the resolution.
Get yourself down to a reasonable hi-fi dealer and take a listen, let your ears make the decision for you.
It's really, really not. I know plenty of people who spend $120 every 2 months on iTunes. If you're a consumer of music, this is the future.
This isn't apple anymore? It's a great thing that Apple didn't buy Spotify - it doesn't make money. In fact it has yet to turn a profit as their system is unsustainable. Unless they get rid of their freemium tier, raise prices or add a lot more additional commercials, they'll be out of business within the next 5 years.
Rich artists? You do realize that over 90% of current recording artists are not even close to rich, right?
Not to mention, there's an entire team behind the, from musicians to songwriters to producers to engineers who depend on getting paid for the work that they do.
Further, who cares if they're rich? If millions of people are using their product they should be paid for it regardless of their net worth.
If they aren't good enough to make it why should I care?
You're saying we need to "support" them as we do all the lousy channels we're forced to have with cable/satellite.
Times are changing & supporting Indie artists that don't get a job that pays is of no concern of mine.