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

[DakotaGuy]

For me they're just wrong. I pay for Spotify and I'm delighted with it. I really believe they should have bought Spotify and Bose and not the turd that is Beats. I am deeply ashamed that they are now bullying the industry into destroying Spotify. I hope they fail. This is not Apple anymore.

Bose can't be sold unless MIT just wants to give it away for free. Before Dr. Bose died he donated a majority of the company's non-voting shares to MIT on the condition that the shares never be sold. It's a privately owned company that's not for sale and probably never will be unless it goes bankrupt.

Anyhow I would just like to clear this up because I hear the "Apple should have bought Bose" around here a lot and it's impossible to buy what is not for sale.

 

[Clausen]

For me they're just wrong. I pay for Spotify and I'm delighted with it. I really believe they should have bought Spotify and Bose and not the turd that is Beats. I am deeply ashamed that they are now bullying the industry into destroying Spotify. I hope they fail. This is not Apple anymore.

No highs, no lows…

I'm not saying that beats is any better, but if Apple wants respect for their sound, they should have bought either Bang & Olufsen or Bowers & Wilkins.

 

[DakotaGuy]

No highs, no lows…

I'm not saying that beats is any better, but if Apple wants respect for their sound, they should have bought either Bang & Olufsen or Bowers & Wilkins.

Personally I am delighted with my Bose products. They are well made, look nice, sound good, and just work. If I ever have an issue I can call them and I instantly get a well spoken, knowledgeable person from Framingham, MA that is ready to help. Customer service is top notch and they really value customers even covering out of warranty repairs or sending out free accessories.

The old no highs... no lows is so overused it's not even funny anymore. There are a lot of businesses in this world that could learn a lot from Bose when it comes to taking care of their customer and standing behind their product.

 

[MacrumoursUser]

No highs, no lows…

I'm not saying that beats is any better, but if Apple wants respect for their sound, they should have bought either Bang & Olufsen or Bowers & Wilkins.

Both are overhyped and overpriced just like beats are. On a different level though, but what does that change in the end - nothing.

 

[DakotaGuy]

Both are overhyped and overpriced just like beats are. On a different level though, but what does that change in the end - nothing.

Personally I don't think the actual products is why they bought Beats anyhow. I could easily see them selling the actual Beats hardware lines off to another company in the future depending on where the market goes. Is Apple really a passionate audio company? Time will tell. The streaming service was the big prize for them and if they can drive other competition out of the market it could be a HUGE money maker in the future.

I have been using Deezer since I received an offer for a free month and then $4.99 a month for the first year with a Bose SoundTouch purchase. I am pretty happy with the service, but right now I think it is only available in the U.S. through a couple direct offers from audio and cell phone companies. Last I heard they are planning on doing a U.S. rollout so that complicates things even more for Beats.

If Apple wants to succeed big time with Beats then their best bet is to use their influence to get the free music to go away. If anyone has enough money and power to do this it is Apple.

 

[JoeG4]

Exactly. I've got a cable TV/fast Internet bill of $140.00 per month, AT&T for iPhone. Adobe wants me to pay $10.00 for Photoshop. MS wants me to pay another ~$10.00 for Office.

Forget it. NO MO.

MS and Adobe realized they'd rather get $10/month out of you forever, than to get $500 from you once and not again for another 10 years. That, and it's actually a lot easier to get $10/month out of someone for 10 years, than it is to get them to pay $500 all at once.

It's great for people interested in getting their feet wet in Photoshop too, because suddenly the cost is maybe $120 for a year of photoshop access instead of $600 for photoshop.

But it sucks if you were used to the time when you could just buy your program, and then do whatever you pleased with it, like sell it or mod it or whatever. Nobody owns anything anymore.

 

[RMD68]

I'd rather support the underdog... Spotify.

Apple has turned into an industry big bully.

The fact that you used the terms under dog and bully when referring to companies indicates a projection rather than business as usual.

Please tell me you didn't choose Apple because it was the "underdog" to Microsoft instead of choosing Apple because it made better products than MSFT.

----------

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.

Well...that's because the artists are making a lot less due to streaming services, particularly services like Spotify, which has a majority of the user base on the free version.

The music companies are still doing fine.

 

[iChrist]

For me they're just wrong. I pay for Spotify and I'm delighted with it. I really believe they should have bought Spotify and Bose and not the turd that is Beats. I am deeply ashamed that they are now bullying the industry into destroying Spotify. I hope they fail. This is not Apple anymore.

I do wish Spotify would improve its mobile and pc apps. But at the same price with a more limited option of native apps, I don't see how Apple would convince anyone to switch from Spotify.

 

[Major General]

Yeah I'll be sticking to self hosted Subsonic. I have plenty of things Apple nor Spotify have

 

[Allin44]

No it's not.

It may be your future but I can assure you it's Not mine.

It's entirely irrelevant if it's your future or mine, it is the future of the industry.

 

[Abazigal]

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

Or any Asian country for that matter.

Come to Singapore with a decent selection of songs and I will drop my Spotify subscription in a beat, that much I can assure Apple.

 

[BD1]

I actually like iTunes radio but I would like to see these rumored changes.

 

[trainwrecka]

Dear Apple,

Please focus on the SoundCloud app experience before version 3. Version 3 is horrible.

 

[MH01]

Research has shown that humans can't distinguish between 320kbps MP3 (Spotify Extreme) and 16-bit CD quality. TIDAL is totally hot air... and heading for failure.

Only studio master 24-bit/96KHz stands a chance of making a difference. Even then, most people won't care about the difference.

These services are not for people who don't care.

----------

Both are overhyped and overpriced just like beats are. On a different level though, but what does that change in the end - nothing.

Dell and apple both make Computers, why is apple one perceived to be much better? FYI , when it comes to headphones, many people would consider beats to be way below Dell computers

What does it change ? Respect/reputation

 

[roadbloc]

And it'll be US only for the first five years or so because Apple can't seem to launch things internationally. Not that it matters. Spotify has already won this market.

 

[Abazigal]

And it'll be US only for the first five years or so because Apple can't seem to launch things internationally. Not that it matters. Spotify has already won this market.

Considering that Spotify is also losing money every quarter, that victory sure is costing them dearly. I am of the opinion that Spotify is its own worse enemy. How can you boast 60 million users and not turn a profit? This means that their business model, and the whole concept of streaming music, was flawed right from the very start.

Other companies like Apple have the benefit of not needing to profit directly from Beats, because they can use it to further strengthen their ecosystem and subsidize this with profits from elsewhere.

Either Spotify closes down or gets acquired by another company like Google or Amazon. Either way, I can't see them continuing as is for much longer.

 

[MacrumoursUser]

These services are not for people who don't care.

----------



Dell and apple both make Computers, why is apple one perceived to be much better? FYI , when it comes to headphones, many people would consider beats to be way below Dell computers

What does it change ? Respect/reputation

To my knowledge Dell or any other manufacturer for that matter have computers in the same price range or even more expensive.

----------

Considering that Spotify is also losing money every quarter, that victory sure is costing them dearly. I am of the opinion that Spotify is its own worse enemy. How can you boast 60 million users and not turn a profit? This means that their business model, and the whole concept of streaming music, was flawed right from the very start.

Other companies like Apple have the benefit of not needing to profit directly from Beats, because they can use it to further strengthen their ecosystem and subsidize this with profits from elsewhere.

Either Spotify closes down or gets acquired by another company like Google or Amazon. Either way, I can't see them continuing as is for much longer.

Tell that to a guy that plans on being student forever, so he can keep paying 4.99 for his subscription.

 

[Abazigal]

To my knowledge Dell or any other manufacturer for that matter have computers in the same price range or even more expensive.

----------





Tell that to a guy that plans on being student forever, so he can keep paying 4.99 for his subscription.

Keep paying $5 a month, and spotify won't be around that much longer either.

It's simple economics. Profits = revenue - costs. Costs are fixed or increasingly, so revenue has to improve. So either more people upgrade to the paid tier, or subscription fees increase, or both.

It's not wrong to want cheap or free stuff, but bills still have to be paid. People don't seem to understand that if you want your service or company to be financially healthy and thriving, you have to be willing to pay good money for their products.

 

[Rodster]

Considering that Spotify is also losing money every quarter, that victory sure is costing them dearly. I am of the opinion that Spotify is its own worse enemy. How can you boast 60 million users and not turn a profit? This means that their business model, and the whole concept of streaming music, was flawed right from the very start.

Other companies like Apple have the benefit of not needing to profit directly from Beats, because they can use it to further strengthen their ecosystem and subsidize this with profits from elsewhere.

Either Spotify closes down or gets acquired by another company like Google or Amazon. Either way, I can't see them continuing as is for much longer.

The same can be said of Amazon. Here's a company who generates billions of dollars every quarter and the question becomes how much will they lose this quarter. They are still in business. It's a matter on how much faith investors have in the company.

As a whole the music industry is in trouble and has been for quite some time. And the problem lies with the record labels and has been the problem for decades. So aiming the gun at Spotify, Pandora, Slacker etc. is futile because they did not create the current problem but the RIAA.

 

[oldhifi]

My Amazon Prime music beats Apple music hands down. $10 a month no way..

 

[Abazigal]

The same can be said of Amazon. Here's a company who generates billions of dollars every quarter and the question becomes how much will they lose this quarter. They are still in business. It's a matter on how much faith investors have in the company.



As a whole the music industry is in trouble and has been for quite some time. And the problem lies with the record labels and have been the problem for decades. So aiming the gun at Spotify, Pandora, Slacker etc. is futile because they did not create the current problem but the RIAA.

That's because Amazon is aggressively reinvesting every cent of their earnings back into their infrastructure, with the expectation that this will all pay off in the future.

Spotify is doing no such thing. They may not have created the problem, but I feel that their actions are not helping the current situation any.

And Apple already saved the music industry at least once before.

Back in the days of Napster, Kazaa, etc, people illegally downloaded wholesale like it was a free-for-all giveaway. The record labels had no idea how to combat the rampant piracy. But Apple figured it out. The solution was iTunes + iPod: a legitimate way for people to download music legally. And it worked. Piracy took a steep downturn and the music industry was saved.

Only problem is, without Steve Jobs, does Apple still have it in them to "show the world how it is done"?

 

[rekhyt]

Sorry to say it but it feels too much like a 'me-too' effort to me.

Spotify's too entrenched in the streaming music industry.

 

[roadbloc]

Considering that Spotify is also losing money every quarter, that victory sure is costing them dearly. I am of the opinion that Spotify is its own worse enemy. How can you boast 60 million users and not turn a profit?

Ask Twitter because they have more users than that and have yet to earn a single penny. Companies can thrive quite easily without profit.

 

[Abazigal]

Ask Twitter because they have more users than that and have yet to earn a single penny. Companies can thrive quite easily without profit.

What are you talking about? Twitter was not only profitable, but also turned a larger profit than the last quarter.

 

[Waxhead138]

Research has shown that humans can't distinguish between 320kbps MP3 (Spotify Extreme) and 16-bit CD quality. TIDAL is totally hot air... and heading for failure.

Only studio master 24-bit/96KHz stands a chance of making a difference. Even then, most people won't care about the difference.

The Research on that one is wrong, period. Research like this is normally brought on from the mysterious "They."

I can tell the difference between 320 and cd quality. Now, it's not at all a very large difference, and to be clear I'm referring to instances of albums that I know very very well inside and out.

If it were music I wasn't familiar with already...I'll agree that I probably couldn't tell. But to say a human can't tell the differnece under all circumstances is quite simply false. Also...I'm not talking about listening to musich on high end gear in these examples either.